Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Through Its Treasurer And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7262 OF 2019 Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Through its Treasurer and another ...

Petitioners.

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and others ...

Respondents.

...

Mr. D.J. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Morampalle, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 & 4. Mr. S.V. Adwant, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3. CORAM :

S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE :

08/07/2019 PER COURT :

1.

Mr. Chouhdari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are initially granted permission in the year 1982 to run the Diploma in Pharmacy course with intake capacity of 30 students. In the year 1996 the intake capacity was increased to 60 students and since then the petitioners are continuously running the said course. According to the learned counsel on 15.11.2018 some deficiencies were pointed out. The petitioners gave an undertaking that it would remove the said deficiencies. However, the impugned order is passed, placing the petitioners in 'no admission category'. 1/3

According to the learned counsel reasonable time ought to have been given by the respondents. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner No.1- institute runs many colleges and schools. On 04.06.2019 it passed a resolution to earmark two storey building for the institute of pharmacy i.e. petitioner No. 2. It has got entire infrastructural facilities as required under the norms of A.I.C.T.E. Thereafter representation was made by the petitioner to the A.I.C.T.E., however, the same is not considered. The learned counsel submits that Pharmacy Council of India has granted extension of approval for the year 2019-2020.

2.

Mr. Adwant, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3A.I.C.T.E. submits that there are infrastructural deficiencies on record. The said deficiencies go to the root of the matter. Considering the deficiencies, the conscious decision has been taken by the A.I.C.T.E. The petitioners were given ample time to remove the deficiencies. 3.

It appears that considering the deficiencies as existing, the A.I.C.T.E. had passed the order and the undertaking filed by the petitioners was not accepted.

4.

However, it appears that the petitioner No. 1 has passed a resolution and has earmarked two storey building for petitioner No. 2 2/3

to run the D.Pharma course. Of course, the standing appellate committee did not have the occasion to consider the same, as the said resolution is passed after the decision given by the A.I.C.T.E. 5.

Considering the above, it would be appropriate for the petitioners to submit copy of the resolution and the other documents necessary, such as, the construction permission and all other relevant documents before the S.A.C. The S.A.C. within a period of three days from the date of petitioners appear before S.A.C. with all the relevant documents shall give its recommendations to the A.I.C.TE. The A.I.C.T.E. within 3 days thereafter shall take decision afresh with regard to the case of the petitioners.

6.

Writ petition disposed of. No costs.

7.

Authenticated copy be given.

( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) mkd 3/3