19.wp.352,353,365,425,523-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [1] WRIT PETITON NO.352 OF 2010 Shri Balasaheb Mane Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ambap. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. ... WITH [2] WRIT PETITION NO.353 OF 2010 Shri Balasaheb Mane Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ambap. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. ... WITH [3] WRIT PETITION NO.365 OF 2010 Shri Balasaheb Mane Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ambap. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. ... WITH [4] WRIT PETITION NO.425 OF 2010 Shri Balasaheb Mane Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ambap. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. ... WITH [5] WRIT PETITION NO.523 OF 2010 Shri Venkateshwara Shikshan Sanstha. ..Petitioner. 19.wp.352,353,365,425,523-10 2 Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. ... Mr.Venkatesh Shastry, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for Respondent No.1. Mr.U.P. Warunjikar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 28, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. In these Petitions, the facts and the law involved are similar. Therefore, these Petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 352/2010 & 523/2010 had applied to respondent No.2 for permission to start B.Ed. Colleges. In all other Petitions, the petitioners had applied for permission to start D.Ed. Colleges. It appears that in all these matters, respondent No.2 refused to consider the applications of the petitioners because the State Government has taken a policy decision not to permit starting of any B.Ed. or D.Ed colleges in the 19.wp.352,353,365,425,523-10 3 State of Maharashtra. Submission of the petitioners, by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors reported in 2006 DGLS (Soft.) 192 is that respondent No.2 could not have declined to scrutinize the application submitted by the petitioners because of the policy decision taken by the State Government. Submission of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 should have considered those applications in accordance with law. One of the relevant factors undoubtedly would have been the stand taken by the State Government. According to the petitioners, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.2 as also the order of Appellate Authority in some of the cases need to be set aside with a direction to respondent No.2 to scrutinize the applications submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya's case referred to above and in accordance 19.wp.352,353,365,425,523-10 4 with law. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 points out that in some of the Petitions, the petitioners have not approached the Appellate Authority. In our opinion, as the view taken by the respondent No.2 as also the appellate Authority is the same, viz., declining to scrutinize the applications submitted by the petitioners because of the policy decision taken by the State Government. In our opinion, considering that the law appears to be settled because of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above that respondent No.2 cannot decline to scrutinize the application submitted only because the State Government has taken a policy decision that it does not want to permit establishment of B.Ed & D.Ed. colleges in the State. It has to consider those applications in accordance with law and the decision of the State Government is also to be considered and given its due weightage. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 19.wp.352,353,365,425,523-10 5 :: O R D E R :: [i] Order impugned in the Petitions are set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners for permission to start either B.Ed. or D.Ed. college as per their applications for the ensuing year in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors. [ii] Decision of respondent No.2 be communicated to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 12 weeks from today. [iii] Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)