1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9273 OF 2009 Dnyan Vikas Sanstha’s Dnayan Vikas D.Ed. (M) College ...Petitioners. v. The Regional Director, Western Region Committee NCTE & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.C.K.Thomas i/by C.K.Thomas & Associates, adv. For the Petitioners. Mr.Uday Warunjikar, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.A.B.Vagyani, AGP for the Respondent No.3. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 12th November , 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 Petitioner applied for opening D.Ed. (M) college for the Academic Year 2008-09 on 19.4.2007 . Inspection was carried out on 29.1.2008. Inspection report reveals that necessary infrastructure was in place. By communication of 3/7.3.2009 petitioner was informed that as it was policy decision of the State Government, application for the academic year 2009-2010 could not be considered and consequently, rejected. Hence, the present petition. 2 3 On behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, the learned counsel submits that petitioner had several remedies by way of an appeal. Petitioner has not resorted to that remedy and consequently, this Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 4 We may first deal with preliminary issue as maintainability of the petition on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy. In the instant case, application was rejected on the ground of policy decision of the State of Maharashtra. Where the appeals are preferred, we found that appeals were dismissed on that very ground. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, no purpose will be served by directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal. 5 In our opinion, once application was rejected on 3/7.3.2008, respondent no.1 ought to have been considered the application as if for the academic year 2010-2011. In the light of that following order: i Impugned order is set aside. Matter remanded back to the file of the respondent no.1 to consider afresh petitioner’s application for the academic year 2010-2011. In view of the above, it is open for the respondent no.1 to take opinion of the State of Maharashtra subject to whether there is any policy decision for opening of the new D.Ed. 3 College. Rule made partly absolute with no order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)