[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dr Vishal Gangadhar Naranje vs The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The Sec. ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
TRUPTI
2026:BHC-AS:2488-DB
SADANAND
BAMNE
Digitally signed by
TRUPTI SADANAND
BAMNE
Date: 2026.01.20 wp-10058-2024-12.odt
11:08:19 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10058 OF 2024
Dr.Vishal Gangadhar Naranje ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
...
Mr.Pranav Bhoite for the Petitioner.
Ms.Priyanka Chavan, AGP for the Respondent -State.
Mr.Rajendra Anbhule for Respondent No.4- University.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 16, 2026
P.C:
1. By an order passed by this Court [Coram: Nitin Jamdar (as
His Lordship then was ) & M.M.Sathaye, JJ.] dated 25.07.2024, the
Petitioner was permitted to give notice to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, which
is the Management, and to file an affidavit of service. The office remarks
dated 27.11.2024 and 13.01.2026, indicate that the affidavit of service
was filed on 16.08.2024 and that the office objections have been
removed.
2. The Court Sheristedar points out from Part II of the file that
the Petitioner has also tendered a printout of the tracking report along
Trupti ...1
wp-10058-2024-12.odt
with two original postal receipts of having served Respondent Nos. 6 and
7 by Speed Post A.D. The tracking report indicates that the items were
delivered on 14.08.2024. Despite this, no appearance has been entered on
behalf of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
3. The Petitioner makes a simple prayer that the order dated
14.08.2020, passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee under Section
79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 has still not been
implemented by the management. Reliance is placed on a final order
dated 15.07.2025 delivered by this Court, to which one of us (Ravindra V.
Ghuge, J.) was a party, in Writ Petition No. 14685 of 2024 and other
connected Writ Petitions (Babasaheb Dyanoba Garje Versus Chaudhary
Atar Singh Yadav Memorial Education Trust through its President & Ors.).
The Petitioner draws our attention to the reference made therein to the
Penalties Uniform Statutes, and more particularly to paragraphs 5 to 21 of
the said order, which read as under:
"5. Keeping in view the common grievance of
these Petitioners before us, we deem it appropriate to
issue certain guidelines in light of the Uniform
Statute No. 1 of 2019, which is brought into effect by
the Notification dated 1st January, 2019 issued under
the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, by the
Higher and Technical Education Department. The
short title of the said Statute No. 1 of 2019 is "the
Maharashtra Public Universities (Penalties to be
imposed upon Erring Affiliated Colleges/Recognized
Trupti ...2
wp-10058-2024-12.odt
Institutions) Uniform Statutes 2018" (hereinafter
referred to as "the Penalties Uniform Statutes"). The
Department of Higher and Technical Education has
introduded the said Statute. It would be apposite to
reproduce the same, more particularly clauses 2(1-
10), 3(1-9), 4(1-8) and 5, hereunder:-
"2. Violation of Conditions. -- An affiliated college or
recognised institution or the management thereof, as
the case may be, shall be liable for disciplinary action
if it,--
(1) violates any of the conditions of
affiliation/recognition as prescribed in sub-section of
section 108 of the Act;
(2) acts in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the
University and/or acts detrimental to the educational
standards;
(3) submits eligibility forms, examination forms or
any other forms beyond the date prescribed;
(4) neglects to take due care to maintain peaceful
and proper atmosphere during the conduct of
examinations;
(5) neglects to exercise due care in the smooth,
proper and strict conduct of the examinations,
leading to the instances of the mal-practices or
adoption of unfair-means at the examination centres
of the affiliated college or recognised institution ;
(6) permits or encourages directly or indirectly mal-
practices in the conduct of examinations;
(7) collects unauthorized or higher fees from the
students ;
(8) neglects to take appropriate disciplinary action as
directed by the University against the Principal/
Director/teachers or other employees as per the
Trupti ...3
wp-10058-2024-12.odt
relevant provisions in the Statute, Standard Code, or
any other rules for the time being in force, as the
case may be ;
(9) neglects to implement or comply with the
decisions of the Grievances Redressal Cells of the
University constituted under the relevant provisions
of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016
(Mah. Act. No. VI of 2017), appropriately and
promptly ;
(10) commits any other act which, in the opinion of
the Management Council, is an act violating the
conditions of affiliation/recognition, as the case may
be, and/or other rules or directives or orders of the
University.
