PREMILA SOMCHAND MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged the decision of the Respondent-State contained in letter dated 29th June, 1988 (Exhibit-K to the petition) wherein the petitioner had been directed not to admit any students in the petitioner's institution and if the petitioner has granted such admissions despite order, the students will not be permitted to sit in the examination taken by the Board of Technical Education.

(2.) THE case pleaded by the petitioner is that she is the Managing Trustee of a public trust known as Engineering Education Trust, hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Trust' having its registered office at Ghanshyam Gupte Road, Vishnu Nagar, Dombivli (West), Dist. Thane. The said public trust was registered on 29-1-1969 under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Trust has deposited an amount jointly in the name of the said trust and Respondent No.2. It is further the case of the petitioner that they have already constructed a building admeasuring 4000 sq.ft. The entire complex of the College is to be shifted to the new premises at Thakurali which is adjoining to the plot being allotted by the Government to the Petitioner-College. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner had purchased equipments for the laboratory for Rs.5 lakhs. The necessary staff has been employed whose annual salary is somewhere in the region of Rs.2 lakhs or thereabout. The yearly budget of the trust for running the Polytechnic is somewhere in the region of Rs.8 lakhs.

(3.) RELYING on the aforesaid Resolution, the petitioner made an application to start a polytechnic, It is their case that inspite of the fact that they did not fulfil condition Nos. 2,3 and 4 of the said Resolution, the petitioner was permitted to start the Polytechnic on "no grant basis". The said provisional admission was granted on 15th June, 1984 on certain terms and conditions stipulated therein. The permission was only for one year i.e. for the academic year 1984-85. It is further stipulated that the final permission and date will be given by the respondent No.2 after due satisfaction and completion of documents and other formalities by the Institute as stated in (A) and (B) to the permission letter. (A) and (B) refer to the terms and conditions which had been contained in the Resolution mentioned hereinabove. Condition (B) states that the diploma course proposed to be started will be decided with the approval of Respondent No.2. Thereafter the provisional permission was extended for the academic year 1985-86. However, this permission was valid only upto 14th August, 1985. In this permission it was further stipulated that the permission is granted subject to the petitioner keeping in fixed deposit of not less than 5 years period an amount of Rs.15 lakhs (out of the total amount of Bank deposit of Rs.20 Lakhs), in the joint name of the petitioner-society and respondent No.2. It was further stipulated that Rs.5 lakhs should be so deposited before 31st July, 1985, Rs.10 lakhs to be deposited on or before 31st December, 1985 and another Rs.5 lakhs to be deposited on or before 28th February that the amount mentioned above has not been deposited and, therefore, the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the letter dated 3rd July, 1995 (Exhibit-c to the petition) by which the aforesaid provisional admission had been given. The petitioner did not fulfil any of the conditions No.2,3 and 4 as stipulated in the Resolution dated 21st May, 1983. For the year 1986-87, the petitioner seems to have continued without any formal permission from Respondent No.2. However, for the academic year 1987-88 the respondent No.2 informed the petitioner vide letter dated 11-3-1988 that the necessary conditions for the grant of permission had not been satisfied. The petitioner was, therefore, given time upto 31st May, 1988 to fulfil the necessary conditions to enable the respondent No.2 to consider the feasibility of granting permission to the petitioner-society. The petitioner did not take any tangible action. Therefore, the said College being run by the petitioner was got inspected on the directions of respondent No.2. IT was discovered that still the defects pointed out earlier in the letter of March 11, 1988 had not been rectified. Consequently by letter dated 29th June, 1988 the petitioner was directed not to make any admissions for the current academic year 1988-89. Furthermore, the petitioner was directed to close the institution. It was also directed that in the event any admissions are given contrary to the permission granted by respondent No.2, the students so admitted would not be permitted to sit in the examination to be held by the Board of Technical Education. Hence the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 29th June, 1988 (Exhibit-K to the petition)