The State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Shailesh Shivram Aware
2017 Latest Caselaw 2452 Bom

                                                                  WP/5470/1999
                                        1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 5470 OF 1999

 1.       The State of Maharashtra.

 2.       The Director of Technical Education,
          M.S.3, Mahaplika Marg,
          Dhobi Talav, Mumbai - 01.

 3.       The Jt. Director of Technical Education,
          Near Govt. Engineering College,
          Aurangabad.

 4.       The Principal,
          Jawaharlal Neharu Engineering College,
          Aurangabad CIDCO, Aurangabad.                     ...Petitioners.

                   Versus

          Shailesh S/o. Shivram Aware,
          Age. 17 yrs., Occ. Student,
          Minor U/G. of real father
          Shri Shivram S/o. Khanderao Aware,
          Age. 50 yrs, Occ. Service,
          R/o. Osmanabad.                                ...Respondent.
                                      ...
                   AGP for Petitioners : Shri S.P.Deshmukh
                                      ...

                          CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: May 09, 2017 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned judgment

delivered by the College and University Tribunal, dated 4.8.1999. By

order dated 18.11.1999, the impugned judgment was stayed only to

the extent of payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-.

WP/5470/1999

2. Despite service of Court notice, office remark indicates that

the respondent has not appeared in this matter and has not entered

an appearance through an Advocate.

3. Grievance of the petitioners / State is with regard to the only

direction issued by the Tribunal which reads as under:-

" The appeal is now disposed off in view of the fact that relief sought in this appeal has been granted to the Appellant, though belatedly. Respondent No.1 to 5 together have been saddled with cost of Rs.5,000/- of this appeal. If cost not paid within two months, Appellant shall be at liberty to seek execution for recovery of the cost. The copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra to enable him to consider whether inquiry should be held to fix the liability of the cost awarded in this case."

4. Learned AGP has strenuously criticized the above said

direction of payment of costs. He has drawn my attention to the

grounds set out in the memo of petition.

5. It is apparent that the respondent at issue was a student of

merit and was aspiring to be an Architect. The aptitude test arranged

by the College of Architecture for scrutinizing the cases for admission

to the course of Bachelor of Architecture was held on 31.5.1998. In

WP/5470/1999

the detailed impugned judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the

results of the XII Standard examination were declared under changed

Rules in the second week of June, 1998. The change in situation has

been considered by the Tribunal in it's lengthy observations in

paragraph No.7 of the impugned judgment. Consequentially, it has

come to a conclusion that as the change in the Rules for admission to

colleges was introduced by the Government, as the College

conducted the aptitude test before the results of H.S.C. were

declared and students like the respondent lost sight of the same

since they were published only in one news paper namely,

Maharashtra Times, the respondent lost one academic year 1998-99

and thereafter, could secure admission to B.Arch. course in academic

year 1999-2000. It was in these circumstances that the Tribunal has

imposed nominal costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to

the respondent / student.

6. The petitioners are the State departments along with a private

engineering college, which is petitioner No.4. Rs.5,000/- as costs are

to be paid by all the petitioners by the impugned judgment.

7. I do not find that the impugned judgment could be termed as

perverse or erroneous. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

8. The petitioners 1 to 3 shall pay 50% of the said costs and the

WP/5470/1999

petitioner No.4 shall pay the remainder 50% of the costs to the

respondent student within a period of eight weeks from today. These

costs shall be deposited in this Court within six weeks from today

failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

from 4.8.1999. After the costs are deposited, the Registry of his court

shall intimate the respondent for withdrawal of the said amount

along with accrued interest if any. The Registry shall intimate the

respondent on his following address, which was mentioned in the

Court notice served upon him:-

Shailesh Shivram Aaware, Anantpura, Near D.Pharmacy Institute, Umbre Kotha, District Osmanabad. 413501

9. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d