cp141.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 141 OF 2011 Adivasi Unnati Seva Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha Khadki .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, AGP for the State. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 28 th APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1 The petitioner is alleging violation of the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition no. 792/2009 decided on 31 st July, 2009. While disposing of the writ petition this court issued directions as below : . In the light of that therefore according to us, the respondents have not taken into consideration the strength of the students from these 3 schools which would be available for taking admission in the proposed college of the petitioner. In the light of that therefore the matter needs to be examined afresh by the respondents to ascertain if the proposed college of the petitioner would have adequate number of students for taking admission. cp141.11 2 We therefore quash and set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Authorities for the decision afresh. We also extend an opportunity to the petitioner to provide un-impeachable material for indicating the exact strength of students which would be available for taking admission in the proposed college of the petitioner. This be done by the petitioner within 2 weeks from today and the respondents to examine the documents afresh within 4 weeks of receipt of the documents from the petitioner. 2 Respondent no. 4 has presented an affidavit in reply wherein it has been stated that an order has already been passed and the same has been communicated by the Education Officer to the petitioner by communication dated 18-4-2011. It is noted in the communication that the proposal submitted by the petitioner having been found not feasible has been rejected. The proposal submitted by the petitioner came to be turned down on consideration of the policy prescribed by the State Government vide Circular dated 14-8-2008. 3 It is canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that this is a new ground found by the authority to deny the claim raised by the petitioner which was not a defence raised when the petition was considered. It would be open for the petitioner to raise challenge to the impugned order if the same is not to the satisfaction of the petitioner. It is cp141.11 3 noted in the affidavit in reply presented by respondent no. 4 that the District Level Committee has considered the claim of the petitioner afresh. The District Level Committee has taken into consideration the fact that there are already two junior colleges operating within the radius of 10 kilometers. It is also taken into consideration that if new junior college is granted permission then the strength of the existing junior colleges would be adversely affected and it would be violative of the policy prescribed by the State. It is also recorded in the affidavit that the District Level Committee has arrived at conclusion that no sufficient strength of students is available and there are already two aided junior colleges functioning within 10 kilometers area and these aided colleges would be adversely affected if new junior college is permitted to be opened and the existing college staff is also likely to be rendered surplus. In this view of the matter, the Committee has refused to grant permission to the petitioner to open new college. 4 The decision of the Committee is communicated to the petitioner / institution on 18-4-2011. Considering the explanation given by respondent no. 4 in the affidavit in reply, I am of the opinion that respondents have not intentionally violated the directives issued by this court while disposing of Writ cp141.11 4 Petition no. 792/2009. If the order passed by the authority is not to the satisfaction of the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to raise challenge before the appropriate forum. Contempt petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. 5 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb