skc 1 CA-2212-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2212 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4142 OF 2010 Nandikeshwar Educational Society ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A. M. Joshi for Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale - Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar with Mr. Pravartak Pathak for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR , JJ. 05 August 2011. P.C. (In Chamber) : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6. skc 2 CA-2212-10 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court vide Order dated 2nd July 2010 disposed of the writ petition no. 4142 of 2010 with liberty to file a fresh application with the authorities for permission to open D.Ed. course for the academic session 2011-2012. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proposal of the petitioner submitted to the authorities seeking permission to start D.Ed. course was for the academic year 2007-2008 and therefore the Court was not inclined to show indulgence in the writ petition, hence the learned counsel thought it fit in the interest of the petitioner to seek liberty for submitting fresh application to start D.Ed. course for the academic session 2011-2012, though there were no specific instructions given by the petitioner in this regard. It is therefore submitted that the Order dated 2nd July 2010 may kindly be recalled and writ petition no. 4142 of 2010 may kindly be restored to the file of this Court. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel and perused the impugned order passed. Perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the writ petition was directed against the communication / order dated 6/13.4.2007 passed by the respondent no. 5 whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of permission to start D.Ed. course for the academic session 2007-2008 came to be rejected. Since the petition was skc 3 CA-2212-10 filed in the year 2010 and the permission sought by the petitioner to start D.Ed. course was for the academic session 2007-2008 and the same was rejected in the year 2007, this Court did not want to show indulgence in the matter. At that stage, the learned counsel sought permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file a fresh proposal to the respondent no. 5 for grant of permission to start D.Ed. course for academic session 2011-2012. It is in these circumstances, this Court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn and granted liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application. It is very difficult, at this stage, to appreciate the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not specifically instructed him to seek permission to withdraw the present writ petition and therefore it is not possible for us to show indulgence in these proceedings. 4. In the circumstances, the civil application is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)