Shri Rokada Hanuman Pratisthan Va Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Bhokardan, Thr. Pre., Ram B. Deshmukh v. State Of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Higher And Technical Education, Mumbai And ORS.
WP.722.21.J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 722/2021 * Shri Rokada Hanuman Pratisthan Va Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Bhokardan : Through its President Shri Ram Bhikanrao Deshmukh, Aged about 50 years, R/o Deshmukh Galli Bhokardan Tq. Bhokardan Dist. Jalna.
..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.
Kavikulguru Kalidas Sanskrit University Through its Registrar Administrative Bhavan, Mauda Road Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur.
..
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
WP.722.21.J the consent of respective parties.
2.
The petitioner-society is desirous of starting a new course of Master 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 20th August, 2020 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.5 of the list enclosed to the covering letter dated 20th August,2020. 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: