Navshaktipeeth Shikshan Sanstha ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2817 Bom

WP  4636/13                                          1                             Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 4636/2013
1.    Navshaktipeeth Shikshan Sanstha Saori,
      Murmadi, Tah. Lakhani, Dist. Bhandara
      through its President, Shri Hukumchand
      s/o Bakaram Gaidhani, Aged 60 years,
      r/o : Samarth Nagar, Lakhani, 
      Dist. Bhandara.

2.    Vidarbha Arts and Commerce College,
      Lakhani, Dist. Bhandara, through its
      Principal, Dr.Jaywant s/o Moreshwar
      Jagtap, R/o: Lakhani, Dist. Bhandara.                                 PETITIONERS

                                   .....VERSUS.....
1.    State of Maharashtra,
      Through the Secretary,
      Higher and Technical Education Department,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

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,
      Nagpur.                                                 RESPONDENTS

                     Shri B.G. Kulkarni, counsel for the petitioners.
          Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.


                                     CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                   A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.                  

                                                             6                  JUNE,     2017.
                                      DATE        :            TH




ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner-Shikshan Sanstha seeks a

direction against the State Government to sanction grant-in-aid to the

second section of B.A. course from the year 2004-05 in a phased manner

and sanction 100% grant-in-aid from 2007-08.

WP 4636/13 2 Judgment

2. The petitioner-Sanstha started the first section of B.A. course

with the permission of the State Government in the year 1999 on grant-

in-aid basis. The Sanstha desired to start a second section of the B.A.

course and, therefore, sought the permission of the State Government in

that regard. The State Government granted permission to the petitioner

to start the second section of B.A. course on permanent no grant basis

vide order dated 15.09.2001. According to the petitioner, subsequently in

the year 2011, the Government decided to consider providing grant-in-aid

to some of the institutions that had started the course before 25.11.2001.

Since the permission was granted to the petitioner to start the second

section on 15.09.2001, the petitioner has approached this Court with a

prayer that the State Government may be directed to sanction grant-in-

aid in favour of the petitioner-Sanstha for the second section of B.A.

course, as prayed.

3. Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the State Government, has denied the claim made by the

petitioner-Sanstha. It is submitted that the petitioner-Sanstha would have

no right to claim grant-in-aid. It is submitted that before seeking

permission for opening the second section of B.A. course, the petitioner

had furnished an undertaking that it would not claim grant-in-aid for the

said section. It is stated that in view of the said undertaking, the

petitioner would have no right to claim the sanction of grant-in-aid. It is

WP 4636/13 3 Judgment

submitted that the second section of B.A. course should have a particular

strength of students which the second section in the college run by the

petitioner-Sanstha does not possess. It is submitted that the Cabinet Sub-

Committee had taken a decision on 17.05.2001 that the colleges could be

granted permission to start the classes only on permanent no grant basis.

It is stated that though the Cabinet decision was finally accepted on

24.11.2001, the decision was already taken on 17.05.2001.

4. In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant

the relief sought by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner had given

an undertaking to the State Government while making the application

that the petitioner-Sanstha would never seek grant-in-aid for the second

section. Once having tendered an undertaking as aforesaid, the

petitioner-Sanstha cannot be permitted to turn around and seek grant-in-

aid from the State Government at a subsequent stage by relying on the

communication of the State Government of the year 2011, that merely

directs the Education Authority to send the names of the colleges that had

started the classes before 2001. The issuance of the said communication

by the State Government would not create any right in favour of the

petitioner-Sanstha to seek grant-in-aid for the second section. Also, we

find that the State Government had taken a policy decision on 17.05.2001

that permission could be granted to the Sansthas to open colleges only on

permanent no grant basis. Since permission was granted to the petitioner

WP 4636/13 4 Judgment

to start the second section on 15.09.2001, the petitioner cannot claim the

sanction of grant-in-aid, more so when it had tendered an undertaking.

There is also some force in the submission made on behalf of the

respondents that the second section run by the petitioner-Sanstha does

not possess the requisite strength of the students which would have

entitled the Sanstha to claim grant-in-aid for that section if the policy in

that regard was still in force. In any case, since the petitioner-Sanstha

would not have any right to claim the relief, the writ petition is liable to

be dismissed.

5. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition as such, with no order as

to costs. Rule stands discharged.

              JUDGE                                          JUDGE

APTE