Suresh Renukadas Halhalli v. The State Of Maharashtra Thro Its Principal Secretary Higher And Technical Education Dept And Other
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.12869/2016 Suresh Renukadas Halhalli.
...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for respondent no.1.
Shri U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. Shri M.S. Karad, Advocate for respondent no.4. Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent no.5. Shri S.B. Deshpande, ASG for respondent no.6. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.11670/2016 Suresh Renukadas Halhalli.
...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.V. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent no.1.
Shri U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri S.V. Warad, Advocate for respondent no.4. Shri S.B. Deshpande, ASG for respondent no.8. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- 2 - CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE: 12.06.2017 ORDER :
1] Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 & 3 in Writ Petition No.12869/2016 makes a statement that M.S. Bidve Engineering College, Latur, has already taken no objection from respondent no.2 - University for affiliating this college to Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Technical University.
2] Learned counsel for respondent no.5 has pointed out that even the period prescribed in impugned order dated 5.12.2016 also expired as the approval granted by respondent no.3 itself ended on 1.6.2017.
3] Petitioner's challenge to impugned order dated 5.12.2016 of approval, in our view, also cannot be further considered based upon the averments already made.
4] This Court in January, 2017, issued notices to respondents, but there was no interim relief granted against respondent no.5. Therefore, even if there is any
- 3 - grievance of petitioner about continuation of respondent no.5, that itself cannot be the reason to consider and/or grant relief to petitioner. However, we are inclined to grant liberty to petitioner to file appropriate petition to raise challenge in view of above background. Writ Petition No.12869/2016 is accordingly disposed of with above liberty.
5] In view of above order, Writ Petition No.11670/2016 also stands disposed of.
6] All pending civil applications, if any, in both these petitions also stand disposed of. No costs. (SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ndk/c1261717.doc