Disposed

Lord Buddha Education Society and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC6 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2022/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of disapproval of MBA course renewal permission. The petitioner satisfied the Court by assuring a time-bound review decision. Court stayed the issue by directing timely action rather than quashing the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to review petitioner’s application for renewal of permission within five weeks of the date of order.

Lord Buddha Education Society and Anr. Vs Union of… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2022/2018 & CM No.8373/2018

¶4

LORD BUDDHA EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANR.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr.J.S. Bhasin & Mr.Nishant Shokeen, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Ruchir Mishra, Mr.Mukesh Kr. Tiwari & Mr.Abhishek Rana, Advs. for R-1. Mr.T. Singhdev with Mr.Tarun Verma, Mr.Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms.Michelle Biakthansangi, Ms.Puja Sarkar & Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Advs. for R-2.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶10

O R D E R % 06.03.2018

¶11

Vide the present petition, the petitioner-Institute has sought a direction for quashing the decision dated 06.01.2018 of respondent No.2, as per which it had recommended disapproval of the petitioner’s application for renewal of permission for admission of the 3^rd batch of MBBS course (150 seats) for the academic year 20182019. The petitioner has also sought a direction to respondent No.2 to accept its scheme for renewal of permission for admission of the 3^rd

¶12

batch in MBBS course for the academic year 2018-19 and has prayed for a further direction to respondent No.1 to issue the letter of permission to the petitioner-institute for admitting students in the 3^rd batch of MBBS course for the academic year 2018-2019.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the respondent No.2 had issued the impugned order dated 06.01.2018 recommending disapproval of the renewal of permission to the petitioner, respondent No.1 had granted a hearing to the petitioner on 05.02.2018 and upon hearing the petitioners, the respondent No.1 had remitted the matter back to respondent No.2 with a request to review the application of the petitioner.

¶14

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present, he would be satisfied, if a direction is given to respondent No.2 to review the case of the petitioner in a time bound manner. He submits that keeping in view the deadline as laid down under the Regulations and the decision of the Supreme Court, grave prejudice would be caused in case, the respondents do not take a timely decision.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents, who appear on advance notice, assure the Court that the decision on the review of the petitioner’s application will be taken by respondent No.2 within 5 weeks in accordance with the Regulations as also the contents of letter dated 13.02.2018 written by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2.

¶16

The present petition is accordingly disposed of binding respondent No.2 to the statement to decide the petitioner’s application

¶17

within 5 weeks.

¶18

Needless to say that the present order, has been passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.

¶19

In case, the petitioners are still aggrieved by any order passed by the respondents, they may take legal recourse as permissible under law.

¶20

The pending application also stands disposed of.

¶21

REKHA PALLI, J

¶22

MARCH 06, 2018/ gm

Lord Buddha Education Society and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lord Buddha Education Society and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Quayamuddin Vs All India Institute of Medical Science (Aiims) & Anr.

Vasundhara Celebration Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Shri Subhash Nagpal Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Engineers India Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court

Tulsi Ram Meena Vs UOI & Ors.

Vipin Kumar Vs N.D.M.C. & Ors.

Dharam Nath Singh Vs N.D.M.C. & Ors.

Occupational Health and Safety Association Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sita Rawat Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc)

Vasundhara Celebration Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Shri Subhash Nagpal Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Virender Singh. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

C.R. Private Iti Vs Directorate General of Training (Dgt) & Anr.

Pajhrapara Satellite Teachers Training Institute Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Shri Ram Institute of Education Science Technology Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

S D College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.