1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4381 OF 2009 Abhinav Shetkari Shikshan Mandal’s ) Abhinav B.Ed. College ) through its Chairman/Secretary ) a Public Trust registered under the ) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, ) and a Society Registered under the ) Society Registration Act, 1860 ) having its office at Plot Nos. 2, 3, 7 & 8, 2nd ) & 3rd Floor, Building No.9, Abhinav, ) Education Campus, Goddeo Phatak Road, ) Bhayandar (E), Tal and Dist. Thane 401 105. )..Petitioners Versus 1. The Regional Director, Western ) Region Committee NCTE, Manus Bhavan, ) Shamla Hill, Bhopal. ) 2. The Member/Secretary, NCTE, having ) his office at Wing II, Hans Bhawan, ) 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, ) New Delh 110 002. ) 3. Union of India ) having their office at Aayakar Bhavan, ) 2nd floor, Maharshi karve Road, ) Churchgate, umbai 400 021. ) 4. The State of Maharashtra ) Through the Secretary, school Education ) Mantralaya, Mumbai. ) 5. The Registrar, University of Mumbai, ) M.G.Road, Mumbai 400 023. ).. Respondents Mr.C.K.Thomas i/by C.K.Thomas & Associates, adv. For the Petitioners. 2 Mr.Uday Warunjikar, adv. & Mr. Rakesh Johri,Adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.V.S.Masurkar, Govt. Pleader for the Respondent No.4. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 19th November , 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 Petitioner’s institution had applied to the respondents on 14th June, 2007 for permission to open B.Ed. (English Medium) College. Petitioners were informed on 07/15th April, 2009 that the Government of Maharashtra had taken a policy decision not to grant permission for opening fresh B.Ed. Colleges for the academic year 2009-2010, application was rejected. 3 Petitioner’s application for the subject matter of inspection has been taken by the respondent No.1. Report indicated that the petitioner made all infrastructural facilities. 4 Issue before us is, therefore, whether the decision taken by the respondent nos.1 and 2 in rejecting application by the petitioner for permission to open B.Ed. college can be supported. In the first instance, 3 permission was sought for the academic year 2008-2009. Petitioners were informed in April, 2009 for the academic year 2009-2010 that on account of policy decision taken by the State of Maharashtra for the academic year 2009-2010 not to grant permission for new B.Ed. Colleges, they have rejected the same. 5 In our opinion, the respondents either to consider application for the academic year 2008-2009 and then for the academic year 2010-2011. At least, there is nothing on record to show that for the academic year 2010-2011, the State of Maharashtra had taken any policy decision. In the light of that, following order: 6 Impugned order of the respondent No.1 Regional Director is set aside. Matter is restored to the file of the respondent No.1 for considering afresh for the academic year 2010-2011. It will be open to the respondent no.1 to seek comments from the respondent no.4 as soon as policy for the academic year 2010-2011 was framed. 6 With the above observations, petition stands disposed off. Rule made absolute partly with no order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7375 OF 2009 Late Sou. Tarabai R. Gangurde Memorial Educational & Charitable Trust’s Eminent College of Education (B.Ed. English Medium) ...Petitioners. v. The Regional Director, Western Region Committee NCTE & Ors. ...Respondents. 5 Mr.C.K.Thomas i/by C.K.Thomas & Associates, adv. For the Petitioners. Mr.Uday Warunjikar, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mrs.Ratinamavawavman with Mr.G.Hariharan , advs. for the respondent no.3. Mr.A.B.Vagyani, AGP for the Respondent No.4. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 12th November , 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 Petitioners applied for opening B.Ed. (English Medium) College by application dated 13.2.2008 for the academic year 2008-09 . Inspection was carried out by the respondent no.1 who found necessary infrastructure was in place. However, on account of policy decision, petitioner was informed by the communication dated 15/21.5.2009 that permission was rejected. Appeal was preferred. That was also rejected on 7.8.09. 3 In our opinion, considering that the petitioners were informed on 15/21.5.2009 about the rejection that could not have been for the academic year 2010-2011. In the light of that, impugned orders are set aside. Matter is restored to the file of the Respondent nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioners’ application afresh for the academic year 2010-2011 and also seek opinion of the State of Maharashtra as soon as 6 policy decision is taken. 4 With these observations, petition stands disposed off. Rule made absolute partly with no order as to costs. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)