Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And ANR. v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

1 902-wp-13015.2016-group.sxw hvn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition NO. 13015 OF 2016 Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. Petitioner(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 13033 OF 2016 Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. Petitioner(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 13016 OF 2016 Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. Petitioner(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 13017 OF 2016 Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. Petitioner(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 13018 OF 2016 Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. Petitioner(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 13019 OF 2016 Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. Petitioner(s) WITH Writ Petition NO.

13020 OF 2016 Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. Petitioner(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 13021 OF 2016 Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. Petitioner(s) WITH Writ Petition NO.

2 902-wp-13015.2016-group.sxw Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Petitioner(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 13033 OF 2016 Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Petitioner(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 13034 OF 2016 Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Petitioner(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 13035 OF 2016 Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Petitioner(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 13036 OF 2016 Association Of Management Of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Maharashtra And Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Mr. Vijay Thorat a/w Ms. Pooja V.Thorat and Mr. Anuku Seth for the petitioners.

Mr. S.S. Patwardhan a/w Mr. A. Magdum for R. No. 3. Mr. Vikas Mali. AGP for R. No. 1.

Mr. R.V. Govilkar a/w Mr. Mihir Govilkar for R. No. 2. CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2016.

P.C.

3 902-wp-13015.2016-group.sxw Parties through their counsel.

2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the provisional approval was granted to the admission of the students made by the petitioner at college level counselling, subsequently in the meeting held on 27.7.2016, respondent no. 3 Admission Regulatory Authority recorded the fact that the earlier approval was mistakenly granted and as such withdrew the approval of the admission of the students given in college level CET for the academic year 2015-16.

3.

Having considered the submissions made by the parties we find that initially the provisional approval was granted to the petitioner college for admissions made by it at College Level Counselling. In pursuance to which admissions were given to the students. However, the same have been cancelled without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the ground that the approval was mistakenly granted.

4.

In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent no. 3 for taking a fresh decision regarding approval after issuing show cause notice to the petitioners and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 5.

As a result of the setting aside of the impugned decision dated 27.7.2016 passed by the Admission Regulatory Authority,

4 902-wp-13015.2016-group.sxw the communication dated 2.9.2016 Exh. C issued by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences also deserve to be and is hereby set aside. All consequences including the declaration of the results of the students shall follow.

6.

Needless to say that the admissions which have been made by the petitioners shall be subject to further decision as may be taken by the respondent no. 3. All the questions are left open including the right of the petitioner to assail the decision of the Committee, if it is adverse.

7.

With the above directions, Writ Petitions are disposed of. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)