1 wp-5648-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5648 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1985 OF 2010 Ignited Minds Society, Pune & Anr. ..Petitioners versus Pune University, Pune & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A. V. Anturkar i/b. Mr. S. B. Deshmukh for Petitioners. Mr. G. S. Kulkarni i/b. Mrs. M. G. Kulkarni for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mrs. M. P. Thakur – AGP for Respondent No. 3. Mr. S. S. Pakale i/b. Mr. K. J. Phakade for Applicant in C.A. No. 1985 of 2010 CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : JULY 30, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is two fold against the communication dated 7th July 2010 issued by the respondent no. 2 to the Director of Education. Firstly, that in view of the provisions of Section 2 wp-5648-10 83(6) of The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, no student shall be admitted by the college or institution unless the first time affiliation has been granted by the university to the college or institution. It is contended that in the instant case the first time affiliation was granted by the University in the year 2009 and the affiliation till this date has not been either withdrawn by the University or suspended. It is therefore contended that in view of the above referred facts, it is unfair for the respondents not to permit the students to be admitted to the Engineering Course for academic session 2010-2011. It is submitted that the petitioners institution has already made application to the respondents – University for renewal of affiliation for the further academic sessions. The said application is pending for decision before the Competent Authority of the University and till this date no decision either way has been taken by the University and in absence thereof the action of the respondents not to permit the petitioners institution to admit students is misconceived and cannot be sustained in law. 3. Another contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is in respect of discrimination shown by the University in case of the petitioners institution. It is submitted that the other institutions whose names are already mentioned in the petition are in identical situation involving alleged identical misconduct and whose applications for renewal 3 wp-5648-10 of affiliation are pending with the University, have been permitted to admit students and therefore the action of the respondents is discriminatory and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel for the University has disputed the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that the affiliation granted to the petitioners institution in the year 2009 was only for one academic year i.e. 2008-2009 which came to an end after expiry of one year and therefore there was no affiliation whatsoever so far as the petitioners institution is concerned for academic session 2010-2011. 5. It is further contended that so far as the aspect of discrimination is concerned, the petitioners cannot press in action Article 14 of the Constitution of India in a negative sense though there is no discrimination whatsoever exercised by the respondents University. It is contended that the case of the institutions mentioned in the petition whose applications for renewal of affiliation are pending with the University, cannot be equated with the case of the petitioners institution. Even otherwise till the institution is affiliated by the University, question of permitting petitioners institution to admit students does not arise. 4 wp-5648-10 6. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsels. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the first time affiliation granted to the petitioners institution was only for academic sessions 2008-2009 which has come to an end. It is therefore evident that for academic session 2010-2011 the petitioners institution has no affiliation from the University and in absence thereof the petitioners institution is not entitled to admit any students for the Engineering Course. 7. The learned counsel for the University has denied that other institutions whose applications are pending for affiliation are similarly circumstanced, be that as it may, we are of the view that the petitioners cannot press in action Article 14 of the Constitution in the negative sense. If some wrong is committed by the institutions in case of some colleges that cannot give any right to the petitioners to ask the University to give the same treatment to the petitioners institution. However, we are of the view that while considering applications of such institutions for renewal, the University must keep in mind the doctrine of equality before it. 8. In the back-drop of the above referred facts, we are of the view that the petition suffers from lack of merits. Hence dismissed. 5 wp-5648-10 9. In view of the above order, civil application is disposed of. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)