Lokhit Kala Va Krida Mandal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3342 Bom

                                   (1)
                                                         WP-8017_ 2016.odt

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    915 WRIT PETITION NO.8017 OF 2016


 Lokhit Kala Va Krida Mandal, Aurangabad,
 Through its Secretary namely :
 Shaikh Gulam Rasul Katthu
 Age : 41 years, Occu.: Agril.,
 R/o.: House No. 54, Galli No.3,
 Hussain Colony, Pundaliknagar,
 Aurangabad                          ...    PETITIONER

          versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Through its secretary,
          Higher and Technical Education,
          Department, Maharashtra State,
          Mumbai-32

 2.       Director of Higher Education,
          Maharashtra, State, Pune.

 3.       Joint Director of Higher Education,
          Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.

 4.       Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
          University, Aurangabad,
          University Campus, Aurangabad
          Through its Registrar

 5.       Anand Charitable Sanstha,
          Ashti, Tq. Ashti, District Beed,
          Through its Secretary / President,
          C/o. Principal of Proposed College,
          i.e. Anand Charitable Societies
          Art, Commerce and Science College,
          Tintarwani, Tq. Shirur (Kasar),
          District : Beed.                 ...         RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 14:58:24 :::
                                            (2)
                                                                  WP-8017_ 2016.odt

                                           ...
            Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
           Mr.S.S. Thombre, advocate for respondent no. 4.
           Mr. B.T.Bodkhe, advocate for respondent no. 5.
                                   ...

                                  CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
                                          ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

                                  DATE     :     23rd February 2021.


 JUDGMENT (PER COURT)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the

consent of parties.

2. Petitioner aggrieved by letter dated 21-06-2016

issued by respondent no. 4 - Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

Marathwada University (BAMU), Aurangabad whereunder

request to accept the payment of fees has been declined for

the tender being beyond stipulated period, is before the court.

3. Reference to background in which the petition has

been fled may facilitate its appreciation.

4. Petitioner - an educational institution, had

submitted a proposal on 30-10-2010 to open a senior college

at village Tintarwadi, Taluka Shirur (K), District Beed for

WP-8017_ 2016.odt

academic year 2011-2012 pursuant to the perspective plan of

Respondent No. 4 - Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada

University (BAMU), Aurangabad. According to petitioner, the

University, fnding that petitioner's proposal fts into the

scheme, had recommended the same to Respondent No. 1 -

the government on 28-04-2011. However, respondent no. 1

had turned down said proposal under an order dated 07-05-

2012. According to petitioner, the order being un-reasoned

while reasons were expected, it had approached this court

under writ petition bearing no. 9867 of 2015 in which division

bench of this court had passed an order on 23 February

2016, as under :

"Heard. For the same reasons which are assigned by this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 6328 of 2012 (Mai Mahila Va Bal Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, Deulgaon (Ghat), Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others with connected Writ Petitions thereto, decided on 24/09/2013, the impugned order dated 7 th May, 2012, which is annexed at Exhibit-E page 51 of the compilation of the Writ Petition, is quashed and set aside. Recommendations made by University are placed back before Respondent No.1 State Government, for its fresh consideration. However, as in reply affdavit, some lacunae have been pointed out, we direct the Respondent No.4 University again to verify the claim made in the proposals and submit its report to Respondent No.1 - State Government, if necessary, respondent No.4 University may charge reasonable processing fees again from petitioners. The report of the University shall reach respondent No.1 within two months from today. After such report is received,

WP-8017_ 2016.odt

Respondent No.1 shall hear the petitioner and take necessary decision within a further period of three months.

2. We are imposing this time limit only to see that, in case State Government grants necessary permission, the senior college should be in a position to start functioning at least from next academic year i.e. 2016-2017.

3. The Writ Petition stands disposed of".

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

accordingly it had put in a request dated 14-03-2016 to

University to follow aforesaid order and it was only on 04-06-

2016, petitioner had received a communication dated 02-06-

2014 directing to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Learned

counsel further purports to contend that in pursuance of

communication, on 18-06-2016 there had been tender of the

amount, however, the same had not been accepted and

impugned communication dated 21-06-2016 has been issued

for the reason that the tender of amount and the documents

have been submitted belatedly, beyond time i.e. after 15-06-

2016, since for new colleges after said date no proposal can be

accepted.

6. It is contended that the petitioner cannot be

blamed for alleged delay as the University had not done its bit

WP-8017_ 2016.odt

pursuant to the order passed by this court on 23-02-2016.

