Shri. Saptashrungi Kuswami Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Wardha, Through Its Secretary Shri. Vivek Ghade v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Principal Secretary, Dept. Of Higher And Technical Education

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.

...

WRIT PETITION NO. 3447/2019 * Shri Saptashrungi Kulswamini Gramim Vikas Sanstha, Wardha Through its Secretary, Shri Vivek Ratnakar Ghade Aged about 38 years, R/o Saraf Line Wardha, Dist. Wardha.

..PETITIONER v e r s u s 1.

The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Department of Higher & Technical Education Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2.

The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

3.

Smt.Nathibai Damodar Thackersey (SNDT) Women's University through its Registrar 1, Nathibai Thackersey Road Mumbai -400 020.

..

R ESPONDENT S .................................................................................................................. Mr Ashfaque I. Sheikh, Advocate for petitioner Mr. D.P.Thakare, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2 Respondent no.3 served - ................................................................................................................

CORAM

: SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ DATE D : 3rd December, 2021.

ORAL

JUDGMENT

: (PER SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J.) 1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of respective parties.

2.

The petitioner-society is desirous of starting two new courses of Master of Social Work and Bachelor of Social Work and the proposal of the petitioner has also been forwarded by the Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai, vide its covering letter dated 07/02/2019 to the respondent no.2. 3.

Copy of the aforesaid proposal is filed on record and it discloses that the proposal of the petitioner-society is at Sr.No.15 of the list enclosed to the covering letter dated 07/02/2019. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this proposal is pending for consideration and necessary decision with respondent no.2 for a long period of time.

4.

We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding long pendency of the proposal. 5.

We, therefore, partly allow the petition and direct the respondent no.2 to decide the proposal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of the order.

6.

Rule in the above terms. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE sahare BHAGWANTRAO SAHARE Location: