FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 169 OF 2010 (Sai Pratisthan Sirsala Vs. Union of India and others) ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard counsel for the parties. The grievance in this petition is that the public notice issued by the respondents did not clearly state that the proposal for starting College of Diploma in Education should be submitted before the cut off date on on-line. It is not possible to accept this submission. In our opinion, the public notice clearly provides that the proposal for starting the college of Diploma in Education for the academic year 2010-2011 should be submitted before the cut off date on on-line, at least in respect of 13 notified States. Counsel for the petitioners however, relies on clause 4 of the public notice which permits submission of proposal also manually in the office of the Regional committee. The argument clearly overlooks that clause 4 is attracted in respect of States other than the 13 States, referred to in the earlier part of the notification. State of Maharashtra, admittedly, is one of the State out of the said 13 notified States. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have already made substantial investment to the extent of Rs.45.00 lacs and that would go waste as the petitioner would get opportunity to apply for permission only for the next academic year i.e. 2011-2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents be directed to consider the proposal for the academic year 2010-2011 itself. We are not inclined to accept this submission in as much as we are in agreement with the stand taken by the counsel for the respondent No.2, if such relaxation is granted in one case, there would be spurt of litigation to call upon respondent No.2 to accept proposals after the cut off date. That cannot be permitted, as there is no provisions in the extant Regulations or law in force which authorizes respondent No.2 to relax the condition about cut off date for submission of proposal. In the circumstances, this petition is devoid of merits. The same is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners available to them to submit fresh proposal for the next academic year, in accordance with the advertisement to be issued by respondent No.2. (S. S. SHINDE. J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) Date:25.01.2010. rlj/