1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5064 OF 2009 Shardoupasak Shikshan Sanstha, Aurad-Shahajani, Tq.Nilanga, Dist.Latur through its President Shri.Vishvanath S/o.Shankarappa Walande, Age-73 years, R/o.Aurad Shahajni PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Higher and Technical Education Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director for Technical Education, Maharashtra State Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai-1. 3. All India Council for Technical Education New Delhi through Director Western Regional Office, Industrial Assurance Building 2nd floor, Vir Nariman Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400 020. RESPONDENTS Mr.V.D.Salunkhe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 2 Mr.Vivek Dhage, learned counsel for respondent no.3 2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 16/09/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to start Diploma Course in Engineering and Technology from the academic year 2009-2010, and also prays for directing respondent no.3 to modify the impugned letter dated 29/06/2009 to the extent of permitting the petitioner to start such courses from the academic year 2009-2010 instead of 2010-2011. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent no.3 to accept the proposal for the grant of letter of approval. ‘ 3. Undisputedly the letter of Intent came to be issued to the petitioner. The letter of Intent is dated 29/06/2009. The aforesaid letter of Intent is for academic year 2010-2011. The letter of Intent however makes it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to commence any educational activity and admit students based on the letter of Indent. Undisputedly letter of approval has not been issued to the petitioner. 3 4. Shri.V.D.Salunkhe, learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner would immediately comply with the condition of deposit of requisite amount and shall also remove whatever deficiencies are noted in the proposal of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore requests that the respondents be directed to forthwith process the proposal of the petitioner for issuance of grant of letter of approval so that the letter of approval could be utilized by the petitioner for the next academic year at least i.e. 2010-2011. Shri.Dhage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent no.3 would not unduly delay in deciding the proposal for issuance of letter of approval if the petitioner fulfills all the conditions as are required to be fulfilled by the petitioner. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and accept the statement of the petitioner that the petitioner would immediately comply with the conditions called upon by the respondents to be fulfilled and direct respondent no.3 to forthwith consider the proposal of the petitioner for issuance of a letter of approval, if the petitioner fulfills all other conditions. This be done as expeditiously as possible and particularly in order to ensure that the academic year is not lost. In the event of any deficiencies being noticed subsequently in the proposal of the petitioner, the same be communicated to the petitioner so that the deficiencies could be attended to by the 4 petitioner. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp5064-09