Bombay High CourtWP/8045/2018disposedoff

Ayurved Utkarsh Mandal Vidarbha Pradesh, Nagpur Thr. Its President Pramod Wasudeorao Savle v. Union Of India, Ministry Of Ayurved, Yoga And Naturopathy, New Delhi Thr. Its Secretary And Others

2018-12-03Hon'Ble The Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre2 pages

0312wp8045.18 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.8045 OF 2018 (Ayurved Utkarsh Mandal Vidarbha Pradesh vs. The Union of India and others) ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri S.P. Palshikar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent no.1.

Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for respondent no.2.

------- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 3, 2018 P.C.

The petitioner Ayurved Utkarsh Mandal submitted a proposal for starting Ayurvedic College on 25/4/2016. By communication dated 3/8/2017, the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy disapproved the proposal. Being aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2) Shri Palshikar, learned Counsel for petitioner, submits that petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to explain and the same has resulted in causing prejudice to petitioner.

3) Shri Aurangabadkar, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent no.1, submits

0312wp8045.18 2/2 that the Apex Court has set out a schedule for filing applications/proposals and according to the schedule, last date would be 30th September of the calendar year for receiving proposals for the next academic session. 4) In the facts, we observe that petitioner, if desires to file a fresh proposal, may submit the same to appropriate Authority in accordance with the schedule set out and provisions of law. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the proposal of petitioner. The petition is disposed of.

(N.W.SAMBRE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) khj