1 wp4003.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4003/2013
1] Somnath Eshanchandra Ray,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o.-Pusla, Tahsil Warud, District Amravati,
2] Ku. Rashmi Kisan Meshram,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-BILT Unit, Ashti, Q.No.E/35,
District Gadchiroli,
3] Ku. Pooja Rohidas Rathod,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.- Harikrupa Colony, Behind Bus Stop,
Mangrulpir,
4] Ku. Monika Rajendra Adhau,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o.-Taroda, Tahsil Morshi, District Amravati,
5] Ku. Ankita Vijay Jaiswal,
Aged about 18 years,
R/o.-168, Panchpaoli, Kamal Chowk,
Ashok Nagar, Nagpur,
6] Ku. Shraddha Milindji Dongare,
Aged about 18 years,
R/o.-Bhagadi, Tahsil Lakhandur, District Bhandara,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 :::
2 wp4003.13
7] Ku. Ashvini Dattatraya Kawarkhe,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Geeta Nagar Selu Road,
Malegaon, District Washim,
8] Ku. Aishwarya Sanjay Jaybhaye,
Aged about 18 years,
R/o.-Civil Lines, Vinayak Nagar, Washim,
District Washim.
9] Ku. Vidyashri Mallinath Nimbargi,
Aged about 19 years, R/o.-Sindhu Vihar,
Jule Solapur, District Solapur,
10] Ku. Rupali Vijay Done,
Aged about 18 years,
R/o.-Gurukunj Ashram, Dindekar Colony,
Tahsil Tiosa, District Amravati,
11] Ku. Snehal S. Rathod,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Mohda, Tahsil Kelapur,
District Yavatmal,
12] Ku. Silesthi Sanjay Mukirwar,
Aged about 18 years,
R/o.-Green Park-II, Shrirampur,
Pusad, District Yavatmal,
13] Ku. Gunjali Rajendra Mhaske,
Aged about 18 years,
R/o.-V.M.V. Road, Behind Meghe Complex,
Amravati, District Amravati.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 :::
3 wp4003.13
14] Ku. Ashvini Arvind Jadhao,
Aged about 18 years,
R/o.-Banjara Colony, Pusad,
District Yavatmal,
15] Ku.Sweety Rushi Undirwade,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o.-Karwafa, Tahsil Dhanora,
District Gadchiroli,
16] Ku. Gayatri Vasantrao Patil,
Aged about 18 years,
R/o.-Laxmi Nagar, Morshi,
District Amravati,
17] Ku. Ruby Rahul Tawade,
Aged about 18 years,
R/o.-Krishna Nagar, Mul Road,
Chandrapur, District Chandrapur,
18] Ku. Priyanka Premlal Ganvir,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Durga Chowk, Ghoti Road,
Goregaon, District Gondia,
19] Ku. Priya Shrawan Khobragade,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o.-Ashti, Jai Guru Nagar,
Chamorshi Nagar, District Gadchiroli,
20] Ku. Nital Prabhu Gomase,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o.-Kurkheda, District Gadchiroli,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 :::
4 wp4003.13
21] Ku. Damini Prakashrao Tadas,
Aged about 18 years,
R/o.-Warud, District Amravati,
22] Ku. Neha Satyanarayan Bahuriya,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o.-Ballarpur, District Chandrapur,
23] Ku. Shubhangi Shankarrao Thanekar,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o.-Jahur, Tah.Mukhed,
District Nanded,
24] Ku. Sharayu Ravi Gawande,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o.-Arvat, Tah.& District Chandrapur,
25] Ku. Monika Vijay Chopde,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Shegaon, District Buldana,
26] Shivkumar Khirappa Khakre,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o.-Saogaon, Tah.Hatgaon,
District Nanded,
27] Akshy Rajusingh Rathod,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o.-Goregaon, Tah.-Sengaon,
District Hingoli,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 :::
5 wp4003.13
28] Vishal Nagesh Kakde,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o.-Kundlas, Tah.Lonar,
District Buldana.
