1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4461 OF 2009 Jijau Gramin Krushi Vikas Pratishthan Mahila Sevabhavi Sanstha, Banegaon, Tq. Kaij, Dist.Beed through its President Smt.Sushilabai Ganpatrao Morale R/o Beed .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others .. Respondents Shri P.G.Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Shri H.A.Joshi and A.M.Awate, Advocates for petitioner Shri V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondent No.1 Shri S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 23rd July 2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner seeks to challenge the resolution passed by the Academic Council withdrawing the affiliation of the petitioner’s institute. The reliefs which the petitioner has sought for in this petition vide prayer clause (A) is to challenge the said resolution and vide prayer clause (B) is to direct the respondents to grant permanent approval in favour of the petitioner. 2 2. We need not dialate much on the factual aspect of the case as it appears that the petitioner – trust started a College known as Sant Bhagwanbaba Arts and Science College, Ghatshil Pargaon, Tq.Shirur Kasar, District Beed. The affiliation which was granted to the petitioner’s college right from 2002 till today was a temporary affiliation subject to the petitioner fulfilling the various deficiencies which were noticed. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 12.1.2009 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the affiliation granted to the petitioner’s institute should not be withdrawn. The petitioner submitted reply on 11.2.2009 pointing out that the petitioner’s institute had fulfilled or cured whatever deficiencies which were noticed. The petitioner also undertook to remove any deficiencies which were noticed subsequently. It appears that a committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr.Sambhaji Warangule came to be appointed to visit the institute of the petitioner in order to verify whether the deficiencies which were noticed had been rectified/cured. The report of the Warangule Committee dated 4.6.2009 discloses several deficiencies to which at this stage it is not necessary to refer. The deficiencies which were noticed are at Serial No.1 to 6 in the report of the Committee which is annexed by the petitioner at Exh.”M” to the petition. Pursuant thereto a resolution came to be passed withdrawing affiliation of the petitioner’s institute. 3. Shri P.G.Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the report of the Warangule Committee and by reference to 3 the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice has attempted to establish that the deficiencies which were noticed by the committee were only illusory deficiencies as petitioner’s institute cured all the deficiencies which were noticed. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner there are no deficiencies which are existing at least any deficiency which would warrant the withdrawal of the affiliation. Next it was urged before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Committee did not visit the institute of the petitioner but it was only the Chairman alone who had visited the institute. It was then urged by Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the exercise of withdrawal of the affiliation is a mala fide exercise which is carried out by the respondents in order to aid and assist another institute in the same locality in getting grants from the Government. It is urged before us that only one College/institute was entitled to receive the grants and the petitioner, therefore, has been eliminated in a very systematic and planned manner in order to ensure that the other institute would receive the grants. 4. Shri Thombre, learned Counsel for the University has urged before us for dismissal of the petition on the ground that temporary affiliation had been granted to the petitioner’s institute right from 2002 till 2009 on the basis of undertakings to remove deficiencies which were noticed. It is further urged before us that int he year 2008, a committee had been constituted in order to review the statement of the petitioner that no 4 deficiencies existed. The report of the said committee was placed for consideration before the Academic Council and the Academic Council had passed the resolution of withdrawal of the affiliation in a phased manner. A reply of the petitioner was received and in order to ensure whether the deficiencies had been removed by the petitioner, the Warangule Committee came to be appointed and the Warangule Committee had submitted its report and on the basis of the said report of the Warangule Committee, resolution has been passed by the Academic Council withdrawing affiliation of the petitioner’s institute. 5. The submission advanced by Shri Deshmukh that all the deficiencies and the deficiencies which have been noticed by the Warangule Committee are removed, according to us, cannot be sustained. The Committee has submitted a report and in the report the deficiencies had been pointed out. The respondents are the experts in the field to judge as to the number of class rooms which are necessary to cater to the needs of the students which are admitted to the institution. Similarly, number of books in the library and the facilities provided whether adequate or inadequate is a matter to be judged by the University. This Court cannot examine that aspect. In respect of the second contention of Shri Deshmukh that Warangule Committee did not visit the institute of the petitioner but the Chairman alone had visited, according to us also cannot be entertained. The Committee has not been made respondent to the petition. Obviously, the University in its affidavit- 5 in-reply has not countered the aforesaid submission as it can only be answered by the Committee. In any event, it would be for the Committee to counter the said allegation. Undisputedly, deficiencies have existed right from the day when the first affiliation was granted in 2002 and which is apparent from the fact that the affiliation was temporary subject to the removal of all the deficiencies in view of the undertakings given by the petitioner. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out. 6. Lastly, it was urged by Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid resolution had been passed by the Academic Council without application of mind as on the day on which the aforesaid resolution came to be passed there were 417 subjects to be discussed by the Academic Council and in that light, it is urged before us that the time span which was available for discussing the case of the petitioner would be extremely limited and it would be a case of non-application of mind. We need not dialate much on this aspect as it is within the domain of the Academic Council in respect of the time to be spent for discussion and passing of resolution by the Academic Council. Merely on acount of a heavy agenda it can not be inferred that the passing of the Resolution is a mechanical act. 7. It was also urged by Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Vice 6 Chancellor in respect of the present impugned action and the said representation which is dated 26.6.2009 is pending consideration. In the light of the pendency of the said representation, we are of the view that the Vice Chancellor be directed to decide the said representation, in accordance with law within a period of two months from today. 8. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as it is sans merit with the aforesaid directions to the respondents for deciding the representation of the petitioner. ( A.V.POTDAR, J. ) ( P.V.HARDAS, J. ) vvr/4461.09wp