Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Va Aryogya Sanshodhan Prathisthan, Uamri Thr President v. The State Of Mah And ORS

1 6832.2012wp..doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO.6832 OF 2012 Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Va Aryogya Sanshodhan Prathisthan, Uamri, Taluka Bhokar, District Nanded .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Another ..Respondents ...

Shri K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.M. Ganachari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1/State Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent no.2 ...

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH & P. R. BORA, JJ.

Date : February 13, 2018 PER COURT :

1.

Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. He submits that, a proposal for year 2010-2011 had been recommended by the University to the government, however, the government had failed to take any decision. In the next academic year i.e. 2011-2012, the University had refused to send recommendation to State alleging that, the proposal submitted by petitioner had been deficient in many respects. He submits that, while on earlier occasion, the University had recommended the proposal of petitioner, rejection of the same in the next academic year is erroneous and he would like to file rejoinder to affidavit filed by the University pointing out deficiencies as a

2 6832.2012wp..doc reason for rejection of the proposal.

2.

Learned Counsel Shri.Chapalgaonkar appearing for the University states that, in 2017 there has been a fresh master plan according to amended Universities Act and in case the petitioner is interested, he may lodge a fresh application and that would be considered in accordance with the norms and the procedure prescribed, if the master plan accommodates college as desired by the petitioner.

3.

It thus appears that, with the passage of time the writ petition has lost its efficacy and the new master plan has come up under the amended Universities Act.

4.

In the circumstances, we do not consider that, writ petition would carry forward any purpose. Writ Petition, as such is not being entertained and is disposed of.

5.

It is open for petitioner to make a fresh proposal to be considered in accordance with norms, rules, regulations and procedure.

[ P.R. BORA ] [ SUNIL P. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE JUDGE ggpunde