1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9444 OF 2009 Sou Mathurabai Bhausaheb Thorat Sevabhavi Trust Sangamner & anr. : Petitioners versus Union of India & ors. : Respondents. Mr. V M Thorat for the Petitioners Mr. G N Shrivasan with Mr.P Khosla for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sachindra B Shetye for Respondent No.3. CORAM : A M KHANWILKAR & R M SAVANT, JJ DATED : 23rd March 2010 P.C. 1. Heard counsel for the parties appearing before this Court. 2. According to the Petitioners, the Petitioner/institution has fulfilled all the norms but under mistaken advice, the Respondent No.1 has not granted approval to the Petitioner- Institution so far. 2 3. The counsel for the Respondent No.1 has invited our attention to the document at page 50 which is a communication dated 31 st August 2009 indicating the factual matrix of the assessment made in respect of the Petitioner-Institution. That document not only refers to the deficiencies but even to the response of the institution. The order which is impugned before us does not reflect as to whether the position taken by the Petitioners with regard to the stated deficiencies mentioned the said document was duly considered by the Respondent No.1. 4. It appears that Respondent No.1 has passed the order merely on the basis of the recommendation made by Respondent No.2. In such a situation it would be just and proper to set aside the order dated 30 th October 2009 and relegate the Petitioners before the Respondent No.1 for fresh consideration of all aspects of the matter, considering the fact that the Petitioners have already filed affidavit and other supporting documents before the Respondent No.1 to counter the deficiencies identified by the Respondent No.2 in respect of the Petitioner-Institution. As a 3 matter of fact the efficacy of the said affidavit and supporting documents has not been analysed at all in the impugned order. 5. The argument of the Respondent No.1 that the Petitioner-Institution proceeded with admission process without in the first place complying with all the deficiencies and specified norms clearly overlooks the tenor of the letter issued under the signature of Under Secretary Government of India dated 8 th May 2007. On a fair reading of the said communication an impression is given as if the petitioners were free to forthwith commence admission process and comply with the norms including teaching and non-teaching staff in due course. It would have been proper if the said communication had expressly stated that no admission process should be commenced unless mandatory norms were already in place and provided by the Petitioner-Institution. In that view of the matter, the controversy which has been brought before us by the Petitioners was plainly avoidable and for the same reason the argument to take sympathetic view in the interest of fifty students already admitted in the Petitioner-Institution would not 4 have arisen for our consideration. To put it differently, the Respondent should blame themselves for issuing a vague communication dated 8 th May, 2007 6. Be that as it may, as aforesaid, in our opinion, the order dated 30 th October 2009 passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India does not expressly deal with the explanation offered by the Petitioner-Institution in the shape of affidavit and documents including the explanation noted in the document dated 31 st August 2009 which has been signed by all concerned including the Principal and the Secretary of the Petitioner-Institution. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and relegate the Petitioner-Institution before the Respondent No.1 for reconsideration of all the issues raised by the Petitioner-Institution in the form of explanation given during the hearing before the Respondent No.1 as is noticed from the document at page 50 dated 31 st August 2009 including the issue raised in the present petition and take appropriate decision on its own merits in accordance with law. 5 7. In the event the Respondent No.1 is of the opinion that no approval can be granted to the Petitioner-Institution, it may have to evolve some mechanism so that the fifty students already admitted by the Petitioner-Institution can be absorbed in the neighbouring colleges in the same locality or same District Nashik or in the neighbouring Districts of Nashik as may be advised. Even such direction can be given in the final decision by the Respondent No.1, if required. The Respondent No.1 shall decide the claim of the Petitioner Institution as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than three weeks from today keeping in mind the fact that the students will have to be given an opportunity to appear in the ensuing examination. The Petitioner-Institution to appear in the office of Respondent No.1 on 1 st April 2010 at 11.00 a.m. 8. The Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (R M SAVANT, J.) (A M KHANWILKAR, J)