1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8847 OF 2007 Mahatma Gandhi Missions Institute, N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Through its Directorate Suryabhan Apparao Somawanshi Age 62 years, Occ. Service, R/o. 2/1/2, Nandanwan Colony, Cantonment, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 2. Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, 3, mahapalika Marg, Post Bom No.1967, Mumbai-400 001. 3. All India Council For Technical Education, Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110 002. 4. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad Through its Registrar. .. Respondents (Copy to be served on standing counsel) 2 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.8848 OF 2007 Mahatma Gandhi Missions Institute, N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Through its Directorate Suryabhan Apparao Somawanshi Age 62 years, Occ. Service, R/o. 2/1/2, Nandanwan Colony, Cantonment, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 2. Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, 3, mahapalika Marg, Post Bom No.1967, Mumbai-400 001. 3. All India Council For Technical Education, Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110 002. 4. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad Through its Registrar. .. Respondents (Copy to be served on standing counsel) ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.8849 OF 2007 3 Bhartiya Gramin Punarrachana Sanstha, Aurangabad Rajarshi Shahu Institute of Management Campus, P-75, Behind Garware Polyester, Chikalthana, Aurangabad-431 210 Through its President Shri Jagannath Khanderao Jadhav, Age 58 years. .. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Technical and Higher Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 (Copy to be served on Govt.Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Director of Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra, 3, Mahapalika Marg, Post Bom No.1967, Mumbai-400 001. 3. The Joint Director of Technical Education, Government Technical Institute, Osmanpura, Post Box No.516, Aurangabad-431 005. .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.8850 OF 2007 1. Vishwabharati Academy's College of Engineering, 4 Jamkhed Road, At Post Sarola-baddi, Tal & Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Vishwabharati Academy's .. Petitioners C/o. Flat No.402, Nakoda Court, Sanghavi Compound, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 005. Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra Through department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served on Govt.Pleader of High Court at Aurangabad) 2. The Director of Technical Education, Mahapalika Marg, Post Bom No.1967, Mumbai-400 001. 3. University of Pune, Through it's Registrar, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune. .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.8851 OF 2007 Shri Sai Samajik Vikas Sanstha, “Swam”, Seven Hills Colony, Near Flyover Bridge, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. Through its President 5 Shri Jagannath s/o Khanderao Jadhav .. Petitioner versus 1. The Union of India Through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Human Development and Resources, Delhi. (Copy to be served on Standing Counsel, High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench At Aurangabad). 2. All India Council For Technical Education, Industrial Assurance Building, 2nd floor, Veer Nariman Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400020 Through its Chairman. 3. The Director of Technical Education, (Desk-10),Maharashtra State, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai-400 001. 4. The Joint Director, Divisional Officer, Technical Education Department, Mantralaya Extension, Mumbai-400 032. .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.8309 OF 2007 1. Mr. Kale Deoraj Premkumar 2. Mr. Sangale Omkar Suresh 3. Mr. Kachkure Sainath Vishnu 4. Mr. Lohoti Akshay Pramod 5. Mr. Deovare Jayesh Ramdas 6 6. Mr. Jadhav Sagar Dilip 7. Mr.Abuj Ashok Gangaram 8. Mr. Gavhane Sumeet Prakash 9. Ms. Shejal Vivek Dhanaji 10.Mr. Gavandhe Sandeep Bappasaheb 11.Mr. Rajhans Pranav Prakashrao 12.Mr. Bodhene Sharad Sainath 13.Mr.Salve Sandeep Sudam 14.Mr. Kakade Rahul Bhagwan 15.Mr. Shaikh Zubir Sayed 16.Mr. Pathare Satish Shankar 17.Mr. Ghodake Tushar Namdeo 18.Mr. Kakade Kailash Prabhakar 19.Mr. Jadhav Balasaheb Janardan 20.Mr. Patil Amol Ashokrao 21.Mr. Farooqui Wasimuddin E. 22.Mr. Wadhe Gajanan Shankar 23.Mr. Joshi Prashant Bapusaheb 24.Mr. Pawar Appasaheb Gangadhar 25.Mr. Kandare Umesh Achyutrao 26.Mr. Pare Balaji Sopan 27.Mr. Babar Jaykumar Sakharam 28.Mr. Shinde Deepak Adinath 29.Mr. Nade Sandeep Narhari 30.Mr. Navthar Nilesh Chandrakant 31.Mr. Bobade Gajanan Lahurao 32.Mr. Ghodkar Vishal Vasant 33.Mr. Korde Sandeep Kundalik 34.Mr. Waghande Shreyash Ravindra 35.Mr. Akkalkotkar Aniket Ashok 36.Mr. Khedkar Hari Dinkar 37.Mr. Patphode Pranit Dattaram 38.Mr. Shaikh Mohd. Shakib Eliyas 39.Mr. Rathod Vaibhav Kondiram 40.Mr.Kavale Bhausaheb Baburao 41.Mr.Zatte Nilesh Madhukar 42.Mr.Pare Haribhau Bhagwan 43.Mr.Tayade Kailash Subhash 7 44.Mr. Dabhade Dinesh Ashok 45.Mr. Daspute Amol Bhagwan 46.Mr.Amale Dnyaneshwar Devidas 47.Mr.Ghule Ravindra Annasaheb 48.Mr.Kakade Roshan Ankushrao 49.Mr. Tamaner Vikas Ankush 50.Mr.Giri Ashish Durgadas 51.Mr.Mhasale Alkesh Govind 52.Mr.Nolle Kailas Prabhakar 53.Mr.Gopal Sharad Visantrao 54.Mr. Sarvade Sachin Prabhakar 55.Mr.Meshram Nilesh Govind 56.Mr.Yadav Anil Ramkrishna 57.Mr.Gaikwad Ganesh Prakash 58.Mr.Kute Bhushan Subhash 59.Mr.Gangawane Ravirai Pandurang 60.Mr.Kadam Pravin Prabhakar 61.Mr.Shaikh Wasimali Mohammed 62.Mr.Dahifale Shripad Bhaskarrao 63.Mr.Naik Krishna Ambadas 64.Mr.Varhal Shrikant Kashinath 65.Mr.Mohd. Basnod Ali Amodi Abdulla 66.Mr.Malwade Somnath Annasaheb 67.Mr.Kakade Roshan Ankushrao 68.Mr.Thorat Rahul Vithal 69.Mr.Shinde Siddhanath Sudhakar 70.Mr. Thombare Deepali Raghunath 71.Mr.Jagtap Aparna Ashokrao 72.Mr.Muttemwar Venkatesh Naganath 73.Mr.Kedare Umesh Arun 74.Mr.Nakhate Shahaji Shivaji 75.Mr.Puri Ajay Rameshrao 76.Ms. Bhagwat Yogita Madhukarrao 77.Ms. Narwade Anupama Sudhakar 78.Ms. Kulkarni Vaibhav Prabhakar 79.Mr. Vidhwans Abhijit Kondiram 80.Mr. Adhagale Ganesh Motiram 81.Mr. Garje Anand Shivaji 8 82.Mr. Amrutakar Chetan Chandrakant 83.Mr. Ghayal Ranjit Rameshrao 84.Ms. Kachewar Jayshree Sureshrao 85.Mr. Sapkal Vishal Ramrao 86.Ms. Nikam Manjiri Gajendra 87.Mr. Belsare Prathamesh Ashok 88.Ms. Suryawanshi Snehal Dattatraya 89.Mr. Avhad Ravindra Suresh 90.Mr. Satpute Shashikatn Anil 91.Mr. Ghavane Pravin Kalyanrao 92.Mr. Madrap Sunaykumar S. 93.Mr. Kharad Ravindra Madhukar 94.Mr. Gaikwad Mayur Sitaram 95.Mr. Kale Satish Bhimrao 96.Mr. Raut Akash Sitaram 97.Mr. Khonde Ravindra Kalyan 98.Mr. Kachakure Sandeep Sureshrao 99.Mr. Kolhe Kapil Satyanand 100.Mr. Salunkhe Rahul Madhavrao 101.Mr. Kharode Mukta Keshav 102.Mr.Dhangar Sunil Pandit 103.Mr. Thote Prashant Devidas 104.Mr. Sant Vinod Ashok 105.Mr. Lokhande Anmol Shriram 106.Mr. Ahire Ganesh Mhasu 107.Mr. Jagtap Mahesh Gangadhar 108.Mr. Patil Amol Jigarrao 109.Mr. Chavare Prasad Suresh 110.Mr. Davane Rahul Shivanath 111.Ms. More Anju Madhukar 112.Mr. Kale Yogesh Fulchand 113.Mr. Mohan Pritesh Diliprao 114.Mr. Devaraye Sandeep Kaduba 115.Mr. Deshmukh Gauri Bhagwan 116.Mr. Jaibhar Ajay Gulabrao 117.Mr. Ingale Roshan Ramdas 118.Mr. Lad Sagar Suryakant 119.Mr. Kambale Sanket Vinayak 9 120.Mr. Shinde Mayur Bapusaheb 121.Ms. Borude Priyanka Ramchandra 122.Mr. More Sachin Ramrao 123.Ms. Shendage Priti Santoshrao 124.Mr. Bobade Prabhakar Vithalrao 125.Mr. Kale Abhijeet Lalasaheb 126.Mr. Thakare Pravin Rameshwar 127.Mr. Gajabhir Anand Kacharu 128.Ms. Jadhav Pratibha Bhagwanrao 129.Mr. Varape Balasaheb Gorakh 130.Mr. Wagh Ravindra Shridhar 131.Mr. Shelare Kailash Vishwanath 132.Ms. Misal Savita Bhahusaheb 133.Mr. Gunjal Mahendra Kisanrao 134.Mr. Latpate Santosh Vasantrao 135.Mr. Dhage Pravin Mannusingh 136.Mr. Harkal Amol Nanarao 137.Mr.Chavan Mahendra Chandarsingh 138.Mr. More Vinod Suresh 139.Mr. Khedkar Mahadeo Arjun 140.Mr. Gohal Ganesh Gagajinath 141.Mr. Bhingare Sagar Akash 142.Mr. Dilware Shyam Laxman 143.Mr. Varpe Deepak Jalindar 144.Mr. Bhabal Vithal Raosaheb 145.Mr. Dalvi Jitendra Balasaheb 146.Mr. Shirsat Prashant Prakash 147.Mr. Bangar Madhukar Bhanudas 148.Mr. Husain Irfan Irshad 149.Mr. Khulase Dnyaneshwar Sadashiv 150.Mr. Nimbalkar Abhijit Babasaheb 151.Mr. Gurange Rajendra Amrit 152.Mr. Bhagwat Rahul Ketan 153.Mr. Mane Mahendra Navnath 154.Mr. Bhalerao Prashant Deelip 155.Mr. Late Narendra Babanrao 156.Mr. Shaikh Anis Ayub 157.Mr. Salve Sanjaykumar Ramrao 10 158.Mr. Pathak Pranav Prabhakar 159.Mr.Gajare Sachin Suryakant 160.Mr. Gaikwad Amit Ramkrishna 161.Mr. Kakade Nandkishor Ashok 162.Mr. Limbhade Nandkishor Radhakisan 163.Mr. Kulkarni Kiran Krishna 164.Mr. Unawane Eknath Manik 165.Mr. Maniyath S.S. 166.Mr. Dabhade Sushil Yashwant 167.Mr. Rokade Mahesh Fulchand 168.Mr. Bangar Parsaram M. 169.Mr. Chormale