Bombay High Court
Dnyandeep Bahuuddeshiya ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary, ... on 27 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2703WP2207.13-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2207 OF 2013
PETITIONERS :- 1. Dnyandeep Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Sindkhed, Taluqa Ner,
Distrct Yavatmal, through its President/
Secretary.
2. Aniruddha College of Science, Kalamb,
District Yavatmal, through its Principal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Education Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University,
Amravati, through its Registrar.
3. Dr.Yashwant Moreshwar Donde Public
Education Trust, Kalamb, Taluqa Kalamb,
District Yavatmal, through its Secretary.
4. Indira Mahavidyalaya, Kalamb, District
Yavatmal, through its Principal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.A.Chaudhari, counsel for the petitioners.
Mrs.G. Tiwari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.1.
Mr.M.Y.Wadotkar, counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
, JJ.
DATED : 27.03.2017
2703WP2207.13-Judgment 2/4
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of
the State Government dated 02/01/2013 bringing the respondent No.4-
college run by the respondent No.3-society, on grant-in-aid.
2. According to the petitioners, the petitioners were granted
permission to run a science college on 11/07/2009 and by the order of
the same date, the respondent No.3 was also granted permission to run
a science college in village Kalamb. According to the petitioners, in the
order granting permission to the petitioner-society to start the college,
there was no condition that the college of the petitioners should possess
NAAC accreditation. It is stated that however in the permission granted
to the respondent No.3 to start the respondent No.4-science college,
such a condition was imposed. According to the State policy of bringing
one science college in one taluka on grant-in-aid, the State Government
brought the respondent No.4-college on grant-in-aid. The petitioners
have challenged the said order in this writ petition.
3. Shri Chaudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that since the respondent No.4-college does not possess
NAAC accreditation, the State Government was not justified in
providing grant-in-aid in favour of the respondent No.4 college. It is
2703WP2207.13-Judgment 3/4
submitted that the State Government ought to have brought the college
run by the petitioner-society on grant-in-aid. It is submitted that since
in the order granting permission to the respondent No.3 to start a
college, there was a condition that the college should possess NAAC
accreditation or else the permission could be withdrawn, grant-in-aid
could not have been provided to the respondent No.4-college.
4. Mrs. Taiwade, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the respondent No.1, has supported the order of the State
Government. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot be permitted to
canvass that the respondent No.4 would not be entitled to grant-in-aid,
as it does not possess NAAC accreditation as the petitioner-college also
does not possess NAAC accreditation. It is submitted that the State
Government has laid down the criteria for providing grant-in-aid to the
colleges and the Task Force Committee, after considering the relevant
criteria found that the respondent No.4-college was fit to receive the
grant-in-aid. It is submitted that since the respondent No.4-college had
secured more marks than the petitioner-college, the respondent No.4
was rightly provided grant-in-aid.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1,
2703WP2207.13-Judgment 4/4
it appears that there is no scope for interference with the impugned
order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petitioners cannot be
heard to say that the respondent No.4-college should not have been
brought on grant-in-aid as the respondent No.4 college does not possess
NAAC accreditation when the college run and administered by the
petitioner-society also does not possess the NAAC accreditation. The
criteria laid down by the government was duly considered by the Task
Force Committee and it was found by the Task Force Committee that
the respondent No.4 was entitled to be brought on grant-in-aid. The
respondent No.4 secured more marks than the petitioners as per the
report of the Task Force Committee. We do not find that the State
Government has committed any illegality in providing grant-in-aid to
the respondent No.4-college, specially when the respondent No.4 has
secured more marks than the petitioners as per the report of the Task
Force Committee and as per the policy of the State Government, only
one college in one taluka is entitled to be brought on grant-in-aid.
6. Since there is no merit in the submissions made on behalf
of the petitioners for challenging the impugned order, the writ petition
is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
