1 143011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICITON WRIT PETITION NO.1430 OF 2011 Swati R. Khinvasara age 19, Indian Inhabitant presently residing at C/o. 7/83, Madhu Mahal Bhrahman Wada Road, King Circle Mumbai-400018 ... Petitioner V/s. 1. State of Maharashtra through The Higher Technical Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-400032 2. Government Law College A Road, Churchgate Mumbai-400020 3. Mumbai University M.G. Road, Mumbai-400001 4. Mashura Shirish Pitre age 18 years, Occ.Student, residing at 201, Awar Tower, Bhaskar Colony, Naupada, Thane (W) – 400602 5. Yati Sharma, residing at House No.1848 Sector 8, Faridabad, Haryana 6. Sameer Bindra aged 18 years, residing at 22, Greenwood City Sector 40, Gurgaon, Haryana 2 143011 7. Aashna Kothari aged 18 years, residing at 13, Blue Gardenia, 4th floor, Peddar Road, Mumbai-26 .... Respondents a/w CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.201 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1430 OF 2011 1. State of Maharashtra through The Higher Technical Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-400032 2. Government Law College A Road, Churchgate Mumbai-400020 3. Mumbai University M.G. Road, Mumbai-400001 ... Respondents AND Madhura Shirish Pitre aged 18 years, Occ.: Student r/at: 201, Amar tower, Bhaskar Colony Naupada, Thane (W) 400602 ... Intervenor/Applicant a/w CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.205 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1430 OF 2011 3 143011 Swati R. Khinvasara age 19, Indian Inhabitant presently residing at C/o. 7/83, Madhu Mahal Bhrahman Wada Road, King Circle Mumbai-400018 ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra through The Higher Technical Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-400032 2. Government Law College A Road, Churchgate Mumbai-400020 3. Mumbai University M.G. Road, Mumbai-400001 ... Respondents AND 1. Yati Sharma aged 17 years, r/at House No.1848, Sector 8, Faridabad, Haryana ... Applicant 1 2. Sameer Bindra aged 18 years, r/at 22, Greenwood City, Sector 40, Gurgaon, Haryana ... Applicant 1 a/w CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.206 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1430 OF 2011 Swati R. Khinvasara age 19, Indian Inhabitant presently residing at C/o. 7/83, Madhu Mahal Bhrahman Wada Road, King Circle Mumbai-400018 ... Petitioner Versus 4 143011 1. State of Maharashtra through The Higher Technical Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-400032 2. Government Law College A Road, Churchgate Mumbai-400020 3. Mumbai University M.G. Road, Mumbai-400001 ... Respondents AND 1. Aashna Kothari aged 18 years, r/at 13/Blue Gardenia, 4th floor Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026 ... Applicant a/w CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.207 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1430 OF 2011 Swati R. Khinvasara age 19, Indian Inhabitant presently residing at C/o. 7/83, Madhu Mahal Bhrahman Wada Road, King Circle Mumbai-400018 ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra through The Higher Technical Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-400032 2. Government Law College A Road, Churchgate Mumbai-400020 5 143011 3. Mumbai University M.G. Road, Mumbai-400001 ... Respondents AND 1. Anu Dayal being the mother of the minor, Tushnika Dayal r/at 315-C, S.M. Building, 1st floor, Office NO.24/25, New Charni Road, Mumbai - 1 ... Applicant 1 2. Gautam Shah being the father of the minor Ketaki Shah r/at A306, Capri, Hiranandani Estate, Godbandar Road, Thane (W) – 400607 ... Applicant 2 AND WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1459 OF 2011 1. Neha Balram Bhatt 18 yrs, 122/F, Gr.fl., Bang Bhavan, Road No.5, Hindu Colony, Dadar, Mumbai-14 2. Akshata Milind Limaye through Milind G. Limaye, aged 50, D/2,36, Shereeji Towers CHS, Anand Park, Near Shrirang So., Thane W 400 601 3. Anushree Aditi through Rachitta Priyanka Sinha Shanuaratank, Kilburn Colony, Hinoo Ranchi 834 002 4 Nirali C. Shah, 18 yrs, 6/60, Tardev Apts., 249, Tardeo Road, Near Bhatia Hospital, Mumbai 4 5. Meenakshi H. More, 18 yrs, 309/43, Charkop, Kandivli W, Mumbai 67 6 143011 6. Pratima Pradeep Pawar, 17 yrs, through Kavita