Sayali Charitable Trust Through Its Principal Abhijit Sureshrao Pohekar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6521 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8982 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7778 OF 2017 Sayali Charitable Trust's College of Pharmacy (Diploma) Gat No.141, 150, Nashik Road, Mitmita, Aurangabad Through its Principal Abhijit Sureshrao Pohekar, Age 34 years, Occu. Service, R/o N-2, A-44, Ramnagar, CIDCO, Aurangabad.
...
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1.
The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Higher Technical Education and Employment Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 2.
The Director of Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra, 3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai-400 001.
3.
The Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education Government Polytechnic Building, Kherwadi Bandra (East), Mumbai, Through its Director.
(Copy of respondent Nos.1 to 3 to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 4.
All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001, Through its Member Secretary,
5.
The Pharmacy Council of India, Through its Registrar Cum Secretary, Combined Council Building, Kotala Road, Ali Yavarjang Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
...
RESPONDENTS .....
Shri.V.D.Hon Senior Counsel instructed by Shri.A.V.Hon, Advocate for petitioner Shri.A.V.Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri.S.V.Adwant, Advocate for respondent No.4 Shri.Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.5 .....
CORAM:
ANOOP V. MOHTA AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED:
23rd June, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):
1.
The petitioner's education trust/ institution has filed the present writ petition again as the respondents, specifically respondents No.2 and 5, denying the prayed intake capacity, in spite of orders passed by this Court from time to time since 2014-2015 till this date permitting the petitioner's college by retaining intake capacity to the First Year Diploma in Pharmacy based upon the AICTE order/ approval for the respective years, including the academic year 2017-2018. We have noted all those orders passed by this Court, dated 9/7/2014, 30/6/2015 and 14/7/2015 and 27/6/2016. Therefore, there is no reason to discontinue the said position on facts, specifically when the AICTE
being a supreme authority, has accorded sanction so required including the intake capacity till this date. 2.
This Bench, in Writ Petition No.6259/2017 (Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra & others) and Writ Petition No.7706/2017 (Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal's Kamlatai College of Architecture Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.), considering the scheme, purpose and object of AICTE and its supremacy including the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court pending the issue of supremacy about AICTE and/or Pharmacy Council and subject to the Supreme Court decision, directed the respondents to grant affiliation/ permission to start college for academic year 2017-2018, as approved and sanctioned by AICTE. Therefore, for the same reason, and in view of above factual position on record, the writ petition is allowed to the following extent :
O R D E R (a) The Writ Petition is allowed. in terms of prayer clause (B), which reads as under :
(B) Issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the communication
dated 23/6/2015 (annexed at Exhibit H) issued by the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai reducing the intake in the Pharmacy (Diploma) Course of the petitioner college from 120 seats to 60 seats from the academic year 2015-16 and also the communication dated 2/6/2016 for the academic year 2016-17 and impugned communication dated 5/6/2017 for the academic year 2017-18.
(b) Respondent Nos.3 and 5 are directed to grant affiliation/ permission to petitioner to start college for the academic years 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, as approval/ sanctioned by the AICTE by order dated 30/4/2017 forthwith.
(c) Petitioner needs to complete all formalities including payment of fees, if any, to the respondents.
(d) The petitioner to comply with all the formalities and remove all defects, if any.
(e) Respondent No.5 to have complete inspection, if necessary, within two weeks and deficiencies, if any, need to be removed at the earliest by the petitioner
institution.
3.
This order is subject to final order of the Supreme Court as the issue about the supremacy of AICTE over Pharmacy Council and/or Council for Architecture is still pending. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
4.
Respondents also to intimate to the students about the pendency of the issue in the Court.
5.
In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, Civil Applications No.8982/2016 and 7778/2017 stands disposed of. 6.
The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL) (ANOOP V. MOHTA) JUDGE JUDGE fmp/