Sanjay Shikshan Sanstha Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1966 Bom

                                        1                                 ca 1313.2021

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          907 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1313 OF 2021
                           WITH
         REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO. 540 OF 2021

                 SANJAY SHIKSHAN SANSTHA
                          VERSUS
           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                           ...
         Advocate for Applicant: Mr. Dodya S. G.
      AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. K. N. Lokhande
                           ...

                               CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                      SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

                               DATE:    29th JANUARY, 2021

 PER COURT:

1. Mr. Dodya, the learned Counsel submits that

the present Review Applicant was issued with the

Letter of Intent and he had the time in hand to

remove the deficiencies. After the Letter of

Intent was issued University has also recommended

the proposal of the petitioner for final sanction.

The Review Applicant was never made aware of the

deficiencies involved in the proposal. When the

final recommendation was made by the University

the applicant was under impression that no

deficiencies exist. According to the learned

2 ca 1313.2021

Counsel, if the permission is granted, then the

stipulation of time would not survive. The learned

Counsel further submits that the requirement of

registered Lease Deed or Fixed Deposit under

Scheduled Bank is not condition precedent for

grant of permission.

2. We have considered the submissions canvased

by the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

3. Writ Petition filed by the present non

applicant was allowed basically on two grounds -

(i) The Review Applicant did not submit the

registered Lease Deed of 3 acres of the land

and

(ii) The Review Applicant did not submit the

Fixed Deposit receipt of the Nationalised

Bank.

4. The present Review Applicant was issued with

the Letter of Intent on 31.01.2019. The Review

Applicant had time up to 31.01.2020 to remove the

deficiencies. It was observed by us under the

3 ca 1313.2021

judgment sought to be reviewed that the review

applicant did not possess Fixed Deposit in a

Scheduled Bank; his fixed deposit was in a Co-

operative Bank, the same was not a Scheduled Bank.

We also considered that the present review

applicant could not submit the registered Lease

Deed for 3 Acres of the land within the time

stipulated. The Review Applicant had submitted

Lease Deed of only 81 Are land. The Lease Deed was

also registered subsequently. On these grounds we

have disposed of the petition and passed the

judgment under Review.

5. The Review applicant could not demonstrate

that there was an error apparent of record.

6. In light of that, no ground for review is

made out.

7. Review Application with civil application are

disposed of.

[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

marathe