Sanjay Pradhan, aged 39 yrs, r/at 604/A Wing, Vaishali CHS, near Kurla Sig. Kurla E, Chembur, Mumbai 71 7. Anu C. Kaladharan, 18 yrs., I-B, Bldg., 11/256, RCF Colony Chembur, Mumbai - 74 8. Arpita Maheshwari, 18 yrs., 5, Jawahar Nagar Colony, Bypass Road, Agra 2, Uttar Pradesh at present in Mumbai 9. Sukriti Sarwan, 18 yrs., Flat NO.1006, Pinewood, Raheja Willows, Akurli Road, Kandivli, Mumbai 10. Himali Divekar, Prince Paradise Society, Panvel 11. Niyati Mahimtura, 18 years, 70, Parshwa, 91, Inderjeet Rod., Banganga, Walkeshwar, Mumbai 400006 12. Niyati Vakil, 18 yrs., Shanti Sadan, 3, Vacha Gandhi Rd., Mumbai 7 13. Ajinkya Walujkar, 20 yrs., r/at.A-1/23 green Fields, Goregaon E, Mumbai 14. Apoorva R. Yadav, 18 yrs., r/at D-55, Sec.12, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410210 15. Shalaka T. Waghmare 18yrs., Bl.No.2, Sapan Apt. Wankhede Garden, Belavali, Badlapur W 16. Ankita Misra, 18 yrs., MSUW, Dr.Leela Melville Rod., Bombay Central – 8 17. Saloni Ajmera, 18 yrs., 162/1, Krishna Niketan, Opp.Gandhi Market, 7 143011 18. Surabhi Sharan, 18 yrs, 140/7, Jaswanti Niwas, Jain Soc., Nos.20 & 21, Sion West, Mumbai-22 19. Manika Jain, 18 yrs., r/at. Opp.Navjivan Soc., Grant Road, Mumbai 20. Leonard Kayongo, aged 32 yrs., r/at C-7, 12, Phase I, Bhayander E., Thane 401105 21. Shraddha S. Chavan, 18 yrs., r/at.11-A/5, Geetanjali Nagar, J.M. Road, Mahim East, Mumbai 400017 22. Sulekha Agarwal, 18 yrs., r/at 1st floor, 7, Vachha Gandhi Rd., Gamdevi, Mumbai 7 23. Srijanee Bhattacharjee, 18 yrs., r/at.M.S.U.W. Hostel, Dr. Leelamelville Road, Mumbai Central 400008 24. Meherzeen M. Avasia, 17 yrs., through Khurshid M. Avasia, E/32, Sir Byculla, Mumbai-400027 25. Geet Sawhney, 18 yrs.,850, PRT,GH-13, Paschim Vihar, Delhi 110087 at present in Mumbai 26. Priya Nigwekar, 17 yrs., through Ramchandra S. Nigwekar, r/a 5/16/7, Sneh Sagar Apt., Sec.17, Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400 708 27. Divya Mathews, 18 years, r/a. A-4, Lourdes Villa, St.Rius `E’, CHS, Mulund (W), M-80 28. Shikar Nath Rastogi, 18 yrs., r/a.1:4, C 48, Diamond Co.Op. So. Sector 29, Vashi 8 143011 29. Anjana Telang, 18 yrs., r/a. E-15, Shanti So.Mogul Lane, Mahim, Mumbai-18 30. Ashwini Mahade, 17 yrs., through Suresh Shankar Mahade, r/a.7,N.S. Patkar Marg, Kemps Corner, 4th fl., Mumbai-36 31. Prakriti Bushan aged 17 yrs., through Sandeep Sarin, r/a 18/5, Navjivan Society, Mahim West, Mumbai 32. Nikita Pais, 17yrs., through Emie Pais r/a. F2/0.1, Noopur Co.op. Hsg. Soc., Sector 22 33. Shantanu Garg, 17 yrs., through Hajar K.Dohling, 71, Seth Basantlal Marg, Ambikapur-497001, Chattisgarh, at present in Mumbai 34. Anagha G. Lokhande 17 yrs., through Govind A. Lokhande, r/a.31, Tower 4, Godrej Garden Enclave, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli E, Mumbai-79 35. Rasika V. Soparkar, 17 yrs, through Vijay Soparkar, Tehmi Terrace, A Wing, 6th floor, 805, Dr.B.A. Road, Dadar, Mumbai-14 36. Shreyes Aggarwal, 18 yrs., B-102, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, Opp.Shriram Indl. Est., Wadala, Mumbai-31 37. Gaurav Dasgupta, 18 yrs., S.L. Vilas, Dariya Nagar House, Marine Lines, 400 020 38. Tanvi Gupta 18 yrs., Mahavir Jain Hostel, C.P. Tank, Charni Road, Mumbai-4 39. Monalisha Harsh, 16 yrs., 40. Riya Seth, 17 yrs., Nos.30 and 40 through Saurabh Kandhway, 101, Parijat Co-op. Hsg. Soc., Malad West, Mumbai-400064 9 143011 41. Asmita Misale, 17 yrs., through Uttam Misale, r/a 11/187, Reynolds Road, Tejas Nagar Wadala East, Mumbai-37 42. Lakshmi Ashwin Hawelikar, 18 yrs., Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410201 43. Salnoi More, 18 yrs 1002, Om Residency, near Tata Hospital, Parel, Mumbai Petitioner Nos.1 to 29, 30 to 42 and Students/ Service ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Maharashtra through The Higher Technical Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-400032 3. Mumbai University M.G. Road, Mumbai-400001 ... Respondents Mr. Mukesh Vashi i/b M/s. M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 1430 of 2011 Ms. Rohini Dandekar i/b M/s. Ayyar & Co. for Petitioner in W.P.