3. Penalties.--The Management Council may impose
any one or more of the following penalties upon the
affiliated college or recognised institution or the
management thereof, as the case may be, which if
found guilty of an act of violation of any of the
conditions specified in clause 2, commensuration
with the gravity of an act of violation of conditions,
namely :--
(1) warning/reprimand ;
(2) a fine not less than rupees ten thousand and not
exceeding rupees ten lakh ;
(3) prohibition to continue unauthorized division or
course beyond the respective academic year ;
(4) prohibiting the students to complete the
unauthorized course or to appear for examination;
(5) denial to accept the eligibility forms,
examinations forms or any other forms submitted
beyond the prescribed date ;
Trupti ...4
wp-10058-2024-12.odt
(6) discontinuation of the centre for conducting the
examinations for a specified period;
(7) a fine of the amount equivalent to five times the
total fees charged to the students admitted in excess
along with the reduction in the strength in the
courses or divisions or students for the subsequent
years) not more than number of courses or divisions
or students admitted in excess of the permitted
strength for that academic year;
(8) suspension of affiliation or recognition, as the
case may be, and prohibiting new admissions of the
students to the courses;
(9) any other punitive action, as it may deem fit.
4. Procedure to Impose Penalties. --
(1) Upon receipt of a complaint, or suo motu, if the
Board of Deans is, prima-facie, satisfied that the
affiliated college or recognised institution or the
management thereof, as the case may be, has
committed violation of any of the conditions
provided in clause 2, it shall issue a notice to the
management of the erring affiliated college or
recognised institution about alleged act of violating
conditions and shall require the management to
submit written explanation to the Pro-Vice-
Chancellor, within a period of fifteen days. A copy of
such notice shall also be sent to the Principal of the
affiliated college or Head of the recognised
institution, as the case may be ;
(2) In case the management fails to submit the
written explanation within the stipulated period or
admits the acts of violation of conditions indicated in
the notice, the Board of Deans shall submit its report
to the Management Council for deciding the
quantum of penalties to be imposed upon the erring
affiliated college or recognised institution or the
management thereof, as the case may be ;
Trupti ...5
wp-10058-2024-12.odt
(3) If the management does not admit the acts of
violation of conditions indicated in the notice, the
Management Council shall appoint a committee to
cause an inquiry into the matter ;
(4) The inquiry committee shall offer reasonable
opportunity to be heard to the University and to the
management of the erring affiliated college or
recognised institution to present their respective
claims, with oral and documentary evidence. The
inquiry committee shall record its findings on each
act of violation of conditions indicated in the notice
and shall also record the reasons for such findings.
The inquiry committee shall complete the inquiry
and submit the report to the Management Council,
within thirty days from date of its constitution;
(5) The Management Council on the basis of the
findings of the inquiry committee shall decide to
impose, any or all of the penalties and fines
prescribed in clause 3, as it may deem fit;
(6) Upon the Management Council deciding the
quantum of penalties, the Board of Deans shall issue
the management of the erring affiliated college or
recognised institution, a final notice to show cause as
to why penalty as decided by the Management
Council should not be imposed on it and shall require
the management to submit the writien explanation
within a period of fifteen days. On receipt of the
written explanation and or in absence thereof, the
Board of Deans shall place the notice and the written
explanation before the Management Council in its
ensuing meeting, which shall, after taking
consideration of the cause shown by the
management of the erring affiliated college or
recognised institution, decide the quantum of penalty
to be imposed ;
(7) The Board of Deans shall inform the
management of the erring affiliated college or
Trupti ...6
wp-10058-2024-12.odt
recognised institution, of the penalty so imposed,
within fifteen days from the date of decision of the
Management Council ;
(8) If the management fails to comply with the order
of the University imposing penalty, without any
reasonable cause, within the period specified in the
order, or within such further period as may be
allowed by the University, the management, shall be
liable to pay-
(a) the fine which may extend to five thousand
rupees per day, for the first default ;
(b) the fine which may extend to ten thousand
rupees per day, for the second and subsequent
defaults.
5. Effect of Imposition of Penalty. -- Imposition of
the penalty under this Statute does not imply in any
event that the irregularity committed by the erring
affiliated college/recognized institution or the
management thereof, as the case may be, is
regularised or waived. By order and in the name of
the Governor of Maharashtra, SIDHARTH KHARAT,
Joint Secretary to Government."
