Sudarshan Educational Foundations Sarsam College Of Pharmacy v. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University And ORS

by ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Date:

2025.11.20 15:26:34 +0530 ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14965 OF 2025 Sudarshan Educational Foundations Sarsam College of Pharmacy ... Petitioner.

V/s.

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University & Ors.

... Respondents.

--- Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, a/w. Mr. Irvin D'Souza, Mr. Aniket Kanawade, Mr. Vaibhav Thorve, Mr. Aryan Deshmukh, Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. with Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent/State.

Mr. Tejesh Dande a/w. Mr. Bharat Gadhavi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

Mr. Nagesh S. Gavali, President present in court. --- CORAM :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE :

18th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C. :

1.

On 14.11.2025, we had dictated the following order in the open court.

"1.

The learned Advocate representing the Respondent University, has submitted an additional Affidavit-in-Reply dated 13th November, 2025 along with several documents, as well as the pendrive containing the video-graphy of the Local Inspection

Committee's visit for inspecting the Petitioner Institution, on 10th November, 2025 (Page Nos. 275 to 351).

2.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner Institution submits on instructions that considering the report of the Local Inspection Committee and the various deficiencies pointed out, the Petitioner Institution would endevour to remove the deficiencies and make the Institution ready for admitting students in the next academic year. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw this Petition on instructions.

3.

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off as withdrawn, on instructions.

4.

We make it clear that if the Petitioner Institution is again required to approach this Court, the disposal of this Petition would not be an impediment.

5.

In view of the above, the original pen-drive tendered to the Court is returned to the learned Advocate for the Respondent University. Accordingly, he has removed the pen-drive from Page No. 279(A)."

2.

On 17.11.2025, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner made a request at mentioning time that if the order is not signed, the matter may be listed on board, since the President of the Petitioner Institution had a change of thought and did not desire to withdraw the Petition. Hence, we listed this matter today.

3.

Today, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner informs us that Shri Nagesh Shrimant Gavali, President and Authorised Signatory of the Petitioner, is present in the Court hall. On instructions, it is submitted

that the Petitioner prays that the order dated 14.11.2025 be maintained and the Court may sign the order. The Petitioner desires to withdraw this Petition.

4.

In view of the above, the order dated 14.11.2025 reproduced above, stands.

5.

This Petition is disposed off as withdrawn on instructions. 6.

The Pen Drive returned to the Respondent is confirmed. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)