wp7381.08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7381 OF 2008 Jaibhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Georai, Tq-Georai, Dist-Beed, Through its Trustee: Bhausaheb s/o Kacharu Natkar, R/o-Rakshesh Bhavan, Tq-Georai, Dist-Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, University Campus, Aurangabad, Through its Registrar, 3) The University Development Board, Aurangabad, Through its President, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, University Campus, Aurangabad, Through its Registrar, 4) Chhatrapati Sevabhavi Sanstha, Talwada, Tq-Georai, Dist-Beed, Through its President. ...RESPONDENTS. wp7381.08 2 ... Shri.P.S. Dighe Advocate h/f. Shri.R.L. Kute Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri.C.V. Thombre Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 20TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner challenges grant of permission to Respondent No.4 Institution - Chhatrapati Sevabhavi Sanstha, to run a senior college on the ground that the record discloses that the Respondent No.4 Institution did not have experienced person to manage the trust affairs and adequate infrastructure, whereas the Petitioner is having adequately experienced persons to manage wp7381.08 3 the trust affairs and the Petitioner is having adequate infrastructure. The counsel submits that the State Authorities failed to scrutinize and appreciate the comparative merit between the two applicants and wrongly decided to grant permission in favour of Respondent No.4 Institution. 3. The Respondent No.4 filed affidavit in reply. The counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 submits that considering the record and feasibility, the Respondent No.4 was granted permission to start a college and accordingly under the permission, senior college is established and is being run since last three years. 4. In the light of the record placed before us, reply filed and the fact that Respondent No.4 Institution is already running the college since last three years, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 wp7381.08 4 of the Constitution of India, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition. There is no merit in the Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/OCT11