1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7011 OF 2010 Bharat Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Latur, District Latur, through its Authorized Signatory/Director, Shri Prashant S/o Govindrao Ghar, Age : 25 Years, R/o Latur, District Latur. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, Manas Bhavan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal 462 002. 3. The Director of State Council of Education, Research and Training, Sadashiv Peth, Pune. 4. National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhavan, Wing II, Bhadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. .. .. Respondents 2 Shri N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri A. V. Patil, Advocate h/f Shri S. S. Bora, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 06TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kadam, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Shri A. V. Patil, learned counsel h/f Shri S. S. Bora, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. The petition impugns the orders passed by the respondents, declining to grant approval/ permission to the petitioner institute for starting a new B. Ed. College. The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the respondent on the sole and principal ground that the State Government had not positively recommended the case of the petitioner, but in fact the 3 recommendation was a negative recommendation. 3. Shri N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & ors. (2006 (9) S.C.C. 1), wherein the Supreme court has held in no uncertain tems that the State Government could not scuttle the proposals and it was the sole responsibility and function of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to consider and decide the proposals on their own merits. 4. In the light of the fact adverted to above, we are inclined to allow this petition and consequently, we allow the petition and quash and set aside the impugned orders. The respondent No. 4 i.e. the appellate authority shall remand the mater back to respondent No. 2 for taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shatra Mahavidyalaya & ors. (supra) and deal with the application on its own merits and pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 4 5. Rule is thus made absolute on above terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/Aug.10