(L) No. 1459 of 2011 Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Bhavik Manek & Ms.Pooja Patil i/by M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Applicant in Chamber Summonses No. 205, 206 and 207 of 2011 Mr. M.D. Naik, A.G.P., for Resps. No.1 and 2 in W.P. No. 1430 of 2011 10 143011 Ms. Anjali Helekar, A.G.P., for Resps. No.1 and 2 in W.P.(L) No. 1459/2011 Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Mumbai University Mr. Mahesh Subramaniam for the Applicant in Chamber Summons No. 201 of 2011 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. RESERVED ON: 29-07-2011 PRONOUNCED ON : 08-08-2011 JUDGMENT (Per A.M. Khanwilkar, J.):- 1) By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned matters together as the same involve common issues. 2) The first Writ Petition (Writ Petition No.1430 of 2011) is filed by the student who has passed her 12th Standard examination (Senior School Certificate 2011) from Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) with 88.4% marks, but has not succeeded in getting admission in Government Law College at Mumbai (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘GLC’). The grievance in this petition, as originally filed, was in respect of the method adopted by respondent- college of deducting 5% marks of candidates, who have passed the 11 143011 qualifying examination from the Board other than the Maharashtra Secondary School Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Maharashtra Board”), for preparation of merit list of students to be admitted in the First Year of Five years Law course. It is stated that the said petitioner was desirous of getting admission in the GLC. For that reason, she obtained a Transfer Certificate and Migration Certificate from her MGD Girls’ School at Jaipur. Thereafter, she filled up the form for taking admission in Five Years Law Course in GLC. According to the said Petitioner, in spite of having secured such good marks, her name did not find place even in the third merit list published on 4th July, 2011. To her utter surprise, she noticed that the candidates who have secured less percentage than 88.4%, their names were mentioned in the said list. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that since she has passed 12th standard from a Board other than Maharashtra Board, as in the case of similarly placed candidates, her 5% marks have been deducted while reckoning her comparative merit position in the merit list. On further enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the GLC resorted to such method on the basis of instructions issued by the Joint Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department of Government of Maharashtra vide communication dated 14th June, 2011. The said communication is originally in Marathi. The petitioner has provided 12 143011 true translation thereof at Exhibit ‘D’ to the petition. However, the translation is inaccurate. We would reproduce the original Marathi as well as official translation of the said communication. The same reads thus: “egkjk”V~ ‘kklu dzekad % ladh.kZ 2011@(152@11)@ef’k&1 mPp o ra= f’k{k.k foHkkx] ea=ky; foLrkj Hkou] eqacbZ 400 032 fnukad % 14 tqu] 2011- izfr] lapkyd] mPp f’k{k.k lapkyuky;] e/;orhZ bekjr] iq.ks- fo”k; % ikp o”khZ; fo/kh vH;kldzekP;k izos’kkckcr lanHkZ & izkpk;Z] fo/kh egkfo|ky; ;kaps i= dz-’ kkfoe@izos ’k @2011@406] fn-4 tqu] 2011- mijksDr fo”k;kckcrps lanfHkZ; i=kuqlkj dGfo.;kr ;srs dh] ‘kkldh; fo/kh egkfo|ky;] eqacbZ ;sFkhhy ikp o”kkZaP;k vH;kldzeke/;s lu 1996 iklwu iz?kkrkuqlkj egkjk”V~ cksMkZkO;frfjDr brj f’k{k.k eaMGkrwu 12 oh ikl >kysY;k fo|kF;kZauk izos’kklkBh ikp Vdds tknk xq.kkaph e;kZnk Bso.;kr ;sr vkgs- ;klaca/kh fo|kihB dk;n;kuqlkj Lfkkfir egkfo|ky;kaP;k Lfkkfud O;oLFkkiu lferh ;kauh osGksosGh fu.kZ; ?ksoqu R;kpcjkscj lu 2005 e/;s ckj dkSafUly vkWQ baMh;k ;kapk ;kckcrpk vk{ksi fopkjkr ?ksowu ikp o”kkZP;k fo/kh vH;kldzeklkBh ikp VDD;kph e;kZnk Bso.;kpk tk.khoiwoZd fu.kZ; ? 