1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 799 OF 2010 Shri Sai Bauuddeshiya, Sanstha, At post. Pimpalkotha, Tal. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon. Through its President, Manisha W/o Prakash More, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Household, Through her G.P.A., Prakash S/o Nimba More, Occu. : Service, Age : 42 Years, Astvinayak Colony, Plot NO. 35, At Post & Tal. Erandol, District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhavan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Marg, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhavan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal. 3. North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, Through It's Director of Colleges & University 2 Development Board. 4. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary of Higher & Technical Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai -32. .. Respondents Shri Paresh B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. S. Bora, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri A. B. Girase, Advocate for the REspondent No. 3. Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER P. V. HARDAS, J ) : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 02. The petitioner by this petition challenges the orders passed by the respondents in declining to grant approval/permission to the petitioner institute for opening a new B. Ed. college. Even the appeal filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected by the respondents on the sole and principal ground that the State 3 Government had not positively recommended the case of the petitioner, but in fact the recognition was a negative recognition. 03. Shri Bhumkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1, wherein the Supreme Court has held in no uncertain terms that the State Government could not scuttle the proposals and it was the sole responsibility and the function of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the proposals on its own merits. 04. In that light of the matter, we are inclined to allow this petition and consequently we allow the petition and quash and set aside the impugned orders. The respondent No. 3 shall remand the matter back to the respondent No. 2 for a denovo decision afresh from the stage of scrutiny/permission to the petitioner institute for the academic year 2010-2011. The respondent No. 2 shall take into consideration the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. The respondent No. 2 shall deal with the application on its own merits and pass orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously 4 as possible. 05. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/June 10