IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.1278/2010 Shri Kisan Seva Shikshan Sanstha .. Petitioner. Vs. National Council for Teacher Education and others .. Respondents. Mr Bhushan A. Walimbe and Preeti B. Walimbe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr S.R.Nargolkar, Govt.Pleader for Respondent No.3. Mr U.P. Warunjikar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and 2. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 23rd FEBRUARY,2010 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner in this petition had applied for permission to start D.Ed. College to Respondent No.2. It appears that Respondent No.2 rejected the application of the petitioner without scrutinizing it and merely because the State Government has given its opinion that it has taken a policy decision not to permit establishment of any D.Ed. College in the State of Maharashtra. The 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. The submission of the petitioner is that Respondent No.2 should have considered application of the petitioner 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 is liable 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. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. In our opinion, the view taken by the respondent No.2 declining to scrutinize the application submitted by the petitioner because of the policy decision taken by the State Government is not proper. 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 to it only because the State Government has taken a policy decision that it does not want to permit establishment of D.Ed.,colleges in the State. It has to consider this 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. ::O R D E R:: (i)Order impugned in the petition is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for permission to start D.Ed.College as per his 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) The 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. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI,J)