Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, ... vs State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14143 Bom

                                                                                        1
                                                                           wp1995.2021.odt

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

                               WRIT PETITION NO.1995/2021

 1.       Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
          a Society registered under the provisions
          of the Societies Registration Act, 1860,
          having its registered office at Chaitanya
          Building, Camp Amravati 444 602,
          through its Secretary.

 2.       The Principal, Vidarbha Youth Welfare
          Society's Polytechnic Badnera, Anjangaon
          Bari Road, Badnera, Dist. Amravati.                                   ..Petitioners.


                   ..Vs..

 1.       The State of Maharashtra, through its
          Secretary, Department of Higher and
          Technical Education, Mantralaya,
          Mumbai 400 032.

 2.       The Secretary, Maharashtra State Board
          of Technical Education, Government
          Polytechnic Building, 4th Floor, 49 Kherwadi,
          Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051.                                      ..Respondents.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Mr. Ranjeet D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for the petitioners.
          Mr. Neeraj R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
          Mr. Pratik R. Puri, Advocate for respondent No.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                            ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATED :- 30.9.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent.

wp1995.2021.odt

2. Petitioner No.1 is a society which runs petitioner No.2 college.

Petitioner No.2 is the college which offers diploma in four engineering

courses such as Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Computer

Technology and Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that with onslaught of

changing time, respondent No.2 college had seen a consistent decline

in admissions of the students so much so that a point was reached by

respondent No.2 college that it was no longer feasible for it to run the

college and offer diploma in the aforestated courses to the students.

Therefore, after taking into account all the relevant factors, petitioner

No.1 society resolved to close down petitioner No.2 college in a

progressive manner. Accordingly, a proposal was prepared and it was

decided to be sent to respondent No.1 for seeking its approval.

However, for such approval to be made, no objection must be given by

respondent No.2 - State Board of Technical Education. Accordingly,

the proposal was sent to it together with a request for grant of no

objection and forward the same to the State Government along with

consent of respondent No.2.

4. Respondent No.2 responding to the request, constituted an

Inspection Committee which paid visit to respondent No.2 and

inspection report of the inspection was prepared by the Inspection

wp1995.2021.odt

Committee on 24.3.2021 and was sent to respondent No.2. The

report did not contain any recommendation for any closure of the

college on account of certain deficiencies noted in the report.

Accordingly, by communication dated 31.3.2021, respondent No.2

informed the petitioner that no objection was refused on two grounds,

namely, (i) petitioner No.1 society did not make any provision for

providing of compensation or alternate employment to the employees

who would be affected by closure of the college and (ii) there were

several court cases which were pending.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners

that the copy of the inspection report was not furnished to the

petitioners and no opportunity to explain the objections taken by the

Inspection Committee was made available to the petitioners and,

therefore, the decision taken by respondent No.2 is illegal as being

violative of principles of natural justice. This has been disagreed to by

learned counsel for respondent No.2 who submits that the report has

been prepared by the Inspection Committee only on the basis of the

information given by the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners

cannot say that there was no opportunity of hearing granted to them.

6. Learned A.G.P. submits that an appropriate order may be passed

in the matter.

wp1995.2021.odt

7. Dealing with the argument of learned counsel for respondent

No.2 we must say that it does not appeal to reason. Preparation of

report by an Inspection Committee on the basis of the information

provided by the party subjected to inspection is one-thing and forming

an opinion on the basis of information provided by such party is

another. Here, information necessary for preparation of the report

may have been furnished by the petitioners, rather it ought to have

been furnished by the petitioners, that was their duty, but, the

furnishing and analyzing of the information and making necessary

conclusions as a result of the analysis made, was the duty of the

Inspection Committee which it did. Therefore, when the conclusions

are drawn on the basis of the information and the conclusions are

adverse to the interest of the party inspected, the law requires that the

affected party is given an opportunity to explain and clarify its stand

in the matter before adverse inferences and conclusions are made

against it. If necessary, such party is also required to be given an

opportunity of hearing. In the present case, both these requirements of

law have been ignored by respondent No.2.

8. If one goes through the objections taken in the inspection

report, one would find that these objections, essentially in the nature

of conclusions, are not even consistent with the information provided

by the petitioners. The petitioners had made it clear that they were

wp1995.2021.odt

already ready with the plan to absorb the employees of the college

sought to be closed in some other colleges being run by the petitioner

No.1 society. This information has been ignored in the inspection

report and the conclusion made in this regard by the Committee is

that the college has not made any concrete plan as required under

Section 35 of the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education Act

for making some effective alternate arrangement to take care of the

interest of its employees. When the petitioners have made a statement

and have also given an undertaking that they would certainly make

alternate arrangements for absorption of their employees elsewhere, it

does not sound logical to say that the petitioners have not come out

with any plan for providing a viable alternative to the affected

employees. The second conclusion which has gone against the

petitioners is that some court cases are pending. In fact, as per the

undertaking given by the petitioners which is not disputed by the

respondents, details of all the court cases were already supplied to the

members of the Inspection Committee and, therefore, Inspection

Committee was duty-bound to examine each of these pending court

cases and decide as to whether or not pendency of all of them or some

of them or any of them would have affected closing of petitioner No.2

college. The Inspection Committee, however, has not made any effort

in this regard and it could not have made it in the absence of any

wp1995.2021.odt

explanation sought from the petitioners and given by them to

respondent No.2 Board.

9. Thus, we are of the view that it was the requirement of law that

opportunity of hearing was required to be granted to the petitioners

and same having not been granted to the petitioners, the impugned

communication cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

10. In the result, we allow the petition.

11. The impugned communication is hereby quashed and set aside.

We grant liberty to the petitioners to make and submit suitable

representation / explanation as regards the inspection report to

respondent No.2 within three days from the date of the order and on

receipt of the same by respondent No.2, we direct respondent No.2 to

consider it after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners

and decide the proposal of the petitioners regarding closure of

petitioner No.2 college within a period of two weeks from the date of

receipt of the representation / explanation. Rule accordingly. No

costs.

                               JUDGE                                   JUDGE


 Tambaskar.