Bombay High Court
Mithilesh Gyanprakash Pande And ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, ... on 26 November, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
1 MCA No.590.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 590 OF 2021 (FOR REVIEW)
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6692 OF 2018 (D)
Mr. Mithilesh Gyanprakash Pande and Ors.,
..VS..
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Shri R. S. Sundaram, Advocate for applicants.
Shri N. R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
Nos.1 & 2.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED : 26.11.2021
1. Heard.
2. During the course of the argument, Shri Sundaram,
learned counsel for the review applicant, who is the
original petitioner No.1, has invited our attention to the
provisions made in Section 121 of the Maharashtra
Public Universities Act, 2016 (for short the 'Act of 2016')
and submitted that no decision in this case to recommend
the closure was taken actually by the academic council
and that the NOC was issued by different authority of the
University, not contemplated under Section 121 of the
Act of 2016. He also submitted that although it was the
requirement of Section 121 that the recommendation
regarding closure of the college was made after arriving
at subjective satisfaction based upon the material
produced before it, no such subjective satisfaction was
reflected in the impugned NOC issued by the authority of
the University. It is also submitted that Sub-Section (4) of
Section 121 contemplates preparation of report regarding
payment of damages or compensation to be recovered
from the management from the assets created utilizing
fund provided by the UGC, the State Government or
other public agencies and in the present case, the NOC
challenged did not refer to any such report having been
prepared before the NOC was issued, which has affected
the right of the review applicant to receive compensation
and also other benefits, to which he is entitled under the
provisions of Act of 2016 and various statues/directions
of the University including direction No.55.
3. Shri Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader
submits that all these arguments were not made by the
learned counsel who represented the petitioners in this
case and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any
manifest error in the judgment sought to be reviewed.
4. Upon a careful consideration of the judgment
sought to be reviewed, we cannot but agree with the
submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
The above referred arguments were not made before us
and what was sought to be argued and what was
considered was primarily the question of payment of
compensation as a pre-condition for issuance of NOC
regarding closure of college and this point was answered
by finding that there is no such provision made in Section
121 of the Act of 2016 which requires compensation to
be paid first before the NOC regarding closure is issued.
5. In view of above, we find that there is no merit in
the review application and it deserves to be dismissed.
6. Before parting with the order, we would like to
make it clear that in the judgment sought to be reviewed,
this Court never recorded any finding as regards the
entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to receive
compensation and/or other benefits as are or would be
made available to the petitioner under the provisions of
Act of 2016 and also various statutes and directions of
the University. It would then follow that the review
applicant/original petitioner No.1, would be at liberty to
pursue an appropriate remedy for asserting all his rights
in respect of payment of compensation and making
available all other benefits as are or which may be
provided under the Act of 2016 and other applicable
rules/statues and directions, receivable from the
management.
7. The review application is dismissed subject to the
above referred clarification. No costs.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.753 OF 2021.
In view of dismissal of the review application, this
application does not survive and hence it is disposed of
accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kirtak
