[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mr. Yash Pramesh Rana And 25 Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 15 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-OS:25004-DB
Digitally
signed by
GAURI
GAURI AMIT
AMIT GAEKWAD 12.WP-775-2014.odt
GAEKWAD Date:
2025.12.17
11:52:03
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.775 OF 2014
1. Mr. Yash Pramesh Rana of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant residing at C/1003,
Silver Leaf Society, Akurli Road,
Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400 101
2. Mr. Avirat Suhas Gaikwad of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant residing at A/61,
Mulund Sai Co-operative Housing
Society, Mhada Colony, Mulund (E),
Mumbai - 400 081
3. Sayori Sadanand Patil of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant residing at 19A/405,
Bimbisar Nagar, Goregaon (E),
Mumbai - 400 063
4. Mr. Jagtap Nitin Maruti of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant Residing at Plot No.
6/Q/5 Shivaji Nagar-II, Govandi,
Mumbai - 400 043
5. Mr. Prathamesh Premnath Salgaonkar
of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant residing at
208/26, Swa Sadan CHS, Sector-2,
Charkop, Kandivali (West),
Mumbai - 400 067
6. Mr. Praveen Hanumant Farande
of New Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant
residing at Osho Purushottam,
Plot No.23/24, Room No.402,
Sector-35, Kamothe, New Mumbai
7. Mr. Ravikumar M. Vanjara of Thane
Indian Inhabitant, Residing at A/203,
Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:34:58 :::
12.WP-775-2014.odt
Regency Apartments, Near Vijaya Bank
Akashi Road, Virar (W) - 401 303
8. Mr. Tejas Kiritkumar Rathod of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant, residing at 304,
Shreeram Jayram CHS Ltd.,
Near Balbharati School, S.V. Road,
Kandivali (W), Mumbai - 400 067
9. Mr. Sankhe Raj Nandakumar of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant, residing at 405,
Abhinav Vasant CHS Ltd., Vazira
Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai
10. Mr. Sankhe Tej Nandkumar of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant, residing at 405,
Abhinav Vasant CHS Ltd., Vazira
Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai
11. Mr. Swapneel U. Trimbake of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant, residing at K/4,
Saidham Building, Majas Road,
Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai - 400 060
12. Mr.Pankaj Vinayak Thik of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant, residing at Room
No.2, Hirasingh Rawat Chawl,
Jivalapada, Borivali (East),
Mumbai - 400 066
13. Mr. Neel Sunil Raut of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant, residing at 256,
Wavtewadi, Pimpalwadi, Near St. Peter
High School, Virar (East)
Dist. Thane - 401 305
14. Ms. Asmita Vilas Shivalkar of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant Residing at Asgar
Manzil, 3rd Floor, Room No.4, J. B.
Wadia Road, Parel, Bhoiwada,
Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:34:58 :::
12.WP-775-2014.odt
Mumbai - 400 012
15. Ms. Samiksha Milind Save of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant, residing at 267-C,
At Kurgaon, Post. Kundan, Tal. Palghar,
Dist. Thane - 401 502
16. Ms. Rucha Dhananjay Panchal of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant residing at B-5/1,
Sunder Nagar, Malad (West),
Mumbai - 400 064
17. Ms. Pratiksha Ramesh Gharat of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant residing at Nalimbi,
Post. Rayate Tal. Kalyan,
Dist. Thane - 421 301
18. Ms. Pooja Ashok Mangaonkar of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant residing at Bharati Housing
Society, 2/23, 90 Ft. Road, Tilak Nagar, Sakinaka,
Mumbai - 400 072
19. Mr. Sagar HARESH Makwana of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant residing at 6B, 2nd Floor,
Adarsh Bhuvan, Shree Nagar Society, M. G. Road,
Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 400 062
20. Ms. Janhavi Abhay Dudwadkar of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant residing at E-404, Ashray
Co-Op. Housing Society, Manish Park, Pump
House, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093
21. Ms. Meghna Kirtikumar Mandalia of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant residing at Flat No. 4, Chetna
Building, Vallabhbhai Road, Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai - 400 056
22. Mr. Nishant Devendra Panchal of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant residing at 32, Jyoti Nagar
Co-Op. Housing Society,) Off. R.T.O. Road,
Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:34:58 :::
12.WP-775-2014.odt
Near Four ) Bungalows, Andheri (West),
Mumbai - 400 053
23. Ms. Khushboo Ashok Kasavkar of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant residing at ) B-104, Neelyog
Apts. M. G. Cross Road No. 4,
Kandivali (West), Mumbai -400 067
24. Ms. Ashwini Shashikant Kamble of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant residing at 4/161, 18,
Sankalp Siddhi, Near Tardeo Bridge P. B. Marg,
Mumbai - 400 007
25. Mr. Mihir Nareshkumar Rathod of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant residing at Shantikunj,
Flat No.10, 15th Road,
Khar (West), Mumbai - 400 052
26. Runali Ashok Kamble of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant residing at A-404,
Shri Hari Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd.,
R.T.O. Lane, Four Bungalows,
Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 053 ....Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra through
Dept. of Social Welfare & Special Assistance,
Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai
(Notice be served through Government Pleader,
Original Side, High Court, Bombay)
2. Shree Vileparle Kelvani Mandal's
Dwarkadas J. Sanghvi College of
Engineering, having their office at
Plot No. U-15, JVPD Scheme,
Bhakti Vedanta Swami Marg,
Vile Parle (West), Mumbai - 400 056 ....Respondents
----
None for the Petitioners.
