[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dina Education Society vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 3 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra V Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:53598-DB
905-WP-5523-2010-(C).odt
Digitally signed
SUNNY
by SUNNY
ANKUSHRAO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ANKUSHRAO THOTE
THOTE Date:
2025.12.08
18:31:14 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5523 OF 2010
DINA EDUCATION SOCIETY
A Society and a Public Trust registered
under Societies Registration Act, 1860
and Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950
having its registered office at 504,
Brownea, Nyati Estate, Mohammadwadi,
Kondhwa, Pune - 411 028
Through its Director
Mr. Ajit Kumar Oberoi ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 01
2. Principal Secretary
Higher and Technical Education Dept.
Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya
Mumbai - 01
3. The Registrar,
University of Pune,
Ganeshkhind, Pune. ...Respondents
Mr. Shirish Pitre a/w Mr. Amol Ghuge, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for the
Respondent/State.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 3rd DECEMBER, 2025
SUNNY THOTE 1 of 11
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 21:49:20 :::
905-WP-5523-2010-(C).odt
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER RAVINDRA V GHUGE, J)
1. This matter is listed in the Prioritised Cases Category.
On 2nd December, 2025, a lengthy final hearing in this matter took
place. Due to paucity of time, we have posted this matter today for
dictating the Judgment.
2. The Petitioner is a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 as well as the Bombay Public Trust
Act, 1950. It imparts education in Hotel Management and
Management Courses.
3. The facts of the case can be summarised in brief, as
under :-
a) The Petitioner desired to start a Postgraduate 'Diploma
in Business Management' course ('PGDBM') in the
academic year 2007-2008.
b) Hence, a proposal dated 13th March, 2007 was
forwarded to the University of Pune (Presently the
Savitribai Phule Pune University).
c) The detailed proposal clearly mentioned that the
PGDBM course desired to be started in the Petitioner's
SUNNY THOTE 2 of 11
905-WP-5523-2010-(C).odt
college, was a Postgraduate 'Full-Time' diploma course.
d) The duration of the course was mentioned as two
years. The proposed fee was mentioned as Rs.30,000/- per
annum.
e) The University issued a communication dated 23rd
August 2007, by which a Local Inspection Committee
was constituted to inspect the Petitioner's Institution.
f) The Chairman of the Committee tendered the report on
29th August, 2007 to the University.
g) The recommendations indicate that the Committee was
of the unanimous opinion that the Petitioner can be
permitted to start the PGDBM course with the intake
capacity of 60 students for the year 2007-2008, subject to
certain conditions that were imposed as set out in the
report of the three Members Committee.
h) On 31st December, 2007, the Chairman of the said
Local Inspection Committee submitted yet one more
report clearly opining that the Petitioner had complied
with the conditions and on fulfillment of the same, it was
at liberty to start the course.
i) On 22nd December, 2007, the Petitioner informed the
SUNNY THOTE 3 of 11
905-WP-5523-2010-(C).odt
Chairman of the Committee that all the terms and
conditions mentioned in the second inspection report have
also been complied with.
j) On 4th March 2008, the Committee finally concluded
that all the conditions laid down by the Committee have
been complied with by the Petitioner/Institution.
k) In pursuance thereof, the Pune University issued a
communication dated 20th September 2007, granting
approval for the first academic year 2007-2008 and
permitting the intake capacity of 60 students.
l) On 29th November 2008, the University again
informed the Petitioner that the approval was granted even
for the academic year 2008-2009.
4. In view of the above, it is obvious that the Petitioner
applied for starting a two years PGDBM course with the intake
capacity of 60 students per year, as a full-time course and the
University granted the said proposal after the Local Inspection
Committee conducted three inspections of the Institution and finally
concluded that it had all the infrastructure and the faculty for
starting the said course.
SUNNY THOTE 4 of 11
905-WP-5523-2010-(C).odt
5. The State Government issued a Government Resolution
dated 5th July 2007, vide which the Petitioner was sanctioned the
permission for the PGDBM course. The intake capacity was
approved for 60 students and the course was declared to be part-
time for two years. Though belatedly, the Petitioner addressed the
Department of Higher and Technical Education by a communication
dated 9th September 2008, indicating that the State had committed a
mistake in mentioning that the PGDBM course was part-time,
instead of full-time. Attention was drawn to the Government
Resolution dated 14th August 2008, wherein the State Government
had informed the Petitioner that the PGDBM course was approved
even for the academic year 2008-2009, wherein the words part-time
were not mentioned. The concerned Department of the State
Government issued a Government Resolution on 1st April 2009,vide
which, the words part-time were deleted from the approval granted
to the Petitioner and the mistake was corrected.
It is, therefore, clear that after granting approval to the
Petitioner to start a full-time PGDBM course with an intake capacity
of 60 students per year, the State Government corrected its mistake
vide the Government Resolution dated 1st April, 2009 by deleting
the words 'part-time', which were inadvertently entered in the
SUNNY THOTE 5 of 11
905-WP-5523-2010-(C).odt
Government Resolution dated 5th July, 2007.
6. The Petitioner has relied upon the circular no.39 of
2010, published by the University of Pune as regards information
regrading conditions of eligibility for various University courses.
The PGDBM course was declared to be a two years part-time
course. The said brochure is with regard to the academic years
2010-2011, wherein the PGDBM course was declared to be a two
years part-time course. There is no dispute on this aspect. However,
the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that for the year
2010-2011, the Petitioner had already discontinued its PGDBM
course and in fact, did not conduct the course and did not admit
students from the year academic year 2009-2010.