13 143011 ksryk vkgs- rks ?ksr vlrkuk ;ke/;s egkjk”V~ cksMZe/kwu 12 ohph ijh{kk mRrh.kZ >kysY;k fo|kF;kZaP;kckcrhr HksnHkko gksbZy fdaok dk; ;kapkgh mgkiksg dsY;kps dk;Zo`rkar uewn vkgs- ‘kklukdMs lknj >kysY;k dkxni=ko#u fnukad 17@4@2006] 13@4@2005 P;k cSBdkae/;s [kkyhy lnL; lgHkkxh vly;kps fnlwu ;srs- v-dz- fnukad 13@4@2005 ph cSBd fn-17@4@2006 ph cSBd 1- ek-U;k-Mh- vkj- /kkuqdk MkW-fot; dqyd.khZ 2- vWM-pOgk.k izkpk;kZ MkW-jko 3- izk/;kfidk th ,u ijkorh U;k-/kkuqdk 4- izk/;kid eksdy vWM-jfQd nknk (ofj”B fo/khK) 5- izk-jfprk j/kks vWM-jktho pOgk.k 6- ,l th nGoh (DykdZ bupktZ) izk-th-,u- ijkorh 7- izkpk;Z MkW-ih vkj jko izk/;kid eksdy 8- --- izk-jfprk j/kks 9- --- ,l th nGoh ;klaca/kh ekuoh gDd vk;ksxkdMs Jh-lnkorsZ ;kauh ,d rdzkj nk[ky dsysyh gksrh- rFkkfi] ekuoh gDd vk;ksxkpk fnukad 12@2@2011 pk vkns’k igkrk] R;kauh gh O;oLFkk pkyq Bsokoh dk can djkoh ;kckcr vkns’k ok f’kQkjl dsysyh ukgh- ek=] vk;ksxkus ;klaca/kh ;FkkfLFkrh jkT; ‘kklu fdaok fo|kihBkdMwu vkns’k izkIr d#u ?;kosr vls lwfpr dsysys vkgs o lnj rdzkj ekuoh gDd vk;ksxkP;k v[kR;kjhr ;sr ulY;kps uewn d#u rh fopkjkr ?ks.;klkj[kh ulY;kps vk;ksxkus uewn dsY;kps fnlrs- egkfo|ky;ke/;s izos’k ns.ks] R;ke/;s Bsoko;kps vkj{k.k] O;oLFkkiu fgLlk] bR;knh ckchaps vkns’k dk<.;kps vf/kdkj fo|kihBkps vkgsr- Eg.kqu fo/kh egkfo|ky;kus gk fo”k; fo|kihBkP;k vf/kdkjkr ;sr vlY;keqGs fo|kihBkl ;Fkk;ksX; izLrko lknj d#u vkns’k izkIr dj.;kph dk;Zokgh djkoh o rh ckc ekuoh gDd vk;ksxkl dGokoh- njE;ku izpfyr i/nr pkyw jkghy- lgh lnkf’ko f’konkl) lglfpo] egkjk”V~ ‘kklu izr -- izkpk;Z] ‘kkldh; fo/kh egkfo|ky;] eqacbZ 14 143011 TRUE TRANSLATION – MARATHI TO ENGLISH “Government of Maharashtra Number: Miscellaneous 2011/ 152/11 D/ CE-1 Higher & Technical Education Department, Mantralaya Extension Building Mumbai – 400 032. Date : 14 June 2011 To Director Directorate of Higher Education Central Building, Pune Subject: Regarding admission of Five Years Law Course Reference: Letter No. GLC/ Admission/ 2011/ 406 dated 4th June 2011 of Principal, Law College. As per the letter under reference on the abovenoted subject, it is informed that since the year 1996, as per practice, a provision of five percent additional marks limit is made for the students passed 12th (Standard) from Educational Boards other than Maharashtra Boards, for getting admission to five years course in the Government Law College, Mumbai. In this regard, the local Management committee of the College established as per the Universities Act, took a decision, from time to time, and in view of the objection of Bar Council of India in this regard, in the year 2005, took a conscious decision to keep a limit of five per cent, for five years Law Course. While taking the said decision, it was also elaborately discussed on the issue as to whether this would result into discrimination in respect of the students passed 12th Standard examination from Maharashtra Board or else, which has been noted down in the minutes. From the documents submitted to the Government it appears that following members were participated in the meetings dated 17th April, 2006 and 13th April, 2005. 15 143011 Meeting dated 13/4/2005 Meeting dated 17/4/2006 Hon'ble Justice D. R. Dhanuka Dr. Vijay Kulkarni Adv. Chavan Principal Dr. Rao Professor G. N. Paravati Hon'ble Justice Dhanuka Professor Mokal Adv. Rafiq Dada, Senior Advocate Prof. Rachita Radho Adv. Rajiv Chavan S. G. Dalvi, Clerk, Incharge Prof. G. N. Paravati Prof. Dr. P. R. Rao Professor Mokal ---------------- Prof Rachita Radho ---------------- S. G. Dalvi In this regard, Shri Sadavarte had lodged one complaint with Human Rights Commission. However, on perusing the order dated 12th February, 2011 of Human Rights Commission, it is seen that it (Human Rights Commission) has neither issued order or made recommendation as to whether such system (practice) should be kept continued or stopped. However, the Commission has suggested that the order may be obtained from the State Government or University, as the case may be. And the Commission has mentioned that the said complaint does come within the purview of the Human Rights Commission and the same is not worth taking into consideration by the Commission. To pass orders on the issues namely - to give admission in the college, to keep reservation in that regard, management share (quota), etc., are the powers pertaining to the University. Hence, the said subject of Law College falls 16 143011 within the ambit of the University, an action of submitting appropriate proposal to the University and to obtain orders thereon may be taken and the Human Rights Commission may be informed to that effect. In the meantime, prevailing procedure shall be continued. Sd/- Sadashiv Shivdas Joint Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra