Sunit S/O Suresh Ghatole vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17651 Bom

                                                   1             17-J-WP-1003-20.odt

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                    WRIT PETITION NO. 1003 OF 2020

Sunit S/o Suresh Ghatole,
Aged 20 years, Occ. Student,
R/o Flat No.302, Balaji
Residency, Plot No.48,
Manish Nagar, Nagpur-15.                                    ... PETITIONER

                              VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
   Through its Secretary,
   Department of Medical
   Education, Mantralaya,
   Mumbai-32.

2. State of Maharashtra,
   Through its Secretary,
   Department of Social
   Justice and Special Assistance,
   Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

3. Assistant Commissioner,
   Social Welfare,
   Amravati.

4. Shri Shivaji Education Society,
   Amravati, Through its Secretary,
   Shivaji Nagar, Amravati.

5. Dr. Panjabrao alias Bhausaheb
     Deshmukh Memorial Medical
     College, Gadgenagar, Amravati,
     Through its Dean.                                       ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Deoul Pathak, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. S. S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2         17-J-WP-1003-20.odt

                          CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND
                                  G. A. SANAP, JJ.

DATED : 20/12/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the

communication dated 12/12/2019 issued by the respondent No.3

refusing to grant benefit of freeship while taking education with

respondent No.5 - College. The petitioner claims to belong to

Other Backward Class falling in Non-Creamy Layer segment of

that society. The petitioner on 12/11/2019 moved an application

seeking such freeship benefit and furnished necessary details. It is

his grievance that without hearing him on 12/12/2019, the

respondent No.3 refused to grant such eligibility certificate.

3. Today, it is informed by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that by issuing Government Resolution dated

04/01/2021, the State Government has sought to further bring

clarity in the manner in which applications have to be made for

seeking such benefits. It is further submitted that since the earlier 3 17-J-WP-1003-20.odt

denial to benefit was without hearing the petitioner, the impugned

communication is liable to be set aside.

4. Shri P.B.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4

and 5 submits that in view of rejection of such request, the

demand made by the college for payment of regular fees as per

communication dated 16/12/2019 was justified.

5. We find that it is the grievance of the petitioner that

the impugned communication has been issued without granting

him any opportunity of explanation. Further with the issuance of

Government Resolution dated 04/01/2021, it would be necessary

for the petitioner to now comply with the requirements thereof

and justify his entitlement.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, interests of justice would be

served by permitting the petitioner to make a fresh application for

grant of freeship benefits within a period of two weeks from today

to the respondent No.3. If such application is made, within further

period of three weeks from that date the respondent No.3 shall

take decision on the petitioner's application. It is expected that

such decision would be taken after considering all relevant aspects

and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner.

                                                      4          17-J-WP-1003-20.odt



7.             In        the            aforesaid   backdrop,    the    impugned

communication dated 12/12/2019 stands set aside for having

been issued in breach of principles of natural justice.

8. It is expected that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 would

await adjudication of decision by the respondent No.3.

9. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Rule accordingly. No costs.

           (G. A. SANAP, J.)                        (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)



Choulwar




     VITHAL         Digitally signed by VITHAL
                    MAROTRAO CHOULWAR
     MAROTRAO       Date: 2021.12.22 16:40:07
     CHOULWAR       +0530