Writ Petition No. 3631/2010. Case: Digitek Krida Vikas Sanshodhan Va Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, through its Secretary Shri Amol S/o Sureshrao Sontakke Vs The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary Higher and Technical Education Department and Rashtrasanta Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University, through its Registrar. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 3631/2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A.I. Sheikh, Adv. and For Respondents: B.H. Dangre, Addl. G.P. and B.G. Kulkarni, Adv. |
| Judges | V.C. Daga and A. B. Chaudhari, JJ. |
| Issue | Bombay Public Trust Act; Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - Sections 2(31), 82, 82(5) and 83; Constitution of India - Articles 166(3) and 226 |
| Citation | 2011 (2) AllMR 219, 2011 (1) MahLJ 793 |
| Judgement Date | November 18, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
V.C. Daga, J.
1 Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.
-
The factual matrix reveals that the Petitioner is a Trust and Society registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and under the Societies Registration Act. Respondent No. 1 has prepared perspective plan as required by Section 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, wherein it was shown that there was a need to establish two graduate Arts-Social Science, Commerce, Science College with one Home Science College.
-
The Petitioner finding it possible to run Arts College, Home Science and Commerce College offering degrees of Bachelor in Arts (B.A.), Bachelor in Fashion Designing (BDF) and Post Graduate Diploma in Commercial Computer Applications (PGDCCA) respectively at Alipur Tahasil: Hinganghat, District Wardha applied to Respondent No. 2 in the requisite format for permission to start college for the above courses for the Academic Session 2008-09.
-
Respondent No. 2 after completing all the formalities vide its covering letter dated 27.1.2008 forwarded application of the Petitioner with positive recommendation to Respondent No. 1. The application of the Petitioner was not considered. Consequently, the Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of Writ Petition No. 4215/2008. Since the Petitioner was not communicated any reason for rejection of its application, the learned A.G.P. appearing in that petition made a statement that the Petitioner shall be communicated with the reasons recorded by the State Government. With the result, on the statement made by the learned A.G.P., Writ Petition No. 4215/2008 was disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2008, permitting the State Government to communicate the reasoned order to the Petitioner.
-
Despite the aforesaid order and positive direction issued by this Court, the Respondent No. 1 - State Government failed to comply with the said order. Consequently, the Petitioner again approached this Court by way of another writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 5157/2008, which was disposed of by an order dated 8.4.2009 with the following observations.
In the instant case, the casual attitude shown by the State Government is a matter of concern. Because of the inaction on the part of the State Government to communicate its decision to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has to approach this Court by filing two...
To continue reading
Request your trial