Copy:-Principal, Government Law College, Mumbai ” 3) The said petitioner thus having realised that she may not get admission in the Respondent No.2 college rushed to this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, which was verified by her on 8.7.2011 but presented in the Registry of this Court on 11.7.2011. In the Petition originally filed, the only grievance made is about the unfairness in deducting 5% marks of students who have passed 12th standard examination from Boards other than the Maharashtra Board. It is contended that the merit list of candidates is prepared on the basis of directions contained in the above said letter which has no force of law and in any case, such artificial distinction is arbitrary and illegal. According to the said petitioner, the State of Maharashtra, at best, could reserve certain percentage for students from Maharashtra, that too by making a law. However, it is not open to deduct 5% marks of students merely because those students have passed the qualifying examination from Boards other than the Maharashtra Board. The next 17 143011 ground in the writ petition is that the policy of deducting 5% marks of students who have passed the qualifying examination from Boards other than the Maharashtra Board is in violation of the fundamental right of the citizens to travel and settle down in any part of India. On that basis, the said petitioner prayed for the following substantive reliefs in the original writ petition: “a) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction he issued calling for the records and files of the case and after going into the legality and validity of the decision contained in letter dated 14th June 2011 (Exhibit “D”) to deduct 5% marks while giving admissions to students who have passed their XIIth standard examination from any board other than Maharashtra Secondary School Board, quash and set aside the same. b) That writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be issued ordering and directing respondents 1 and 2 to give admission to the petitioner in the first year law course on the basis of actual marks secured by the petitioner and not after deducting 5% of marks. c) That the respondent 1 and 2 be ordered and directed to carry out if necessary, fresh admission process for 1st year law course and without deducting 5% marks of students who have passed XIIth standard examinations of any board other than Maharashtra Secondary School Board. d) ... e) ... f) ... g) ...” 18 143011 4) The said petition was listed before the Court on 14.7.2011 when the Court proceeded to record the statement made by the Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State as well as the Law College. The said order reads thus: “The learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing for the Government of Maharashtra states that the Government of Maharashtra withdraws the letter dated 14-6-2011, copy of which is at Exh.G to the petition. 2. It has also been pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that in the Ordinance Nos.5077 and 5078 framed by the University regulating admission to the three Years LL.B. Degree Course and Five Years LL.B. Degree Course there is no provision for making reservation for Backward Class candidates and other categories. However, the Prospectus issued by the University provides for reservation for Backward Class candidates as also other categories. He also pointed out that there is no provision for faculty wise reservation of seats in any Law or in any instrument having the force of Law. That in five years course any seat will be reserved faculty wise is also not mentioned in the Prospectus. 3. The learned AGP appearing for the State and the Law College stated that in view of what has been pointed out by the Petitioner, the Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 will rework the admission to all the seats in five years course and shall consider the claim of the Petitioner also in accordance with law. Statement is accepted. 