1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2767 OF 2010 Jaihind Marathi B. Ed. College, Bahirwadi, Survey No. 45 (Bobde), M.I.D.C. Area, Opposite Beed Market Committee, Beed, through the Secretary, Tiger Welfare Association, Beed, Dist. Beed. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 2. The National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhavan, Wing II, 1, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002, through its Member Secretary. 3. The National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee, Bhopal, through its Regional Director. .. .. Respondents Shri S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. S. Bora, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2 CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 22ND JULY, 2010. JUDGMENT ( PER N. D. DESHPANDE, J ) : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 02. The petitioner by this petition challenges the orders passed by the respondents in declining to grant approval/permission to the petitioner institute for opening a new B. Ed. college. Even the appeal filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected by the respondents on the sole and principal ground that the State Government had not positively recommended the case of the petitioner, but in fact the recognition was a negative recognition. 03. Shri Barlinge, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1, wherein the Supreme Court has held in no uncertain terms 3 that the State Government could not scuttle the proposals and it was the sole responsibility and the function of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the proposals on its own merits. 04. In that light of the matter, we are inclined to allow this petition and consequently we allow the petition and quash and set aside the impugned orders. The respondent No. 3 shall remand the matter back to the respondent No. 2 for a de-novo decision afresh from the stage of scrutiny/permission to the petitioner institute for the academic year 2010-2011. The respondent No. 2 shall take into consideration the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. The respondent No. 2 shall deal with the application on its own merits and pass orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 05. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10