1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO:5158/2008 (Swargiya Narendraraqo Ashtankar Bahuuddeshiya Seva Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra and another ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 23rd January, 2009. *** 1. Heard Mr F T Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms Bharati Dangre, learned Additional Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1 and Mr B G Kulkarni, for Respondent No.2. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner-Sanstha has made an application to the University for permission to open Arts, Commerce and Science College ( BA BCA/BCS) at Deoli town of Wardha District from the academic session 2008-09. The proposal of the petitioner-Sanstha was recommended by the University to the State Government for necessary orders. However since the petitioner-Sanstha did not receive any communication from the State Government, on earlier occasion, filed a Writ Petition No.4161/2008 for the necessary direction to the State Government. It is contended that the said petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24th September 2008 on the basis 2 of statement of the learned AGP appeared in the matter, that the order of rejection along with reasons therefor shall be furnished to the petitioner within a period of fifteen days. It is contended that in spite of the said assurance, the State Government did not do anything and, therefore, the petitioner had to approach this Court for the second time seeking similar direction by filing the present petition. 3. Smt.Dangre, learned Addl. GP has submitted that the proposal of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government by passing a reasoned order and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State Government did not bother to communicate its decision taken on the proposal of the petitioner and hence the petitioner is again required to file the present petition for similar directions to the State Government which were prayed in the earlier petition. It is contended that inaction on the part of the State Government has not only caused a lot of inconvenience and undue hardship to the petitioner, but it has resulted in causing lot of financial burden to the petitioner, since the petitioner is required to approach this Court twice by filing petitions. It is submitted that this is not a solitary case where the State Government has not bothered to communicate its decision on the proposal of opening new College received by it from the University. 3 There are many other cases where the State Government did not bother to communicate its decision taken on the proposal of the applicant/s. 5. In the instant case, the petitioner has to undergo hardship as well as monetary expenditure due to inaction on the part of the State Government, therefore, same may be compensated by awarding exemplary costs on the State. 6. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the instant case, the above-referred facts are not disputed. We want to express that we came across many matters in the past where the State Government did not bother to communicate its decision taken in respect of proposal for opening new College or School, recommended by the University and received by it, because of the inaction on the part of the State Government to communicate its decision, many petitions in the past were filed in this Court seeking direction to the State Government to communicate its decision to the person who had applied for opening new College. This Court was required to issue such directions in the past from time to time, merely because the State Government did not bother to communicate its decision to the person/s concerned. In many orders we have expressed our dissatisfaction in respect of the casual attitude shown by the State Government and also directed the State Government to inform the person concerned about its decision. However, there is no improvement in the attitude of the State 4 Government, in this regard. 7. In the instant case, the casual attitude shown by the State Government is a matter of concern. Because of the inaction on the part of the State Government to communicate its decision to the petitioner, the petitioner has to approach this Court twice by filing two petitions and had to incur lot of expenditure, apart from inconvenience suffered by the petitioner. We deprecate the attitude of the State Government and direct the State Government to communicate its decision taken in respect of the proposal of the petitioner as well as reasons given for rejecting the same within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner, in our view, has made a case for imposing exemplary costs on the State Government. Hence, we direct the State Government (Respondent No.1) to deposit the costs of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) in this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. On such deposit, it will be open for the petitioner to withdraw the same. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Issues raised in the petition are kept open. JUDGE JUDGE sahare