1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8641 OF 2009 Bodhisativa Shikshan Prasarak Wa Bahuddeshiya Samajsevi Sanstha, Solapur ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. P. J. Thorat for Petitioner. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar – AGP for State – Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 29, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 4th March 2009 passed by the respondent no. 3 as well the order dated 7th August 2009 passed by the respondent no. 4 whereby the application of the petitioner dated 27th December 2006, seeking increase in the additional intake capacity in the recognized D.Ed. Programme being run by Shri Ramdas Athawale College of Education at Bhogaon by 50 seats, for the academic 2 session commencing from June 2007, came to be rejected. Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent no.3 rejected the proposal / application on the basis of the negative recommendations received by respondent no. 3 from the respondent no. 1. 3. The learned counsel states that the issue involved is no more res integra and is covered by the decision of this Court dated 15th February 2010 rendered in writ petition no. 1187 of 2010 (Sidheshwar Shikshan Prasarak Institution, Sangli vs. The Regional Director, Western Regional Committee & Ors.). It is contended that in identical situation, this Court set aside the communication issued by the NCTE on the similar ground of negative recommendations and directed the NCTE to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners in the said petition for permission to start D.Ed. Colleges for ensuing academic session in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Ors. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the reasons stated by this Court in the said decision, the impugned communications / orders may be quashed and set aside and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 may be directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner seeking increase in the intake capacity by 50 seats for ensuing academic year. 3 4. The counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter including the fact that the cause of action involved in the present petition is covered by the decision of this Court dated 15th February 2010 passed in writ petition no. 1187 of 2010. 5. In view of the above referred undisputed facts, it is not in dispute that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court and therefore we quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 4th March 2009 and 7th August 2009 passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively, in view of the decision of the Court and direct the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to consider the application of the petitioner seeking increase in the intake capacity by 50 seats for ensuing academic year in accordance with the decision of this Court dated 15th February 2010 and take a decision in this regard within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)