1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5099 OF 2009 Moreshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Rajur Ganpati, Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna, through its President, Shri Shivaji Dhondiba Thote, Age 50 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Rajur Ganpati, Tq. Bhokardan, District Jalna .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Director, Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune 3. The Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 4. The Registrar, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad .. Respondents Shri S.R.Chaukidar, Advocate holding for Shri N.C.Garud, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents 1 to 3 Shri K.M.Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.4 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 1st September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays that it be declared that the College run by the petitioner i.e. Commerce faculty is eligible for 100% grant in aid in terms of policy promulgated by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 26.5.1999 and to issue appropriate directions to the respondents for release of 100% grant in aid w.e.f. 29.6.2004 and to pay all the arrears thereof. The petitioner also prays for quashing and setting aside the words appearing in the permission letter dated 29.6.2004 i.e. “Permanently no grant basis” and also hold that the petitioner is eligible for grant in aid w.e.f. 29.6.2004 in terms of the policy promulgated by the State Government. 3. Shri S.R.Choukidar, learned Counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that though the proposal submitted to the 3 respondent is not annexed to the petition, the proposal contains a request of the petitioner for grant of 100% grant in aid as well as for deletion of the words “Permanently no grant basis”. In the light of the aforesaid statement, the learned Assistant Govt.Pleader was directed to obtain necessary instructions in respect of the pendency of the proposal of the petitioner. Shri Jadhav, learned Assistant Govt.Pleader states on instructions from the respondents that the proposal of the petitioner is under consideration and necessary orders in this behalf would be issued soon. Since the proposal is under consideration and necessary orders are likely to be issued, according to us the relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition cannot be granted to the petitioner in the light of the pendency of the proposal. According to us, therefore, the relief stands fully granted to the petitioner. 4. We, therefore, allow this petition by accepting the statement made by the learned Assistant Govt.Pleader that the proposal of the petitioner together with other similar proposals is under consideration of the respondents – authorities and necessary orders would seeon be passed. We grant liberty to the petitioner to agitate the relief prayed for at prayer clause (C-I) and (C-II) in the event the proposal is decided adverse to the interest of the petitioner. 4 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with the aforesaid liberty with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/5099.09wp 5