Sudhir Ramanath 170.Mr. Kok Gotiram Bhausaheb 171.Mr. Pawar Manohar Narayan 172.Mr. Kundalwal Rohit Popatlal 173.Mr. Mane Ram Ganpat 174.Mr. Harak Akash Shivaji 175.Mr. Narwade Sachin L. 176.Mr. Shaikh Ubed Abdul Rasheed 177.Mr. Shaikh Kaisar Ashad 178.Mr. Shaikh Shahabuddin B. 179.Mr. Salave Samadhan Ramdas 180.Mr. Gawali Bhaskar Kashiram 181.Mr. Raorane Vipul Vilas 182.Ms. Sawadekar Shilpa M. 183.Mr. Jadhav Lahu Uttamrao 184.Mr. Gadage Sachin Bhagwanrao 185.Mr. Shaikh Zuber Iqbal 186.Mr. Mohammed Shahabaz Akhtar 187.Mr. Walunje Anil Chhagan 188.Mr. Abdul Hamid Shahabuddin 189.Mr. Gaikwad Sumit Popat .. Petitioners All Studetns of Nath Poly TechnicalB-1, MIDC Paithan, Tal. Paithan, District Aurangabad Versus 11 1. The Union of India Through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Human Development and Resources, Delhi. 2. The All India Council For Technical Education, Through its Chairman, Industrial Assurance Building, 2nd floor, Veer Nariman Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400020 3. The Director of Technical Education, (Desk-10),Maharashtra State, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai-400 001. 4. The Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051. 4A.The Joint Director, Divisional Office, Technical Education, Aurangabad. 5. The Dy. Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education (MSBT) Regional Officer, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. 6. Shree Sai Samajik Vikas Sanstha “Swam” Seven Hills Colony, Near Flyover Bridge, Jalna Road, Aurangabad, 12 7. The Principal, Nath Poly Technic, B-1, MIDC Paithan, Tal. Paithan, District Aurangabad. 8. The State of Maharashtra, Higher & Technical Education Department, Mantralaya (Extn.) Mumbai-400 032. .. Respondents Ms. Kumud A. Bhatia for the petitioner in W.P. Nos.8849/07, 8309/07, and 8851/07. Mr. S.H. Aney, senior advocate with Mr. Ranjit Bhosale i/by Mr. V.D. Salunke for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8847/07 and 8848/07. Mr. S.R. Ganbavale for the petitioner in W.P. No.8850/07. Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Government Pleader for the State in all the Writ Petitions except W.P. No.8309/07. Mr. R.P. Behere, Additional Government Pleader for the State in W.P. No.8309/07. Mr. P.K. Samdani, senior advocate i/by Ms. Beena Manon for All India Council for Technical Education. Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P. No.8847/07. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. A.P. DESHPANDE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 7TH AUGUST, 2008 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 22ND AUGUST, 2008 JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.) The law is essentially mutable and requires to mould itself with the changing need of the society. In some spheres, the laws 13 emerge from values, discipline and progression of the society as a whole. The laws normally emerge from the need of the social fabric and they meliorate for the betterment, development and progression of laws as well as administrative governance. Sometimes, the law changes by amendments or new enactments as the Legislatures feel credulous of such change. It is equally settled cannon of civil jurisprudence that the Legislative law leaves sometimes either the field of law untouched or the enacted law leaves vacant or gray areas which then are supplied by judicial pronouncements. This necessity arises not as a concept of judicial activism but more out of a need to fill up the lacuna or supply the gaps left by the Legislature primarily to ensure due protection against arbitrary administrative action and also to ensure that actions are in conformity to the constitutional mandate of equality and fairness. Education is one such field where the Judge made law has shown greater impact by application of this principle in matters relating to admission to educational institution. The legislative law and more particularly the notifications issued in exercise of subordinate legislation have lacuna or open areas in the sphere of execution which fall short of clarity and exactitude. Without 14 adherence to such judicial dictum, achievement of the real object behind such enactments or notification is not possible. Doctrine of merit and fairness is often trivialized by delayed administrative actions in regard to implementation of methodology specified for admission to various professional courses. In the present days, education is one of the most highly