Anuj Mohan Badule v. Admission Regulating Authority State Of Maharashtra, (Education Dept.), Mumbai And Others

1 w.p. 2425.2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

Writ Petition No. 2425 of 2022 [Anuj Mohan Badule ..vs.. Admission Regulating Authority State of Maharashtra, (Education Department) through Secretary, Mumbai and ors.] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. I. A. Fidvi, Advocate h/f Mr. A. M. Sudame, Advocate for petitioner Mr. N. S. Khubalkar, Advocate for respondent 1 Mr. N. S. Rao, A. G. P. for respondent 2 Mr. S. S. Godbole, Advocate for respondent 3 Mr. S. W. Sambre, Advocate for respondent 4 CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J J.

DATED : 11-1 -202 The grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Fidvi confirmed that the petitioner - student has cleared the Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) course and is also issued the provisional degree.

2.

The other aspect involved is that vide order dated 29-9-2022, this Court took serious note of the failure of respondent 4 to appear in response to notice and fresh show cause notice was issued to respondent 4 calling upon it to show cause as to why affiliation or recognition granted by respondent 3 - University should not be withdrawn for making admissions in contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Unaided Private

2 w.p. 2425.2022.odt Professional Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admissions of Fees) Act, 2015.

3.

Mr. Sambre would submit that the respondent 4 did make a mistake in not taking the proceeding seriously and is tendering its apology. Mr. Sambre further states that in so far as the fine of penalty of Rupees One Lac imposed by respondent 1, committee, respondent 4 has already sought review and is pursuing the mater with respondent 1, committee. We caution respondent 4 to be more careful in future.

4.

We clarify that the question of penalty shall be decided by respondent 1. If the penalty is not paid despite its confirmation or rejection of the review, we expect the University to take appropriate steps in the matter.

5.

The petition is disposed of.

(Y. G. Khobragade, J.) (Rohit B. Deo, J.) wasnik YUVRAJ WASNIK