Vaishnavi Mahila Gramin Vikas Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha Thr. President Mrs. Sangita K. Dange v. The State Of Maha. Thr. Principal Secretary, Dept. Of Higher And Technical Education And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR ...

WRIT PETITION NO.6106 OF 2019 Vaishnavi Mahila Gramin Vikas Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Yavatmal, through its President Mrs. Sangita Khushal Dange, aged about 49 years, r/o Plot No.27, Shivneri Society, Yavatmal.

...

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-400020.

... Respondents ...................................................................................................................... Mr. A. I. Sheikh, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2.

......................................................................................................................

CORAM

: SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATED : NOVEMBER 23, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL B.SHUKRE, 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 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.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.16 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. JUDGE JUDGE khj JESWANI