competitive field where fraction of one mark even can materially affect or alter the course of admissions on the one hand and future of the students on the other. Ab antique it is accepted in the principle that Actus legitimi non recipiunt modum. The purpose of law is to be in conformity with the constitutional mandate that the legislative or administrative action of the State should always been in conformity with the laws in force and should essentially be devoid of any arbitrariness or discrimination. They must have an essence of fairness in State action and they should not only be just ex facie but in substance should avoid wrong to the public at large. Whatever the laws in force, the notifications issued in furtherance to the provisions of the different Acts, the State Government policy as well as the judicial pronouncements including those of Supreme Court of India have without fail emphasised the need for adherence to the specified 15 parameters in relation to various aspects of professional education in the country. Even the object of judicial intervention in educational matters is primarily aimed at scrupulously following these essential features for maintaining proper administration of admission to different fields in the education. The rudiments can veritably be stated as under: (a) The admission to academic course moreso, to professional courses has to be strictly on merit. Meritorious students should be given their choice, thus, admission on merit coupled with institution preference should be the basis. (b) All courses and more particularly, professional courses should essentially commence on the date fixed for commencement for such courses. In other words, the courses must start timely. (c) Midstream/ midterm admissions should be avoided and more particularly, the students in the professional courses must go through the complete course of education which should not 16 be reduced or narrowed for adjusting such admissions. (d) The professional and technical councils and State bodies should take appropriate steps to maintain proper educational standards in examination and teaching courses in all its institutions. (e) The State, Universities and Institutions have an obligation and duty to maintain requisite standard of professional excellence by giving admission on merit to eligible students by a fair and transparent admission process. (f) Information and admission brochures should be timely issued by the respective authorities which would be binding upon the administration and the students equally. It is not expected of any of the authorities/institutions involved in the process of admission to alter the conditions or process of admission once the process has 17 begun except in rare circumstances and that too in accordance with law. 2. These are precepts stated by judicial pronouncement for fair and timely admission to professional courses. The State issues notifications for admissions to various courses in discharge of its statutory obligation. Various judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts have deliberated upon these issues at great length and all uniformly have emphasised the principle of just, fair and transparent method of admission with adherence to the rule of merit. In fact, emphasising the need for adherence to merit in admissions, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Saurabh Chaudhary v. Union of India, 2003(11) SCC, 146, not only equated but in fact, declared that right of meritorious student of his admission is a fundamental right. The court while examining different aspects including that of institutional reservation clearly stated as under: “28. Right of a meritorious student to get admission in a postgraduate course is a fundamental and human right, which is required to be protected. Such a valuable right cannot be permitted to be whittled down at the instance of less meritorious students.” 18 3. One of the most important aspect of maintaining admissions on merit is adherence to time schedule and granting admission at the earliest in order of merit. Delayed display of merit list not only affects commencing courses on time but it also affects counseling and taking other institutional steps essential for admission to courses. It can have adverse effect on admission on merit which totally frustrate the process of admission of meritorious students to the institution of their preference. 