1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1189 OF 2010 Abhyudaya Sanstha s College of D.Ed., through Chairman Shri Suresh Nikam, Nashik ...Petitioners v/s The Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, The National Council for Teacher Education, Bhopal and others ...Respondents Mr M.S. Karnik for Petitioners. Mr U.P. Warunjikar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R. JOSHI JJ. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] The petitioners had applied to respondent No.1 for permission to start D.Ed. College. It appears that the respondent No.1 refused to consider the application of the petitioners because the State Government has taken a policy decision not to permit starting of any B.Ed. or D.Ed. Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. Submission of the petitioners, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v/s Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and ors., reported in 2006 DGLS (Soft) 192, is that the respondent No.1 could not have declined to scrutinize the application submitted by the petitioners because of the policy decision taken by the State Government. Submission of th petitioners is that the respondent No.1 should have considered those applications in accordance with law. One of the relevant factors 3 undoubtedly would have been the stand taken by the State Government. According to the petitioners, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.1 needs to be set aside with a direction to respondent No.1 to scrutinize the application submitted by the petitioners 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 leaned counsel appearing for respondents. 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.1 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. And D. Ed. Colleges in the State. It has to consider those applications 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. 4 3] The order impugned in the petition is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners 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 v/s Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and ors. The decision of respondent No.1 be communicated to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of twelve weeks from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE A.R. JOSHI )