← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/339/2016disposed off

Gautam Educational Trust'S, Chanakya College Of Law, Thr. Trustee/Secretary v. Mr. Sitaram Kunte, The Secretary, Higher Education

2016-07-25Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Anuja Prabhudessai,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ranjit More.2 pages

11 Cp-st-18833-16.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (st) NO. 18833 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9749 OF 2015 Gautam Educational Trust's Chanakya College of Law.

..Petitioner v/s.

Mr. Sitaram Kunte & Ors.

..Respondents Mr. C.K.Thomas i/b. G.K.Thomas for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P. Kakde, AGP for the State.

Mr. Rui Rodriques for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,JJ.

DATED : JULY 25, 2016.

P.C.

1.

By this contempt petition, petitioner is seeking action against the respondents for breach of order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.9749 of 2015. By the said order, the respondent State was directed to consider the petitioners' application for starting new Law College (3 and 5 year courses) at Ulhasnagar, as provided under Section 82(5) of the Maharashtra pps

11 Cp-st-18833-16.doc University Act, without taking into consideration the Government Resolutions dated 29.4.2015 and 20.7.2015, in accordance with law. The respondent University was also directed to take appropriate action under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and consider granting of necessary permission to the petitioner's new Law College (3 and 5 year courses) in accordance with law. 2.

Mr.Kakde, learned AGP, placed on record communication dated 21.7.2016, from the Desk Officer to Government of Maharashtra in Higher and Technical Education Department to the Government Pleader, stating therein that the date of approval to all new colleges is extended from 15th July, 2016 to 31st July, 2016, and accordingly decision on the petitioner's said application would be taken. The communication is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. The statement made in the communication is accepted. 3.

In view of the assurance, we don't want to proceed further in the contempt petition. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) pps