Bombay High Court
Pravarsen Shikshan Sanstha ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 12 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp3370.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3370 OF 2015
1. Pravarsen Shikshan Sanstha,
Nagpur through its Secretary,
Milind Laxman Balkhande,
aged 38 years, office at Patrakar
Sahanivas, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. P.S.S. College of Arts and
Commerce, Pauni through its
Principal, Dr. Gajanan S. Lambe,
aged 57 years, Pauni, District -
Bhandara. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Department
of Higher and Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
State of Maharashtra, Central
Building, Pune - 1.
3. The Joint Director of Higher
Education, State of Maharashtra,
Nagpur Division, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
4. Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur through
its Registrar, Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
.....
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:59:31 :::
wp3370.15 2
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
APRIL 12, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Shri Lonare, learned AGP for respondent Nos.
1 to 3 and Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
2. The petitioner No. 1 claims that it has started new
subjects in its College strictly in terms of sanction dated
28.07.1993 and 03.08.1993. It is stated that the College has
been imparting instructions in Marathi Literature and Ancient
Indian History and Culture subjects on 'no grant basis'.
3. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel submits that in
2009, the State Government has taken a policy decision and
deleted the word 'permanent' from orders of similar institutions
to whom approval was given in 2001 on 'permanent no grant
basis'. Thus, because of deletion of the word 'permanent',
those institutes, which were granted approval in 2001, were
considered for grant in aid. He states that the case of the
present petitioner stands on better footing as while granting
approval in the year 1998, the word 'permanent' was never
employed. In this situation, according to him, the impugned
communication dated 10.04.2015 which relies upon the
judgment delivered at Aurangabad Bench on 01.02.1999 is
erroneous and unsustainable.
4. Shri Patil, learned counsel submits that the
University has considered the proposals submitted by the
petitioners and recommended it to Respondent No. 1.
5. Shri Lonare, learned AGP submits that the
petitioners have been given permission on 'no grant basis' and
hence the subsequent changes in policy are not applicable to it.
He, therefore, states that the support being taken from the
judgment delivered at Aurangabad Bench is justified and
proper.
6. A perusal of impugned communication dated
10.04.2015 shows that the State Government has found the
permission given to the petitioners on the condition of not
appointing a new teacher consciously, as per policy which was
then prevailing and thereafter the judgment delivered at
Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No. 3161 of 1998
(Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad &
Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra) has been mentioned. A
perusal of judgment shows that on 01.02.1999, the Division
Bench has deleted the condition of not appointing a new
teacher with consent of State Government in case of the
petitioner before it. However, while deleting that condition,
by way of abundant precaution, the Division Bench observed
that it would not mean that the Government would be asked
to pay the grants. Thus, this judgment does not lay down any
law and has been delivered with consent and in peculiar facts.
The subsequent policy decision of granting approval on
"permanent no grant basis" reached in the year 2001 or then
deletion of the word 'permanent' therefrom in the year 2009
were not the events then available for consideration by the
said Division Bench.
7. The sanction or permission given to the present
petitioner on 28.07.1993 and 03.08.1993 needs to be
construed in this background. The authority which has to take
a decision on proposal recommended to it by Respondent No.
4 has to consider this policy decision and its relevance on the
request made by the petitioners. It is for the said authority to
reach appropriate conclusion thereafter. The impugned order
relies only upon the judgment delivered at Aurangabad, which
is not relevant.
8. In this situation, we quash and set aside the
impugned communication dated 10.04.2015. The proposal
forwarded by Respondent No. 4 - University to Respondent
No. 1 is restored back to the file of Respondent No. 1. We
grant the petitioners time of four weeks to make additional
representation pointing out all relevant developments in this
respect to Respondent No. 1. After receipt of such a
representation, Respondent No. 1 shall apply its mind
independently and uninfluenced by this order within a further
period of eight weeks.
9. With these directions, we partly allow and dispose
of the present writ petition. Rule is made absolute in above
terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE ig JUDGE
******
*GS.
