1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 5 OF 2008 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 117 OF 2005 DIST.: PUNE Training and Advanced Studies in Management And Communications Ltd. (TASMAC) ...Petitioner Versus Dinesh D. Kamat & State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr. Arshad Hidayatulla, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/by Mr. Sandeep R. Waghmare for the Petitioner Mr. S.N. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and S.A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 P.C.:- We passed an order on January 30, 2008 in Public Interest Litigation No. 117 of 2005, directing mainly to close down the institutions which were running courses which needed the permission of 2 the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and were running, as a matter of fact, such courses without the permission of AICTE. The petitioner has filed a Review Petition on the ground that some matter is pending in the Calcutta High Court, but he concedes that the Calcutta High Court has not passed an order of injunction. It is stated by the petitioner that it is running a course which, according to the respondents, requires permission of AICTE, but it actually does not need any permission of AICTE. It has referred to a clarification by which AICTE has directed that certain institutions should not admit students, as they do not have approval of AICTE. Its institution is one of such institutions as notified by the said Notification. 2. Even the Government, in an earlier affidavit, maintained that the petitioner needed permission of AICTE for running the institution. In any event, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to necessity of approval of AICTE or not, it can always take redressal from appropriate Court. 3. What we have stated in the order earlier is reiterated that any institution which, in the view of the Government, is running a course, 3 which needs permission from AICTE, and does not have permission, should be closed down after giving notice. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed in this Review Petition, the Government has, in paragraph 5, stated as under:- “I say that similar to the petitioner' s case, another Institute viz., Indian Institute of Planning and Management, IIPM Tower, Junction of 32nd Road and S.V. Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai- 50 has filed W.P. (Civil) No. 4630/2007 which is pending before Hon'ble High Court, Delhi. It is therefore requested to the Hon'ble Court to give further directions regarding action to be taken by the State Government in sub-judiced matters.” 5. Therefore, it appears that there are two institutions – one is the petitioner-institution and the other institution is Indian Institute of Planning and Management - which is also running an institute without the permission of AICTE, which has filed a petition pending in the Delhi High Court. The Government has also sought clarification from this Court as to what should be done with these two institutions. 6. We clarify that all institutions in the State, which are being run without the permission of AICTE, which need permission in the view of AICTE and Government of Maharashtra, should be closed down. 4 It would be immaterial whether any litigation is pending in any Court with respect to any institution, unless any Court of law has issued any order of injunction directing otherwise. We further clarify that if any institutions have been closed down on the ground that they need the permission of AICTE but do not need the permission of AICTE, they may take recourse to law. 7. With these observations, the Review Petition is disposed of. BILAL NAZKI, J. S.A. BOBDE, J.