Bombay High Court
Shankar Bhagwan Ambhore vs Hon'Ble Chancellor Dr. Babasaheb ... on 11 February, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
CA.2192 of 2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2192 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8401 OF 2019
Dr. Shankar s/o. Bhagwan Ambhore,
Age : 54 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Plot No.120, Pethe Nagar,
Bhavsingpura, Aurangabad ..Applicant
Vs.
1. Hon'ble Chancellor,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University,
Aurangabad, Raj Bhavan,
Malbar Hill, Mumbai
2. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar University,
through its Registrar,
University Campus, Aurangabad
3. Dr. Vilas s/o. Bhikaji Khandare,
Age : 49 years, Occ. Service,
office at Shri Asaramji Bhandwaldar
College, Devgaon Rangari,
Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad
4. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32 ..Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 13:16:48 :::
2 CA.2192 of 2021
----
Mr.S.V.Dixit, Advocate for applicant
Mr.S.V.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.3
Mr.S.P.Tiwari, AGP for respondent no.4
----
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2021
ORDER :-
The applicant, original petitioner in Writ Petition
No.8401 of 2019, has filed this application for the following
reliefs :-
"A) That, implementation, execution and
operation of Notification No.1/2021, issued
on 22.01.2021 by Registrar and returning
officer of respondent no.3 be stayed.
B) That, respondent no.2, its Officers,
servants or anybody claiming through
respondent no.2 be restrained by an order
of injunction from conducting election of
Management Council from Academic
Council as per Section 30(4)(j) of the
Maharashtra Public Universities Act, and to
post held by applicant till final disposal of
present Writ Petition."
2. The applicant's nomination as a Member of the
Board of Studies in Economics of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar
3 CA.2192 of 2021
Marathwada University, Aurangabad, under Section 40(2)(b)(ii)
of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 ("the Act" for
short), was declared as void ab-initio vide order dated
01.09.2019 passed by respondent no.1 - Chancellor of the
University. On the same day, by a separate order passed by
respondent no.1 - Chancellor, the applicant's nomination as a
Member of the Board of Studies of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University, Aurangabad, under Section 40(2)(b)(ii)
and (iii) of the Act, was declared as void ab-initio. Both these
orders were under challenge in Writ Petition Nos.11980 of 2019
and 12001 of 2019, respectively. Both these Writ Petitions
have been decided vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2020.
The applicant/petitioner has been unsuccessful in both these
Writ Petitions. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted to
have filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the order of
dismissal of these Writ Petitions.
The applicant's election to the management council
under Section 30(4)(j) of the Act, has also been held to be void
ab-initio vide order dated 20.06.2019 passed by respondent
4 CA.2192 of 2021
no.1 - Chancellor. The applicant/petitioner has challenged the
order dated 20.06.2019 by filing Writ Petition No.8401 of 2019,
which is pending.
3. The programme regarding election of the
management council from academic council under Section
30(4)(j) of the Act, has been declared. The election is
scheduled for 12th February, 2021.
4. Mr.Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that Writ Petition No.8401 of 2019 was reserved for
orders on 05.09.2019 and this Court, during the course of
hearing, had orally directed the Advocate appearing for the
University, for not holding further election to fill up the post
held by the applicant in the management council. Such
direction was given considering the fact that the matter was
heard by the Court on its merits. According to the learned
counsel for the applicant, the election programme has been
declared with a view only to frustrate the cause agitated in
Writ Petition No.8401 of 2019. According to him, the applicant
5 CA.2192 of 2021
has every chance of success in the Writ Petition. If the election
is allowed to be held, it would be prejudicial to the interest of
the applicant. He, therefore, urged for grant of the application.
5. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent no.3,
would, on the other hand, submit that both Writ Petition
No.11980 of 2019 and 12001 of 2019 have been dismissed on
merits. He, however, admits that the Court had orally directed
not to hold election to fill up the post held by the applicant in
the management council. According to him, said oral direction
short-lived since the Writ Petition reserved for orders, has now
been de-reserved. Thereafter, the aforesaid two Writ Petitions
have been decided. Learned counsel has also produced on
record the order dated 30.06.2019 passed in those two Writ
Petitions.
6. In support of his claim in the application, learned
counsel for the applicant is simply relying on oral direction of
this court to the Advocate appearing for the University, not to
hold election to fill up the post held by the applicant in the
management council. Such direction appears to have been
6 CA.2192 of 2021
given when the Writ Petition was reserved for orders. The
matter has now been de-reserved. The same needs to heard
on merit. Learned counsel for the applicant did not make any
submission as to merit of the matter.
7. In paragraph 18 of the order dated 30.09.2019
passed in aforesaid two Writ Petitions, it has been observed as
under :-
"18. A peculiar situation has
therefore, arisen concerning these two
petitions vis-a-vis the above stated petition
which is reserved for orders. In the event,
these two petitions sufer rejection in this
Court, the very nomination of the petitioner
to the BOS of economics would be set aside
thereby destroying his foundation of being
an elected chairperson of BOS. He was ex-
ofcio member of the Academic Council
which eventually led to his contesting the
elections to the Management Council. In
the event these two petitions are
dismissed, the Writ Petition which is
reserved for judgment would be rendered
of an academic interest and no purpose
would be served in deciding the said
petition in which the same petitioner prays
for sustaining his election to the
Management Council."
8. It is reiterated that both the Writ Petitions have been
dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2020. Learned counsel for
7 CA.2192 of 2021
the applicant did not make any submission so as to make out a
prima facie case to grant the application. It is his only
submission that if the applicant succeeds in the Writ Petition,
holding of election would be prejudicial to the applicant's
interest and resultantly, Writ Petition No.8401 of 2019 would
become infructuous.
9. Since the oral direction has short-lived in view of the
fact of the Writ Petition having been made de-part heard and
the fact that other two Writ Petitions of the applicant have been
dismissed on merit and the fact that learned counsel for the
applicant made no submissions to prima facie overcome the
observations in paragraph 18 of the order dated 30.09.2019, in
my opinion, the applicant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed
in the application.
10. The Civil Application, therefore, fails. The same is
rejected.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