29] Avinash Badrinath Kakad,
Aged about 21 years,
Chikhala, Tah.Lonar, District Buldana,
30] Sachin Suresh Chandane,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o.-Mundaphal, Tah. Mehkar,
District Buldana,
31] Jay Vijay Dahake,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o.-Pusad, District Yavatmal,
32] Pratik Siddarth Khobragade,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Dahegaon, Tah.Ghatanji,
District Yavatmal,
33] Kaustabh Shaligram Khotre,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o.-Akot, District Akola,
34] Pawan Bharat Mhaske,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Pusad, District Yavatmal,
35] Dhiraj Madhukar Ghuge,
Aged about 21 years,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 :::
6 wp4003.13
R/o.-Kehal, Tah.Jintur, District Parbhani,
36] Dnyaneshwar Digambar Jagtap,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o.-Kawatha, Tah.Sengaon,
District Hingoli,
37] Nilesh Digambar Gaikwad,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o.-Amdapur, Tah.Chikhali,
District Buldana,ig
38] Ameya Gunsagar Vedpathak,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Kelapur, District Yavatmal,
39] Pankaj Tulshiram Jivtode,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Warora, District Chandrapur,
40] Ashok Dattarao Solanke,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Borgaon, Tah Hatgaon,
District Nanded,
41] Gajanan Ramkrushna Parale,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Pinjar, Tah.Barshitakli,
District Akola,
42] Nikhil Pramod Lahane,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o.-Akot, District Akola,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 :::
7 wp4003.13
43] Ku. Anushri Dilip Kankhar,
Aged about 23 years,
R/o.-Akola, District Akola,
44] Ku. Shrutika Gajanan Kutekar,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Akot, District Akola,
45] Ku. Pratiksha Ashok Dhutade,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Nanded, District Nanded,
46] Ku. Dhanashri S. Gawai,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Telhara, District Akola,
47] Ku. Kamal Yeshwant Sontakke,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o.-Chandan Nagar, Nagpur,
48] Sandeep Sheshrao Kadam,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o.-Mahivra, District Hingoli,
49] Akshay Rajesh Kawarkhe,
Aged about 20 years,
Goregaon, Tah.Sengaon,
District Hingoli. ..Petitioners.
..V/s..
1] The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,
Vani Road, Mhasrul, Nasik - 422 004,
through its Registrar,
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 :::
8 wp4003.13
e-mail : [email protected]
2] SSUD Ayurved Medical College and Hospital
at Koli, Karanja (Lad), District Washim
through its Principal
Dr. Kishor s/o Daulatrao Tarar. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- -
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate for the caveator/respondent no.1.
Mr. F.T. Mirza, Advocate for respondent no.2.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
Z.A. HAQ, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 26.09.2013
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 15.10.2013
JUDGMENT (Per Z.A. Haq, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha V/s. Pt. B.D.
Sharma University of Health Sciences and Ors. reported in 2012 (6) SCALE 287 has observed that it is both the need of the hour and the demand of justice that the Court ensures elimination of colourable abuse and arbitrary exercise of ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 ::: 9 wp4003.13 power in the process of selection and admission to the professional courses.
This is a 'classic case' which shows how the professional colleges have been abusing the process of law to give admissions to the students and then leave them to the mercy of the Courts.
3. Mr. Agnihotri, the learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent no.2 college was shown as the recognized college in the list published by the Association of Managements of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra ( for short " the Association") and therefore, the petitioners were under the bona fide impression that they can take admission in the respondent no.2 college. The conduct of the petitioners falsify their contentions. Moreover, when the submission was made, we asked Mr. Agnihotri to give us the list of the students, who are sent to the respondent no.2 college by the Association. On instructions, Mr. Agnihotri states that none of the petitioners is recommended by the Association and all the petitioners are given admissions directly by the respondent no.2 college. The facts are glaring and show that the petitioners are in collusion with the respondent no.2 college and are espousing ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 ::: 10 wp4003.13 the cause of the respondent no.2 college more than their own. The petitioners have not impleaded the Association as party respondent to the writ petition and therefore, we are not able to get the proper assistance in the matter and to seek the clarification from the Association in the matter. We are of the view that the petitioners have deliberately avoided to implead the Association as party respondent in the writ petition. We have already concluded in the Writ Petition No.5393/2012 that the respondent no.1 - University had issued notices in the newspapers warning the students and the guardians that they should verify from the list published by the respondent no.1 - University on its website as to whether the colleges in which the students are seeking admissions are affiliated by the respondent no.1 - University or not. It is unimaginable that in the present era of Internet and especially when all the information is available on the Internet and website of the respondent no.1 - University, that the petitioners have taken admission in the respondent no.2 college bona fide and without having the knowledge of the fact that the respondent no.2 - college is not granted affiliation by the respondent no.1 - University. We do not accept the submission as made on behalf of the petitioners. We are of the view that the petitioners are not ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 ::: 11 wp4003.13 entitled for any 'equitable relief'.