4. Divergent judicial opinions can lead to development of law and settling the point of law which may repeatedly arise for consideration of the court. Being influenced with this principle and keeping to the principles of judicial propriety, a Division Bench of this court to which one of us was a party, on 26th March, 2008 while placing the cases for settling the controversy and position of law, passed the following order: “1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties commonly state that there are divergent views taken by different benches of this Court. One view has been taken by the Division Bench at the Principal Bench at Mumbai in Civil Writ Petition No.1645 of 2007 (Atharva Institute of Management 19 Studies & Others V/s. Directorate of Technical Education & Ors.) dated 20th September, 2007 and other view has been expressed by the Division Bench at Nagpur in Civil Writ Petition No.3423 of 2007 (Guru Nanak Educational Society & Anr. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) dated 31st August, 2007. 2. It is not necessary for us to have any detailed discussion. In view of the above admitted position, it is necessary that the controversy in the present case, including the questions of law, should be answered by a Full Bench of this Court. 3. Let these matters be listed before the Full Bench on 28th March, 2008 for directions.” 5. Before we proceed to examine the legal issue arising from the order of the Division Bench in the case of Atharva Institute of Management Studies on one hand and Guru Nanak Educational Society on the other, it would be appropriate for us to notice the facts giving rise to the above order of reference. Writ Petition Nos.5272 of 2007, 5276 of 2007, 5290 of 2007 and 5291 of 2007 were filed before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. Writ petition Nos.5290 of 2007 and 5291 of 2007 had been filed by Mahatma Gandhi Mission's Institute of Management through its Director. This institute is run by Mahatma Gandhi Mission, a Public Trust registered 20 under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, which was running different educational courses at Aurangabad and amongst others, it was running the course of MBA since 1994. It was averred in the writ petition that vide letter dated 24th August, 2007 which was received by the institute by fax dated 30th August, 2007, they had been granted permission to admit 30 more students from the academic year 2007- 2008. Obviously, these seats were available to them in addition to their existing quota and direction was prayed against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide 30 students additionally for that academic year. This college claimed to have been granted sanctioned intake capacity of 60 students for MBA first year with effect from 1994 by respondent No.3 AICTE. It may be noticed that the last date for admission in all the courses was declared under the State policy and in the MAH-MBA/MMS-CET-2007 information brochure published by Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra, Mumbai for the academic year 2007-2008 was 22nd August, 2007. The case of the institute was that as they have received the sanctioned letter late, though they had applied quite in time, they should be given an additional strength of 30 students. An interim relief under clause (d) 21 of the prayer clause was also prayed for by this institute which vide order dated 14th September, 2007 was granted by the Division Bench at Aurangabad dealing with the matter. 6. Similarly, Writ Petition No.5291 of 2007 was filed before Aurangabad Bench by the same institute in regard to filling up of nine additional seats which had been added to the existing strength of the institute over and above the intake capacity i.e. 60 for the academic year 2007-2008 for foreign nationals/PIO/ Children of Indian Workers in gulf countries category. It was pleaded in that case that this information was received by them in terms of the order dated 16th August, 2007 which was received on 22nd August, 2007 and as the admissions had already been closed by 22nd August, 2007, they could not admit the students against this category and they should be permitted to do so. Again an interim order was prayed for seeking directions in terms of prayer (d) of the same prayer clause which also was allowed by the same Bench vide its order dated 14th September, 2007. 