1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6015 OF 2009 Vaidyanath Sarvangin Vikas Sanstha’s Nagnathappa Halge College of Engineering At Brahmawadi, Post Tokwadi, Parali Vaijinath, District : Beed Through its Principal Pandurang S/o.Ashruba Tidke, Age-52 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Parali Vaijinath, Tq.Parali Vaijinath, District Beed. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Director of Technical Education Maharashtra State 3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai. 3. Joint Director, Technical Education Aurangabad Division Aurangabad. 4. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, University Campus, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad Through its Registrar, 2 5. All India Council for Technical Education, Regional Office (W.R.O.) Industrial Assurance Building Church Gate, Mumbai, Through Regional Officer. RESPONDENTS Mr.V.D.Hon, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.V.H.Dighe, learned AGP for respondent no.1,2 and 3 Mr.S.S.Thombre, learned counsel for respondent no.4 Mr.Vivek Dhage, learned counsel for respondent no.5 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 16/09/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 and 3 to admit 30 students in the petitioner’s college for Computer Science and 30 students for Electronic Engineering from the current academic year 2009-2010 as per the revised intake approved by the All India Council for Technical Education. 3. At the outset, it may be stated that the intake capacity of the petitioner Institute was initially 120 which came to be increased to 3 180 by communication dated 20/08/2009 of the All India Council for Technical Education in Computer Science and Electronic Engineering in the Petitioner’s College. The footnote to the table in the said communication indicates that the approval for increase in intake/additional course variation/variation in intake is valid for 2 years from the date of issue of this letter for obtaining affiliation with concerned University and fulfilling concerned State Government requirements for admission. The increase in the intake capacity is with effect from the academic year 2009-10. The contents of the letter do not in any manner indicate that the increase in the intake capacity would be applicable for the next academic year i.e. from 2010-2011. In the light of that therefore, according to us the petitioner is entitle to succeed. 4. Apart from this, our attention has been invited by the learned c ounsel for the petitioner to the order passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.386/2009, dated 11/09/2009. The said order of the Supreme Court is reproduced below. The petitioners herein are running the colleges where the Engineering as well as the Business Management Courses are being carried out. It is submitted that there are 30 additional seats for Engineering and 60 seats for MBA in each college which are to be filled up. The petitioners colleges are directed to fill up these seats on or before 18/09/2009. The State shall sponsor sufficient number of students based on the merit secured by these candidates in 4 the Common Entrance Test conducted by the State. List of the admitted students shall be given to the Director of Technical Education within 10 days after the admissions are over. The Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 to 4 state that the controversy involved in the present petition stands squarely covered by the order of the Supreme Court to which we have adverted to above. Shri.Dhage, learned counsel for respondent no.5 states that he has no instructions in this matter. This petition was on board on 10/09/2009 and had been adjourned at the request of the respondents. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 had accepted notice and thereafter the matter was directed to be listed on 18/09/2009. This petition however is circulated before us today expressing that as the Supreme Court in the aforesaid order had directed the colleges to fill in the seats before 18/09/2009, if the petition is listed on the board of 18/09/2009, the relief which the petitioner has sought for in this petition would be rendered infructuous. In any event the petition is on board today before us and learned counsel for respondent no.5 states that he has no instructions. 6. In the light of the fact that the present matter stands squarely covered by the order passed by the Supreme Court, we accordingly allow this petition and direct the respondents to sponsor sufficient number of students for the faculty for which the intake capacity has 5 been increased and the seats to be filled in on or before 18/09/2009. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp6015.09