7. The learned Advocate for the University of Pune has
made a strenuous effort to convince us that the University, by
mistake or out of inadvertence, did not mention in the approval
order that the Petitioner would operate the course as a part-time
course. He submits that the University has granted such approvals to
several Institutions clearly stating 'PT' meaning 'part-time' with
reference to the PGDBM courses operated by the several
SUNNY THOTE 6 of 11
905-WP-5523-2010-(C).odt
Institutions. The Petitioner does not dispute this contention.
However, the learned Advocate for the University submits that
though the Petitioner's proposal for starting a 'Full-Time' (FT)
course was accepted and was approved by the University as well as
the State Government, it was a mistake.
8. The Petitioner draws our attention to the inquiry
conducted by a Special Committee constituted by the University
under the Chairmanship of Professor A.G. Gosavi with two
Members, namely Principal Nandkumar Nikam and Dr. Captain
Chandrashekhar Chitale. On 9th February, 2009 the said Committee
tendered its report to the University clearly recording a finding that
the PGDBM course tailored by the Petitioner and which was
operated for two academic years, was a full-time course. It was also
clarified that nowhere does it appear that the said course was part-
time. These recommendations of the three Members Committee
were accepted by the Academic Council, which passed a Resolution
No.133/060609, on 6th June, 2009 and confirmed the conclusions.
9. In view of the above, we find that all along, the
statutory record indicates that the Petitioner asked for an approval to
SUNNY THOTE 7 of 11
905-WP-5523-2010-(C).odt
start a full-time PGDBM course of two years with the intake
capacity of 60 students and the same was granted by the University
as well as by the State Government. The mistake committed by the
State Government in mentioning the course to be 'part-time', in the
Government Resolution dated 5th July 2007, was corrected by the
Government Resolution dated 1st April, 2009.
10. It is surprising that, thereafter, the State Government is
said to have issued one more Government Resolution dated 1st July,
2009, cancelling the earlier Government Resolution dated 1st April,
2009 and restoring the Government Resolution dated 5th July, 2007,
by defining the course to be a part-time course. This Government
Resolution was issued when the Petitioner had already closed down
the course from the academic year 2009-2010.
11. In view of the above, this Petition was actually
rendered of an academic interest. We would not have ventured into
adjudicating upon the grievance of the Petitioner as voiced in the
following prayers :-
"(b) Declare that the course of PGDBM run and
conducted by the Petitioner Institute with effect from
Academic year 2007-08 is a Full-time course, and not
SUNNY THOTE 8 of 11
905-WP-5523-2010-(C).odt
part-time in nature.
(c) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ thereby
quashing and setting aside the resolution passed by the
Management Council of University of Pune in its
meeting on 6/11/2009, and Circular of University dated
17/11/2009, resolving that the PGDBM course run at
University of Pune was a Part-time course.
(d) Issue writ of certiorari of any other writ order or
direction in the nature of certiorari and the impugned
order dated 5/4/2010 passed by Respondent No.2 may
please be quashed and set aside.
(e) Declare that, the fees structure fixed by the
Hon'ble Shikshan Shulka Samiti for the Academic Year
2007-08 and 2008-09 be upheld and continue."
12. However, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner
apprised us that because of the mess created by the University as
well as the Government, the Petitioner faced a First Information
Report lodged by the certain students alleging forgery invoking
Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The Chairman and
the Senior Office Bearers of the Petitioner/Institution did not get
anticipatory bail and were in jail for 11 long days. Later on, the
Sessions Court granted regular bail to the Accused. Thereafter, the
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune has stayed the trial vide order
dated 3rd May, 2014 in Cri. Revision No.63 of 2014. Besides the
criminal case, the Petitioner is facing a proceeding before the
SUNNY THOTE 9 of 11
905-WP-5523-2010-(C).odt
Consumer Forum filed by the students seeking recovery of alleged
excess fees, because the Petitioner charged each student @
Rs.1,15,000/- per year and the Shikshan Shulka Samiti fixed the
fees @ Rs.91,400/- per year.
13. In view of the above, on considering the confusion
created by the University and the State Government, we are granting
the benefit to the Petitioner, who cannot be faulted for the reason
that the Petitioner had clearly sought approval for starting a full-
time course. The Local Inspection Committee inspected the
Institution on three occasions and approved that the Institution was
ready to start the course. The approval was granted to the proposal
(for full time course) without mentioning that it is a part-time course
and the State Government corrected its mistake of terming it as a
part-time course by issuing the Government Resolution dated 1st
April, 2009 declaring that it is a full-time course. This was
scrutinized under the Chairmanship of Professor A.G. Gosavi
Committee, which confirmed that the academic curriculum was for
a full-time course, cancelling this Government Resolution
subsequently on 1st July, 2009 was of no consequence because the
Petitioner had already discontinued the course from the academic
SUNNY THOTE 10 of 11
905-WP-5523-2010-(C).odt
year 2009-2010.
14. We, therefore, hold only for academic purpose, that the
course conducted by the Petitioner shall be deemed to be a full time
two years course.
15. In view of the above conclusions, this Writ Petition is
partly allowed. Insofar as the excess fess are concerned, the said
issue is sub judice before the Consumer Forum and we do not intend
to opine on the same. Rule is made partly absolute, accordingly.
16. We clarify that this Judgment is delivered in the
peculiar facts of this case and shall not be cited as a precedent.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
SUNNY THOTE 11 of 11