22 7. Writ petition No.5137 of 2007 was filed by Bhartiya Gramin Punarrachana Sanstha, Aurangabad, an institute which was running various educational courses of MBA, Engineering and Polytechnic College, B.Ed. College, Master of Management Studies and Junior and Senior Colleges. They made an application on 11th December, 2006 to the AICTE for grant of additional strength. After inspection, the report was submitted to the Apex body. As the intake capacity for existing MBA Course was granted but according to the institution, they did not get any intervention of the Master of Computer Application course. Therefore, they preferred an appeal before the AICTE, as a result of which, on 10th August, 2007, the petitioner received permission to MBA and MCA courses with intake capacity of 60. After receiving the approval, an application was made by the petitioner to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who have authority to allot the students to the said courses from the merit list of the test conducted by CET. However, no students were allocated. Faced with these facts, the petitioner filed writ petition before Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court with the prayer that intake capacity of 60 students should be permitted for the academic year 2007-2008. Interim order in terms of 23 prayer clause (cc) of the prayer clause was also prayed. This petition was amended even praying for grant of affiliation to the petitioner- institute from the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad to the MCA Course for the academic year 2007-2008. When this matter came up for admission, another Bench at Aurangabad, while referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others, 2006 AIR SCW 2048 and the order passed by that Bench in Writ Petition No.4638 of 2007 on 21st August, 2007, also granted interim order in terms of prayer clause (CC) and amended prayer clause (DD). 8. Still another writ petition being Writ Petition No.5276 of 2007 was filed by Shri Sai Samajik Vikas Sanstha at Aurangabad. It was claimed by the petitioner that they were running diploma courses in Engineering (Polytechnic) in different trades for the academic year. They had issued advertisement on 2nd December, 2006 inviting applications for the purposes of granting permission to start the Diploma courses in Engineering for the academic year 2007-2008. An 24 application was submitted by them to respondent No.3 Director of Technical Education on 29th December, 2006. After conducting the inspection and vide letter dated 15th January, 2007, they were informed that there were certain shortcomings in the documents and the same should be removed. Thereafter, local enquiry committee was constituted and the petitioner was directed to deposit the requisite fee for visit of the committee. On 23rd February, 2007, petitioner deposited the said fee. The committee visited the institution and thereafter, certain shortcomings were to be complied with. The committee visited the institute on 22nd July, 2007 and the proposal was recommended on 13th August, 2007. The respondents did not act timely and as respondents did not take decision, the present writ petition was filed with the prayer that respondent No.3 be directed to forward their recommendations and the decision be taken in that regard by respondent No.5 for the academic year 2007-2008. Interim order was also prayed that respondent No.5 be directed to take immediate decision to forward the proposal and they be permitted by an interim order. This writ petition was also amended by which, it was prayed that respondent Nos.3 and 4 should grant approval to the 25 petitioner to admit the students to the four courses including Diploma in Computer Engineering and to grant approval of admissions made by the petitioner-institute to the said four course in pursuance to the approval granted by AICTE dated 10th September, 2007 and also to declare results and take steps of further admissions. The Division Bench at Aurangabad vide its order dated 14th September, 2007, granted interim prayers in terms of clauses (DD) and (EE) subject to the condition stated in the letter dated 1st September, 2007 issued by the Director, Maharashtra State Technical Education Board. 9. Writ Petition No.5272 of 2007 was filed by Vishwabharati Academy's College of Engineering, Ahmednagar. Petitioner No.1 was an Engineering College and had been duly recognized. It was granted approval by All India Council for Technical Education vide their letter dated 7th August, 2007. After following the requisite procedure and inspection of the college, the said approval was granted. It was stated that despite the said order, respondent No.2 is