4. In the judgment given by us in Writ Petition No.5193/2012 and Writ Petition No.5393/2013 on even date, we have recorded as to how the respondent college had obtained ad-interim order by suppressing the relevant and material facts and by misleading the Court. In view of the reasons given in the above referred judgments, there cannot be any other conclusion than to dismiss this writ petition.
5. In the case of Asha (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.37 has laid down that the students who pursue the course under the orders of the Court would not be entitled to claim any equity at the final decision of the case nor it should weigh with the Courts of competent jurisdiction.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha's case, it is clear that the petitioners are not entitled for any 'equitable relief' on the basis of ad-interim orders apart from the fact that the ad-interim orders were obtained by the respondent college by misleading this Court and by suppressing the relevant ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 ::: 12 wp4003.13 and material facts from this Court.
6. In addition to this, it is relevant to point out that the petitioners, who claim to have taken admission in the respondent college bona fide, had not taken any action to press their alleged right till 25th July, 2013 when this writ petition is filed. The admission cards of the students who were to appear in the summer 2013 examinations were given to the other students much before 25th July, 2013.
According to the petitioners, the two papers of 1st year B.A.M.S. were already over when the writ petition was filed and therefore, the petitioners had prayed for relief in terms of prayer clause (b) that the respondent no.1- University be directed to conduct examination of the two papers i.e. 'Sanskrit' and 'Sharir Rachna" as a special case. These facts show that the claim of the petitioners is not genuine and bona fide. Moreover, while passing the interim order dated 29th July, 2013, we have observed that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioners and they are clearly acting on the dictates of the respondent no.2 college.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 :::13 wp4003.13
7. We have dismissed the Writ Petition No.3797/2013 filed by the respondent college and we have upheld the decision of the respondent no.1 -
University withdrawing the affiliation of the petitioner college permanently.
Furthermore, we have dismissed the Writ Petition Nos.5193/2012 and 5393/2012 and have concluded that the respondent no.2 college had obtained the interim orders in those writ petitions by suppressing the relevant and material facts and documents from the Court and by misleading the Court. The foundation of the claim of petitioners of the present writ petition is the interim order which was passed in the above referred writ petitions. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.5193/2013 and 5393/2012 and in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Asha (supra) we dismiss the writ petition.
8. In this case, we deprecate the laxity and the callousness of the respondent - University. The respondent - University in the reply has submitted in a very casual and callous manner that the Health University, in the larger public interest and to make the public at large aware about the exact status of the petitioner college, has rightly within its powers issued a public notice in the ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 ::: 14 wp4003.13 matter to avoid any prejudice, damage and loss to the concerned students intending to take admissions in the said college. The respondent - University has stated that the students admitted in the petitioner college, which is not having the affiliation are not entitled to appear for any examinations or for declaration of the results thereof. We are not able to understand the laxity and the callous attitude of the respondent - University in remaining dormant till July, 2013. The claim of the petitioner is based on the ad-interim ex-parte order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5193/2013 on 29th October, 2012. The respondent -
University was under the obligation to immediately appear in the writ petition and to point out to the Court that the respondent no.2 college has obtained the ad-
interim ex-parte order by misleading the Court and suppressing the relevant and material documents. It is only because of the callousness of the respondent - University that the matter continued to prolong and it has given rise to more litigations and unnecessary hopes to the students of the college. We strongly deprecate the laxity and the callous attitude of the respondent -
University. We hope and trust that in future the respondent - University will be vigilant and will perform its duties as is being mentioned by it.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 :::15 wp4003.13 In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE JUDGE At this stage, Shri Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that in view of dismissal of the writ petition, respondent no.2 College may be directed to return the original documents and the transfer certificates of the petitioners as are granted to the other students, who had been undertaking education in the respondent no.2 College.
As we have already granted similar prayer made by the other students, who were pursuing their studies in the respondent no.2 College, we grant the request as made by Shri Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and direct the respondent no.2 College to give the original documents and transfer certificates to the petitioners within one week from today.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:26:57 :::