Seva Shikshan Prasarak Mandals Dr ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3817 Bom

                                                                                  910_WP825117.odt


         
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 8251 OF 2017
Seva Shikshan prasarak Mandal's
Dr. N.J. Paulbudhe College of Pharmacy
45/B, Shaneshwar Nagar, Vasant Tekdi
Savedi, Ahmednagar
Through its President
Vinay Nath Paulbudhe
Age: 49 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o Vasant Tekdi, Veer Savarkar Marg,
Savedi, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.                           ..PETITIONER
               VERSUS
1.  State of Maharashtra
     Through the Secretary for
     Technical Education,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.  The Director of Technical Education
     3, Mahapalika Marg,
     Mumbai.

3.  Savitribai Phule Pune University
     Gagneshkhind, Pune - 411 007.

4.  Pharmacy Council of India
     Combined Council's Building,
     Kotla Road, Aiwan-E-Ghaib Marg,
     New Delhi-110002.                                          ..RESPONDENTS
                                      ....

Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. A.V. Hon, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. M.B. Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for respondent - State. Mr. V.P. Golewar, Advocate h/f Mr. A.R. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

....

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ DATED : 30th JUNE, 2017

1 / 3

910_WP825117.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of

the parties.

2. Petitioner has challenged the action of Respondent No.2 of deleting

the name of petitioner - institution from the list of centralised admission process

of Bachelor of Pharmacy course for the academic year 2017-18, though they

have requisite permission from All India Council for Technical Education and

Government of Maharashtra. Petitioner has placed on record communication

dated 29th June, 2017 issued by Respondent No.3 whereby they have also

recognised the case of petitioner and in fact addressed communication to

Respondent No.2 to that effect.

3. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter and in view of the

urgency so expressed, we are inclined to dispose of this petition in terms of

prayer clause (B). It is made clear that this order will be subject to order of

Hon'ble Supreme Court. Petitioner to take steps to remove the deficiency, if any,

as early as possible.

4. As this order is dictated in open Court today and there is urgency, the

concerned officers of the respondents to take immediate steps to avoid further

2 / 3

910_WP825117.odt

delay and complications in the matter, without waiting for certified copy of the

order. Parties to act upon authenticated copy.

5. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

( SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J. ) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) SSD

3 / 3