6. It is beyond debate that any order of the Grievances
Committee, which exercises quasi-judicial functions,
against the College, can be assailed, by the
Management, before the learned Single Judge Bench, in
accordance with Rule 18 under Chapter XVII, of the
Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. If it is
against the Employee, he can approach the College and
University Tribunal u/s 81.
7. If the University does not obey the order of
the Grievances Committee, in the absence of a
challenge to the same before the learned Single Judge
Bench or if no interim relief is granted by the said
Court, the Employee, who is the beneficiary of the
Grievances Committee's orders, usually approach this
Trupti ...7
wp-10058-2024-12.odt
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking a Writ of Mandamus to command the
Universities/Authorities to ensure that the decision of
the Grievances Committee is implemented. We find
that, seldom have the Employees followed the 'Penalties
Uniform Statute' for seeking implementation of such
orders/decisions.
8. There is no debate that under the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the decision of the
Grievances Redressal Committee (GRC), as it was then
nomenclatured, used to be placed before the
Management Council for ratification. The said decision
became executable only after the Management Council
approved it. Under the Maharashtra Public Universities
Act, 2016, if the Complainant is aggrieved by the order
of the Grievances Committee, he can approach the
College and Universities Tribunal. If the Management is
aggrieved by the decision of the Grievances Committee,
it has to approach the learned Single Judge Bench of
this Court.
9. We find from the various clauses of the
Penalties Uniform Statutes that they are well equipped
to empower the Universities to initiate appropriate
action against the Management of Colleges, not only for
ensuring the implementation of the orders of the
Grievances Committee, but also for any neglect in
exercising due care in the smooth, proper and strict
conduct of the examination, which may lead to
instances of malpractice or the use of unfair means at
examination centers. We find that the grievances
brought before this Court by the Petitioners are
addressed under Clauses 2(9) and 2(10), 3(1) to 3(9),
4(1) to 4(8), and Clause 5 of the 'Penalties Uniform
Statutes'.
10. Clause 2(9) pertains to the neglects to implement
or comply with the decisions of the Grievances
Redressal Cells, promptly and appropriately. The last
words in clause 2(9), indicate that it is the duty of the
University to ensure that any act of a College or
Trupti ...8
wp-10058-2024-12.odt
Authority, of not implementing the decisions of the
Grievances Committee, appropriately and with
promptitude, can be considered as a violation of the
conditions, which could lead to a disciplinary action
against the affiliated Colleges or Recognized
Institutions. Under Clause 3, Penalties of a simple
warning/reprimand and a fine not less than Rs.
10,000/- and not exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs, can also be
imposed on erring Colleges. Clause 3 (9) allows the
University to initiate any other punitive action as it may
deem fit, which is a clear indication that the various
penalties prescribed, are only illustrative in nature and
not exhaustive.
11. Clause (4) prescribes the procedure to impose
penalties, on receiving a complaint or even suo motu.
This would indicate that a University can keep a watch
on the non-implementation of the directions of the
Grievances Committee and can also initiate suo motu
action against an erring Management.
12. The learned Advocate, Mr. Kulkarni, has
contended that there is a possibility that some
Management may find it convenient to pay the fine and
get away with the non-implementation of the order of
the Grievances Committee. We are of the view that such
a situation has an answer in Clause (5), which indicates
that imposition of the penalties under this Statute does
not imply in any event that the irregularity committed
by the erring affiliated Colleges/Recognised Institution
or the Management thereof, as the case may be, is
regularized or waived.
13. The gamut of the grievance of the Petitioners
is that after the Grievances Committee delivers its
verdict, the University is under the impression that
nothing more is required to be done. They do not
pursue the matter for ensuring compliance of its
directions. The Management merely files a Petition in
the High Court and does not even circulate it.
Eventually, the beneficiaries of the Grievances
Committee's orders, are left high and dry.
Trupti ...9
wp-10058-2024-12.odt
14. We find that Clause 2(9) contains the words
"appropriately and promptly", with reference to the
implementation and compliance of the decisions of the
Grievances Committee. The language found in sub
clause (9) appears to be incorporated for ensuring that
the decision of the Grievances Committee is to be
implemented or complied with, appropriately and
promptly. Promptitude, therefore, is an obligation on
the College, as would be the appropriate
implementation of the decisions. Whether an order has
been appropriately complied with, would be a matter of
debate as is rightly pointed out by the learned Senior
Advocate, Mr. Bapat, with a further submission that it
could be subjectively analysed as regards whether the
compliance is made appropriately.
