Shri Dhaneshwari Manav Vikas Mandal Through Its Principal v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7705 OF 2017 Shri Dhaneshwari Manav Vikas Mandal Diploma in Pharmacy Institute At Post Georai Tanda, Tq. and District Aurangabad, through its Principal ...

PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra through its 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 (Copy of respondent No.1 and 2 to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 3.

All India council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001 through its Member Secretary 4.

The Pharmacy Council of India, through its Registrar-cum-Secretary, Combined Council Building, Kotala Road, Ali Yavarjang Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 5.

Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, 49, Govt. Polytechnic Building, Kherwadi, Bandra (East), Mumbai .

...

RESPONDENTS .....

Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate for petitioner Shri A.V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for State Shri S.B. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.3 Shri Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.4 .....

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 4, denying the prayed intake capacity, in spite of orders passed by this Court from time to time since 2013-2014 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 19/7/2013, 1/7/2014, 30/6/2015 and 23/6/2016. 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) By way of appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, the impugned order dated 5/6/2017 (Exh.M) passed by the respondent No.2 in respect of variation made in the intake capacity of petitioner College for Pharmacy Course for the academic year 2017-2018, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to allot the intake capacity approved by the AICTE for the academic year 20172018. (b) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to grant affiliation/ permission to petitioner to start college for the academic year 2017-2018, as approval/ sanctioned by the AICTE by order dated 10/4/2017 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.4 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.

The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(SUNIL K. KOTWAL) (ANOOP V. MOHTA) JUDGE JUDGE fmp/