Shri. Ashtavinayak Bahuuddeshiya Shikhsan Sanstha,Amgaon Thr. Its Secretary Rajesh Shankarlal Goya v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Principal Secretary, Dept. Of Higher And Tech. Education, Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.3507 OF 2019 Shree Ashtavinayak Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Amgaon, through its Secretary Shri Rajesh Shankarlal Goyal, Aged about 46 years, R/o. Kalimati Tq. Amgaon, District Gondia ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher and 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 ...RESPONDENTS _______________________________________________________ Shri A.I. Sheikh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.

_______________________________________________________

CORAM

:

A.S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.

DATED :

SEPTEMBER 07, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.

) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2.

The petitioner Society is desirous of starting a new course of Master in Social Work and Bachelor in 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 7/2/2019 to the respondent No.3.

3.

Copy of the aforesaid proposal is filed on record and it discloses that the proposal of the petitioner Society is at Sr. No.17 of the list enclosed to the covering letter dated 7/2/2019. 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 is made absolute in the above terms. No costs (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) *Divya Signed By:DIVYA SONU BALDWA Personal Assistant