4. In our opinion, in view of this statement, it will be appropriate to grant one week time to the Respondents to do the needful. Put up after one week.” 19 143011 5) The matter was then moved on 19.7.2011 on the basis of a praecipe. However, no order was passed on the said praecipe. Thereafter, the companion petition was produced by the petitioners therein on 20.7.2011 praying for interim protection as they apprehended that their admission was likely to be cancelled by the College on the basis of the statement recorded in the order dated 14.7.2011. The said Writ Petition being Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1459 of 2011 was ordered to be placed on 21.7.2011 alongwith the former petition. 6) The second Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1459 of 2011 has been filed by 43 students of the College who have already secured admission to the first year of Five years law course on the basis of the merit list notified by the GLC from time to time. According to these petitioners, the College ought not to have made the statement before the Court to jeopardise their interests, that too without giving them any opportunity or prior notice whatsoever. Accordingly, the petitioners in the second writ petition have prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “a) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari be passed in respect of the papers and proceedings pertaining to the admissions given to the 20 143011 students in the Government Law College, first year of five years B.L.S.LL.B. Course to cancel, recall / expunge the said statement made on behalf of the Ld. AGP in the said Bombay High Court, OOCJ, Writ Petition (L) No.1385 of 2011. b) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and order in the nature of mandamus be issued ordering and directing respondent No.1 to set aside, cancel and/or not to disturb the admissions granted to the petitioners students. c) ... d) ... d) ... ” 7) Besides the above said cross writ petition filed by the students who have already been admitted to the first year of five years Law course in the GLC, other similarly placed students have filed four separate Chamber Summonses in the former writ petition essentially for impleading them as respondents therein. Even these applicants support the stand of the petitioners in the second Writ Petition filed by 43 students already admitted to the course. In each of these Chamber Summons, the concerned applicants have stated on affidavit that their admission to the first year of Five years Law course should not be disturbed and at any rate at the instance of the petitioner in the first writ petition, who waited to file the said writ petition till their admission process was completed. The said applicants in their respective 21 143011 affidavits have further stated that each of them having secured good marks on the basis of which they could have got admission in any other College and even to professional courses, which option they have given up as they got admission in the GLC. As a result, any adverse order by the Court, at this stage, would cause them irreparable loss as they would not only be thrown out of the GLC but may not be in a position to get admission to any other course at this belated stage since the academic year of all other courses including the Five years law course has already commenced since long. All these applicants have prayed for dismissal of the first writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.1430 of 2011. 8) As a consequence of the plea taken by the applicants in the Chamber Summonses and the cross writ petition filed by the 43 students, the petitioner in the former Writ Petition decided to amend her Writ Petition to urge further grounds to challenge the admission process and also pray for further substantive reliefs. The Court on 21.7.2011 allowed the petitioner in the former petition to amend her Writ Petition. Pursuant to the said liberty, the said petitioner has added further grounds. On 21st July, 2011, when all these mattes were listed for hearing, attention of the Court was invited to a notice issued by the 22 143011 In-charge Principal of the College on the basis of her understanding of the order of this Court dated 14.7.2011. The said notice at Exhibit ‘E’ of Chamber Summons No. 201 of 2011 reads thus: “NOTICE Pursuant to the order dated 14thJuly 2011 passed by the Hon.Division Bench of Hon.Justice Shri Deshmukh and Hon. Justice Shri. Ketkar in Writ Petition No. (L) 1385 of