1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3337 OF 2010. Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research Pune's M.I.T. Jansanwad College of (Media and Computer Science) MIMSR Medical College Campus, Vishwanathpuram, Ambejogai Road, Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.R.M.Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Mrs.A.B.Dube, advocate for the Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.08.2010. 2 PER COURT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner institution which runs a three years course in Bachelor of Computer Application, has challenged the communication dated 29.1.2010, issued by the Director of College and University Development Board of the Respondent No.2 University and has also prayed for a writ of Mandamus to direct the University authorities to make inquiry against Respondent No.4 which also runs a similar course of Bachelor of Computer Application. The petitioner has alleged that the Respondent No.4 College admits students beyond its sanctioned intake capacity and also commits illegalities in the admission process by admitting the students who had earlier secured admission to the petitioner College. 2. Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the Respondent University and another affidavit-in-reply is also filed on behalf of the Respondent No.4. It is the stand of the Respondents i.e. the University as well as the 3 Respondent No.4 College that the sanctioned intake capacity of the Respondent No.4 College is 320. It is the stand of the University in the reply affidavit that the sanctioned intake capacity of Respondent No.4 College is 320 and that Respondent No.4 College has admitted only 288 students and, therefore, no excess admissions are granted. 3. As regards the allegation about the illegality in admission procedure, the learned counsel for the Respondent NO.4 submits that the petitioner College refuses to issue transfer certificates to the students who had earlier joined the petitioner College and thereafter joined Respondent No.4 College. It is submitted that the petitioner College has no right to withhold such transfer certificates and that petitioner College has no right to make any grievance against the University and there is no law prohibiting Respondent No.4 College from admitting the students who had secured admissions to some other College. 4 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since the Respondent No.4 College did not admit any students in excess of intake capacity of 320, there is no substance in the petitioner's grievance as regards the alleged irregularities in the admission process in a matter of not obtaining Transfer Certificates, we are of the view that such matters are to be looked by the Respondent University and the extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court is not to be exercised for such purpose. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp3337.10 5