25.wp.539-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.539 OF 2010 Raigad Education Society's Dalitmitra Madhavrao Sawant College of D.Ed. ..Petitioner. Versus Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, & 2 others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.M.S. Karnik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for Respondent No.3. Mr.U.P. Warunjikar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 28, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner had applied to respondent No.2 for permission to start D.Ed. College. It appears that respondent No.2 refused to consider the application of the petitioner because the State Government has taken a policy decision not to permit starting of any B.Ed. or D.Ed colleges 25.wp.539-10 2 in the State of Maharashtra. Submission of the petitioner, by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors reported in 2006 DGLS (Soft.) 192 is that respondent No.2 could not have declined to scrutinize the application submitted by the petitioner because of the policy decision taken by the State Government. Submission of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 should have considered those applications in accordance with law. One of the relevant factors undoubtedly would have been the stand taken by the State Government. According to the petitioner, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.2 as also the order of Appellate Authority needs to be set aside with a direction to respondent No.2 to scrutinize the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya's case referred to above and in accordance with law. We have heard the learned 25.wp.539-10 3 Counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 points out that in some of the Petitions, the petitioners have not approached the Appellate Authority. In our opinion, as the view taken by the respondent No.2 as also the appellate Authority is the same, viz., declining to scrutinize the application submitted by the petitioner because of the policy decision taken by the State Government. In our opinion, considering that the law appears to be settled because of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above that respondent No. 2 cannot decline to scrutinize the application submitted only because the State Government has taken a policy decision that it does not want to permit establishment of B.Ed & D.Ed. colleges in the State. It has to consider those application in accordance with law and the decision of the State Government is also to be considered and given its due weightage. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 25.wp.539-10 4 :: O R D E R :: [i] Order impugned in the Petition is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner for permission to start D.Ed. college as per their application for the ensuing year in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors. [ii] Decision of respondent No.2 be communicated to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 12 weeks from today. [iii] Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)