IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6180 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6180 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6180 OF 2008 SMSK Gramin Vikas Pratisthan’s ] Chandrashekhar Gobbi Adyapak Vidyalaya ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra & 3 ors. ] .. Respondents Mr. C.K. Thomas i/b M/s. C.K. Thomas & Associates for the petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP, for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & D.B. BHOSALE, JJ. DATED: 5TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner states that it is a minority institution and that they are running a D.Ed. College in Kannada medium at Sangli. They have been granted permission to open and run the college for the academic year 2008-2009. The admissions have been given by the Central Admission Committee of the State of Maharashtra and the college is being run. As per Government Circular dated 8th July, 2008, the institution is under an obligation to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- one-time for : 2 : initiating the admission process. The said condition is challenged by way of the present Writ Petition. 3. In reply to the Writ Petition, the Government has stated in their Affidavit thus: "1. I say that the present Petition is filed challenging the notification dated 8th July 2008 and 11th July, 2008 of imposing cost of Rs.2,00,000/- on newly commenced D.Ed. courses. I say that the Regional Deputy Director is a Competent Authority for approval of Petitioner’s admission in the minority quota and for admission in minority colleges. I say that Government Resolution dated 4th July, 2008 is applicable to the minority colleges. I say that the reason of accepting an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from each newly colleges is for following reasons. (i) Expenditure on inspection of all D.Ed. colleges by Deputy Director and District Institution of Education and Training. (ii) Expenditure on different types of training of teachers of D.Ed. colleges in every year. (iii) Expenditure on printing and distribution of training module, resource book. This training module, resource books are provided to every D.Ed. colleges. (iv) Expenditure on numerous visit to every D.Ed. Colleges to inspect that all the facilities are provided in the colleges. (v) If students are not available to minority institutions and those minority institutions demand students for their colleges from Government quota, Government provides the students to such institutions. For this admission process expenditure is incurred every year and in future. : 3 : (vi) Internship is applicable to students of every D.Ed. colleges alongwith petitioner and all minority colleges. To every student alongwith petitioner’s college and all minority colleges, Government provided books of internship which includes instructions and guidelines about internship. Expenditure is incurred on all types of printing and distribution of above books on internship and all types of expenditure on internship. Internship is compulsory to student of all minority colleges. (vii) All these D.Ed. colleges are recognised on permanent no grant basis. Government have to incur expenditure for providing above facilities, for maintenance of quality of teacher education. 2. I say that National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE, Bhopal) granted permission to 333 D.Ed. colleges/additional divisions. Government of Maharashtra granted permission to accept Rs.2,00,000/- as fees for admission process and documentation charges by letter dated 8th July, 2008. MSCERT communicated with reference to the said letter by the Government to all 333 institutions. The Petitioner is one of the 333 institutions. All institutions have deposited Rs.2,00,000/- each division of D.Ed. except Petitioner College. I say that 330 institutions have no grievances and no complaints regarding this matter is filed. . I say that further if any institution is closed or derecognized then Government has to shift students, staff to other institution with their tuition fees and provide facilities for shifted student’s education. . I say that this fee is accepted at the time of starting new D.Ed. college / additional divisions one time only and it will not be charged every year." 4. Thus the Government has explained as to how and in what manner the expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- is : 4 : required to be incurred in respect of each of the new institution. This expenditure is recovered only once and thereafter the admission process fees are borne out by the Government and/or they are recovered from the students. Looking to the fact that the expenditure has been reasonably and properly explained by the Government, we do not find any reason to interfere in the said Government Circular. 5. Apart from that, the permission was granted on 25th January, 2008, to open a D.Ed. College for the academic year 2008-2009. The impugned Government Circular was issued on 8th July, 2008. Thereafter, the entire process of admission was completed. Students were allotted seats in the petitioner-institution. So, after completion of the admission process, the grievance in respect of the said Government Circular is being tried to be agitated. In fact, before the admission process, the petitioner should have approached this court. The delay and latches in this regard have not been properly explained. Thus, after having completed the process of admission and having seen that the college is now running smoothly, an attempt has been made by fling this Petition to save Rs.2,00,000/-, but as we have seen that the Government is justified in demanding the amount, we refrain to entertain the : 5 : Petition. 5. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [D.B. [D.B. [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] BHOSALE, J.] BHOSALE, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]