Dnyan Sarswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Parbhani And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1) WRIT PETITION NO. 176 OF 2015 1.

Dnyan Sarswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Parbhani, Through its Secretary, Shri Dr.Kishor s/o Shankarlal Mantri Age 57 yrs., Occ: Medical Practitioner, R/o. Station Road, Parbhani.

2.

Dnyan Sarswati Junior College, For Arts, Commerce & Science, Situated at Boralkar Nagar, Behind New Power House, Jintur Road, Parbhani Through its Principal.

...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1.

State of Maharashtra through department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya Mumbai.

2.

The Director of Vocational Education, Vocational Education and Training Directorate, Maharashtra State, At Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai.

3.

The Asst. Director of Vocational Education, Vocational Education and Training, Regional Office, Nr.Bhadkal Gate, Aurangabad.

(2) 4.

The Dist. Vocational Education And Training Officer, Parbhani, Having its office at Dist. Vocational Education and Training Officer, Nr.Stadium Complex, Narayan Chwal, Parbhani.

...RESPONDENTS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Girish Rane h/f Mr.Rathi Swapnil S. AGP for Respondent State:Mr. S.K.Kadam ...

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & P.R. BORA, JJ.

Dated: April 13, 2015 ...

PER COURT :- 1.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of the parties.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that a proposal was submitted with the respondent authorities on 21st March, 2014, for grant of permission to start new Course of Crop Science to the petitioner College. The said proposal was made for starting the course on Permanent No Grant in Aid basis keeping in view the need of the students in the said area. On 3rd April, 2014, and 6/5/2014, certain deficiencies were raised by respondent no.4. The petitioner removed the said deficiencies and complied with the directions of the respondents and re-submitted the proposal on 9th May, 2014. Again, respondent no.2 raised certain deficiencies on

(3) 7.7.2014; which were cured by the petitioner and proposal was resubmitted. It appears that on 17th July, 2014, respondent nos. 3 and 4 made favourable recommendations to the proposal of the petitioner, however, no decision is taken by respondent no.1 inspite of number of letters written by the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3.

Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent State submits that ends of justice would be met in case respondent no.1 is directed to take decision on the proposal as expeditiously as possible and before next academic year commences. 4.

It appears that already the proposal of the petitioner is favourably recommended by respondent nos. 3 and 4. It further appears that all the shortcomings and deficiencies have been cured by the petitioner and, therefore, there is no reason for respondent no.1 in not taking final decision on the said proposal. 5.

In the light of the above, we direct respondent no.1 to take decision on the proposal of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 15th May, 2015, and send report to that effect to the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.

Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Rule made absolute accordingly.

( P.R. BORA, J. ) ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ...