1 WP9717.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9717 OF 2010 Vasant Prakash Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha & anr. ... Petitioners v/s The Shivaji University, Kolhapur & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Surel S. Shah for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Borkar for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent No.3. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R. Y. GANOO, JJ. DATED: 5TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Mr.Borkar waives notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 WP9717.10 4. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is primarily challenging the decision of the respondent No.2 contained in communication dated 28.10.2010 Exh.”O”. It is noticed that the decision recorded therein is essentially on the basis of the decision of our High Court in Writ Petition No.2216 of 2006, dated 3.12.2008. However, the said decision of the High Court was challenged by several institutions before the Apex Court by way of S.L.P. No.13944 of 2009 and companion petitions. The same has been finally disposed of on 28.3.2011. The decision of the High Court has been set aside by the Apex Court. It necessarily follows that the view expressed in the impugned communication dated 28.10.2010 by respondent No.2 will have to be set aside as it is based on non-existing ground referred to therein consequent to the setting aside of the High Court order dated 3.12.2008 in Writ Petition No.2216 of 2006. 5. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned decision dated 28.10.2010 Exh.”O”. 6. Considering the fact that during the pendency of this petition the petitioners have already appointed Principal by way of an interview process in which the University has taken part coupled with the fact that the forms of the 3 WP9717.10 candidates who were supposed to appear in the examination were allowed to be processed pursuant to the interim order, other reliefs claimed in the petition do not survive for consideration. 7. We however make it clear that it will be open to the University to take action against the petitioners if ground other than that the one referred to in the impugned communication is available and in existence. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the above terms. ( R. Y. GANOO, J. ) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) 4 WP9717.10