15. We are of the view that since the 'Penalties'
and the 'Procedure to impose penalties', is an inbuilt
mechanism in the Penalties Uniform Statute, the
aggrieved parties can approach the Grievances
Committee once again and set into motion the
procedure for execution of the orders. Clause 4(1)
permits filing of a complaint or suo motu cognizance,
since the disobedience of the order of the Grievances
Committee is construed to be in violation of the
conditions of affiliation. An appropriate mechanism can
be followed by the University under clause (4) for
execution of the orders. The grievance of the
aggrieved party that the order of the Grievances
Committee is not appropriately implemented, could
also be looked into by a Competent Authority as is
prescribed under the said Statute.
16. Clause 4(1) indicates a violation of the
conditions mentioned in clause (2). Clause 2(9) deals
with the neglect to implement or comply with the
decisions of the Grievances Committee, appropriately
and with promptitude. Hence, such further grievances
of the aggrieved persons could also be taken up by the
Authority as is prescribed under clause (4), by
following a particular procedure to execute the orders.
Trupti ...10
wp-10058-2024-12.odt
17. Considering the Judgment delivered by this
Court on 2nd November, 2018, in Writ Petition No.
11906 of 2016 (Prakash Sambhaji Waghmare Vs. the
State of Maharashtra and others), no affiliated Colleges
or Institution can contend that it is not obliged to
implement the orders of the Grievances Committee.
18. In view of the above, Writ Petition No. 1246
of 2024 and Writ Petition No. 13437 of 2023, which
pertains to the assignment of the learned Single Judge,
shall stand segregated and the Registry is directed to
place these matters before the learned Single Judge.
19. Barring the above two Petitions, all other Writ
Petitions before us, stand disposed off with the
aforesaid observations and with the further direction to
every University in the State of Maharashtra, covered
under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, to
strictly abide by clause 2(9) read with clauses 3, 4 and
5 and initiate action against the Managements who
have, either ignored the orders of the Grievances
Committee, or have failed to challenge these orders and
are not responding even to the representations of the
Petitioners.
20. In the matters which are pending before the
learned Single Judge, either without being circulated or
pending for a long time without any ad-interim orders,
the beneficiaries of the Grievances Committee's orders
are always at liberty to approach the learned Single
Judge for seeking directions. In cases where the
Management claims that the orders of the Grievances
Committee have been complied with, the aggrieved
party is at liberty to invoke the provisions of the
Penalties Uniform Statutes, 2018, to seek appropriate
orders under the provisions enunciated therein.
21. Needless to state, since the decisions of the
Grievances Committees/Cells are expected by the
Uniform Penalties Statute to be implemented promptly
and appropriately, and in order to do justice to the
Trupti ...11
wp-10058-2024-12.odt
parties and to ensure that the orders of the Grievance
Committee are not rendered a mere paper
arrangement, we direct that a reasonable period for
implementation of the orders should be a period of 3
months from the date of the order or within such
period as may be ordered by the Committee, save and
except, in a case wherein an interim order is passed by
the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition filed by
the aggrieved Management."
4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner further submits that
he has neither received any notice from any Court regarding any
challenge by the management to the order of the Grievance Redressal
Committee dated 14.08.2020, nor has he been informed of any such
pending challenge. He, therefore, prays that the Petition be considered.
5. Despite service of Advocate's notice upon the Management,
pursuant to the order dated 25.07.2024, the Management has not
appeared before this Court.
6. The Petitioner is praying for a direction that the University
should initiate appropriate steps in view of the law laid down in
Babasaheb Dyanoba Garje (supra). In these circumstances, and in the
event the Management has not challenged the order of the Grievance
Redressal Committee dated 14.08.2020 as on date, this Writ Petition is
disposed off with the following directions:
Trupti ...12
wp-10058-2024-12.odt
(a) We direct the University to follow the view taken
and directions issued by this Court in Babasaheb
Dyanoba Garje (supra) and to initiate appropriate action
for seeking implementation of the order dated
14.08.2020 passed by the Grievance Redressal
Committee;
(b) It goes without saying that if the said order is
challenged by the management before the learned Single
Judge in light of Chapter XVII, Rule 18(41) of the
Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, this
order will lose its efficacy and all contentions of the
parties are kept open before the learned Single Judge.
(ABHAY J.MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Trupti ...13