Mr. Milind More, Addl. GP for Respondent No.1.
Gauri Gaekwad 4 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:34:58 :::
12.WP-775-2014.odt
Ms. Manorama Mohanty a/w. Malika Mondal i/b. S.K. Srivastav
and Co. for Respondent No.2.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 15th DECEMBER, 2025
ORAL ORDER (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) :
1. This matter is listed in the "Prioritised Cases" category.
2. None present for the Petitioners, either in the Court hall
or through video conferencing.
3. We have perused the order of this Court dated
27th March 2019, whereby the issue involved was referred to a
Larger Bench. We have also perused the judgment of the Larger
Bench dated 29th May, 2020. Paragraph no.154 onwards and the
result (unnumbered paragraph) of the judgment of the Larger Bench,
read as under :
154. After going through the judgments rendered
by the Division Benches on the same issue, we
reckon Bhupendra has only held that it has "not
found" the Government action as violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution It does not elaborate
beyond that. To the same effect are Dudishwar
and Pravin Bhima Shinde.
Gauri Gaekwad 5 of 8
12.WP-775-2014.odt
155. In Mrudul the Division Bench has felt that
the petitioners have not pointed out that all of
them constitute one class Nor have they
contended that the State Government is duty
bound to provide free education to all of them. So
in the "absence of this contention or other
material on record," Mrudul has found it "difficult
to find fault with the Government decision.
Therefore, we hold that Mrudul turns on its own
facts; it contains no proposition of law that needs
correctional course.
156. In Sayali Shirish Nikumbh, a woman student
from SC community got the admission into
MBBS., at the "Institutional Level She was denied
the benefit. The Division Bench has held that as
she has availed herself of the institutional
admission channel, she "cannot be heard to say
that the tuition fees should be reimbursed." It has
accepted institutional admission as a different
category. But we have failed to notice any
demonstrable basis for that conclusion. So we
hold that Sayali Shirish Nikumbh has been
wrongly decided.
157. In Ajit Rajendra Bhagwat, after completing
three rounds of admission, some colleges had still
been left with unfilled seats. The Government
allowed those colleges to admit students into
those vacancies. The petitioners were admitted.
They were the students that failed to get
admission into colleges of their choice in the first
three rounds. The Division Bench has accepted
the dichotomy between the CAP admissions and
non-CAP admissions. We are afraid this case too
suffers the same shortcomings as Sayali Shirish
Nikumbh does and meets the same end: It is
wrongly decided.
Gauri Gaekwad 6 of 8
12.WP-775-2014.odt
158. That said, Association of Colleges has not
struck down or interfered with the policy. It has
held that the GR should not affect the students
that already secured admission.
Bapu Supadu Thorat and Article 141 of
Constitution of India:
159. Bapu Supadu Thorat ought to put the lid on
the controversy. It is the only decision that struck
down the GO and, later, was taken to the Supreme
Court. We have already discussed elaborately and
concluded that the Supreme Court has not only
dismissed the States' SLP but also considered the
case on the merits. The Apex Court's decision,
thus, has attracted Article 141 of the Constitution,
as per the criteria set out in Kunhayammad. So it
precedentially binds this Full Bench, too.
Result :
We, therefore, declare that the Government
Resolution, dt.27.09.2013, is arbitrary and
discriminatory It is set aside to the extent it
deprives the non-CAP SC students of the benefits.
As a corollary, we direct the Government to
reimburse "the education fees" and "the
examination fees (already paid or yet to be paid
by the students) to the petitioners.
4. In view of the above, especially the last paragraph
reproduced above, the Petitioners have already benefited under the
directions of the Larger Bench. In light thereof, this Petition is
disposed off.
Gauri Gaekwad 7 of 8
12.WP-775-2014.odt
5. In the event any of the Petitioners finds that either of
them have not received the benefits or have any issue with regard to
the computation of the benefits, they would be at liberty to avail of a
remedy as is permissible in law.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Gauri Gaekwad 8 of 8
