Bombay High Court
Shivaji Education So vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 13 November, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUR OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1888 OF 2008
Bahujan Nayak Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Jalna,
Through it's President
Adv. Bramhanand Sakharam Chavan,
Jijamata Nagar, Chaman,
Double Jin, Juna Jalna,
Taluka and District Jalna. ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad,
Through it's Registrar.
3. The Director,
College & University Development Council,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad.
4. Arvind Bajirao Chavan,
Age : 51 years, Occu: M.L.A. & Agri.
R/o. Raosaheb Deshpande Complex,
Mahatma Gandhi Chaman, Old Jalna.
5. Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Jalna
Through it's Secretary,
Raosaheb Deshpande Complex,
Mahatma Gandhi Chaman, Old Jalna.
For trust and Arts, Commerce and Science
College, Ramnagar, Jalna. ...Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 00:56:58 :::
2
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4336 O 2008
Shivaji Education Society,
Nava, Taluka and District Jalna,
Through its secretary,
Vitthal S/o. Bhaurao Mhaske,
Age : 65 years, Occupation : Agri.,
And Social Worker, resident of Nava,
Taluka and District Jalna. ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. The Deputy Director of Education
Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.
3. The Registrar,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad.
4. Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Jalna, through its President,
Arvind S/o. Bajirao Chavan,
Age. 52 years, Occ : Sitting M.L.A.
Taluka and District Jalna. ...Respondents.
Advocate for Petitioner in W.P. No.: Shri Cedric C. Fernandez
h/f. Shri D.R. Markad.
AGP for Respondent No. 1 : Shri Y.G. Gujrathi.
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Shri S.K. Naikwade
h/f. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi.
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Shri R.J. Godbole.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Dated : 13rd November, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. In both these petitions, the petitioners pray for a
direction to the University to consider its proposal for starting a
new college. Since, both the petitioners are identically situated,
these matters were tagged together by order dated 18/09/2008,
while admitting the petitions.
2. None appears for the petitioner in the first petition. We
have considered the submissions of the learned advocates for
the petitioner in the second petition which stands on similar set
of facts as like the first petition.
3. Grievance put forth by both the petitioners is with regard
to starting a new college for the academic year 2008-2009. The
said request cannot be accepted in the year 2017. It is informed
that the University normally prepares the perspective plan for
accepting proposals for starting the new colleges. In the last ten
years the University may have come up with two perspective
plans.
4. In the above backdrop, we deem it appropriate to permit
these petitioners to submit fresh proposals to the University and
in the event of any such proposal being submitted as per the cut
off date and the rules of University, the same would be
considered on their own merits and in accordance with the
perspective plan.
5. Such proposals if tendered by these petitioners will be
considered by the University along with all such other proposals
as it may have received under the current perspective plan.
6. In so far as the challenge to the grant of permission to
respondent No. 5/College in the first petition is concerned, it is
informed by Shri Godbole, learned advocate that the College is
presently functioning and is in existence for the last ten years.
In that backdrop, we do not wish to disturb the permission
granted.
7. Both these petitions, are therefore, disposed with the
above observations and the liberty set out therein. Rule is
discharged.
8. Pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and
stand disposed of.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
S.P.C.
