← Library
Bombay High CourtRA/30/2015rejected at admission stage

The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary Higher And Technical Education Department, Mumbai v. Chatrapati Shikshan And Arogya Prasarak Mandal, Ahmednagar And Another

2015-03-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.V. Nirgude,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A. I. S. Cheema3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO.3828 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETTIION NO.4413 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Maharashtra State.

...APPLICANT (Ori. Respondent No.1)

VERSUS

1) Chatrapati Shikshan And Arogya Prasarak Mandal, Kharda, At Kharda, Tq-Jamkhed, Dist-Ahmednagar, through its Secretary (Ori. Petitioner)

2) Pune University, Pune, Through its Registrar.

...RESPONDENTS ...

Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Applicant.

Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No.1.

...

CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATE : 11TH MARCH, 2015 ORDER :

1.

Heard learned A.G.P. for Applicant and learned counsel for Respondent No.1.

2.

This Application seeks review of the order we passed on 26th August 2014 in Writ Petition No.4413 of 1999.

3.

The learned A.G.P. stated that while passing the order dated 26th August 2014, we did not take into account reply dated 11th August 2014 and letter dated 8th August 2014.

4.

Unfortunately, even after perusal of above two documents, we find that the State of Maharashtra did not say anything about the allegations made against them about which the Court had directed them to file reply. What was

alleged then was discriminatory treatment given to the original Petitioner as against other college of the same area to which permission was granted on 14th March 2001. The State of Maharashtra, despite opportunity, did not mention as to why permission was granted for opening new college on 14th March 2001 to another education society with condition that effort will be made to bring that College under grant-in-aid policy and why such permission did not amount to discrimination. In view of this, there is no reason to entertain the Review Application. Review Application is rejected.

[A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] asb/MAR15