Bombay High Court
Gunai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 23 June, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
Writ Petition No.7591/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7591 OF 2017
1. Gunai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Kawalkhed, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur,
through its President
Bapurao s/o Shankarrao Rathod,
Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Udgir, District Latur.
2. Rajiv Gandhi Polytechnic
Gat No.84, Degloor Road,
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
through its Principal,
Ravindra Vasantrao Rajeshwarkar
Age 42 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Udgir, District Latur. ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary to the
Government of Maharashtra in
Higher & Technical Education
Department, Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Fees Regulating Authority
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
305, Govt. Polytechnic Building,
Ali Yawar Jung Marg, Bandra (East),
Mumbai - 400 051
3. The Director,
Technical Education,
Maharashtra State,
3, Mahapalika Marg,
Post Box No.1967, Mumbai
(Copies to be served on Govt. Pleader,
High Court of Judicature of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad) . ... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 01:09:38 :::
Writ Petition No.7591/2017
2
.....
Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for State
Shri U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2
.....
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED: 23rd June, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner institution has challenged the order
passed by the Regulatory Authority of Maharashtra, Mumbai,
constituted under the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional
Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act,
2015 (for short, "Act") as the authority has no power to condone
the delay in filing the review application so filed by the petitioner.
We have noted the scope and purpose of the Act including the
requirement of authority to fix the per student fee for the
concerned year. The contents of review application, therefore,
are required to be considered by the authority as early as
possible, to avoid further delay in the matter. The petitioner has
filed review application, as not satisfied with the fee structure so
Writ Petition No.7591/2017
decided by the authorities for this year, in comparison with the
fee so fixed for earlier years.
3. The provisions with regard to condonation of delay is
absent. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, and in the
interest of justice, we are inclined to condone the delay, if any, in
filing the review. The regulating authority, therefore, is
requested to decide the review application in accordance with
law, as early as possible, preferably within two weeks as the
admission process is already set in motion.
4. The parties to appear before the authority on 29th
June 2017. The authority to deal with the same in accordance
with law. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
5. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.
No costs.
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL) (ANOOP V. MOHTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
fmp/
