LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-2

JAGRUTI FOUNDATION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On December 02, 2021
Jagruti Foundation Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that all the respondents are already served with the notice of the final hearing. Statement is accepted.

(2.) By Writ Petition No.4805 of 2018 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the communication dated 15th March, 2018 issued by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to the respondent no.4 University refusing to grant Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner for starting new college. The petitioner also prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the Government Resolution dated 28th February, 2018 to the extent that it allots Letter of Intent to the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 for the roster point of Haveli at serial nos. 46, 47 and 48. The petitioner seeks an order and direction against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to issue Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner for starting new proposed college in the name of Jagruti Foundation, Pune, Shivganga College of Science Commerce and Arts, for the streams of Arts, Commerce and Science at Arvi, Khed Shivapur, Taluka Haveli, District Pune for the academic year 2018-2019, in pursuance of its proposal dated 15th December, 2018.

(3.) Writ Petition No.4059 of 2018 is also filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia, praying for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside impugned communication dated 15th March, 2018 and seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to issue Letter of Intent for starting new proposed college by name Sanjay Modak College of Arts, Commerce and Science at Loni Kalbhor, Taluka Haveli, District Pune for the academic year 2018-2019. The petitioner also seeks writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the the impugned order/list dated 28th February, 2018 passed/published by the respondent no.1. The facts in both the matters being identical, the parties have agreed that both the matters be heard together and be disposed off by a common order. This Court accordingly heard both the petitions together. Both the petitions are accordingly heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.