Had the communication been received earlier, the reason for

which the request of petitioner is declined, would not have

occurred at all. Learned counsel purports to submit that for

aforesaid, the petitioner cannot be faulted with as

communication by the University had been issued belatedly

and that amount had been tendered almost immediately. He

submits that the matter had travelled further and pursuant

to the perspective plan of 2016-2020, while there had been

need of a college at the place where the petitioner had applied

for, a proposal by other institution has been accepted and the

same has also been challenged in the present matter. Over

and above aforesaid, he submits that in the further

perspective plan of 2021-2025, the village of petitioner is

included showing need of a senior college and in the

circumstances, the proposal which has been submitted in the

year 2010, be considered.

7. He submits that the proposal submitted by it

should be deemed to be alive for the subsequent perspective

plans. He purports to refer to and rely on a few orders viz; an

order passed on 28th December 2015 in a group of writ

petitions bearing nos. 12395 of 2015 and companion matters

WP-8017_ 2016.odt

as well as its confrmation vide order dated 23 rd February

2016. He further places reliance on the order dated 25 th

November 2019 in writ petition no. 4313 of 2019 whereunder,

the proposal submitted by petitioner therein for the academic

year 2019-2020, was directed to be considered for the

academic year 2020-2021.

8. In the present matter, the scenario is quite

different. Petitioner had in fact applied for the academic year

2011-2012 in the year 2010 pursuant to perspective plan for

the period 2011-2015. While proposal had been recommended

by the University, the same had been rejected by the State

and the court had directed the University to re-examine the

proposal of petitioner charging fees therefor within a period of

two months. Neither the University appears to have moved

within the period referred to by this court under its order nor

the petitioner had moved on insisting upon the University to

do its bit pursuant to the order and had let the period given

under order of this court lapse. It appears that the

University, after expiry of the period had issued a

communication to the petitioner and the petitioner as well it

does not appear had moved on immediately looking at that

the communication had been received on 04-06-2016, it is

WP-8017_ 2016.odt

only on 18-06-2016 there was tender of amount, by which

time effect under the government stipulation referred to in

impugned order intervened and the proposals after the period

referred to thereunder were not to be considered.

9. It further appears that pursuant to perspective

plan for the year 2016-2020, there had been proposals

invited, proposal of present respondent no. 5 had been

examined, recommended, considered and accepted. It appears

that respondent no. 5 has already started functioning from

academic year 2019-2020 and has been running a senior

college since then. Said institution is running a senior college

at the place where the petitioner had applied for.

10. The order in writ petition no. 4313 of 2019 (supra)

appears to have been on the background that for the

academic year 2019-2020 there had been letter of intent

issued to respondent no.3 therein. However, said letter of

intent had been cancelled and negatived and there had been

no proposal considered in respect of a place for which

proposals were made and while the period for making

proposal had expired for the year 2020-2021. Since the letter

of intent to respondent no. 3 had been cancelled, it was in

WP-8017_ 2016.odt

such a case, that a concession appears to have been indulged

into by the division bench.

11. Respondent no.5's contention is that in respect of

perspective plan for the year 2016-2020, the petitioner has

not insisted upon in time for consideration of its application.

In the process challenge being posed by petitioner to the

permission granted to respondent no. 5, wanes out and, thus,

is not sustainable.

12. There is no application moved by petitioner to

continue to consider its proposal for the perspective plan of

2021-2025 before any authority nor before this court. Such a

request is being made during submission now after expiry of

period.

13. Having regard to the background as referred to

above, the petitioner had applied in 2010 for the year 2011-

2012, which had not been considered under the earlier

perspective plan of 2016-2020, the request to consider a

proposal of 2010 for the perspective plan of 2021-2025 is

diffcult to be acceded to, while certain requirements /

lacunae in proposal of petitioner had been directed to be

WP-8017_ 2016.odt

examined and period of proposal from 2021-2025 appears to

have been over and further that while petitioner's proposal

had not at all been forwarded by University to State

Government.

14. The petitioner in not being diligent and not taking

timely steps including that for 2021-2025, it does not appear

to be a case wherein it can be said that the foundation

suffciently strong has been emerging to give indulgence to

petitioner under discretionary powers of this court. The

challenge fails. The petition, thus, crumbles down and is

dismissed. Rule discharged.

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)

VD_Dhirde

WP-8017_ 2016.odt

Para 8 [There is yet another perspective plan of 2021-2025

wherein need of senior college is shown and has arisen at the

place where petitioner had applied for in 2010. Pursuant to

the procedure, it does not appear that petitioner had made

any efforts to apply for the same within time] # shift.

Para 3 [ for 2011-2016 while in the perspective plan of 2016-

2020 as well the village had been included.] * shift