Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2009 DIGILAW 1903 (SC)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. NOWROSJEE WADIA COLLEGE

2009-11-03

G.S.SINGHVI, R.V.RAVEENDRAN

body2009
ORDER : SLPs (C) Nos. 27286-287 of 2009 1. These SLPs relate to the orders dated 24-8-2009 Nowrosjee Wadia College v. Director of Higher Education, Pune, WP No. 6609 of 2009, order dated 24-8-2009 (Bom) and 9-10-2009 Director of Higher Education, Pune v. Nowrosjee Wadia College, Civil Application No. 2320 of 2009 in WP No. 6609 of 2009, order dated 9-10-2009 (Bom). Issue notice to show cause why the matters should not be remanded to the High Court to decide the matters on merits. Interim stay of the impugned order. All other connected SLPs 2. These SLPs arise from the common order dated 7-4-2008 Anagha Anant Nadkarni v. Nowrosjee Wadia College, WP No. 8763 of 2008, order dated 7-4-2008 (Bom) in a batch of writ petitions. There is a delay of 480 days. 3. It is submitted that the order dated 7-4-2008 Anagha Anant Nadkarni v. Nowrosjee Wadia College, WP No. 8763 of 2008, order dated 7-4-2008 (Bom) has been followed in another batch of cases—Khandesh College Education Society v. Arjun Hari Narkhede WP No. 2881 of 2007, order dated 9-6-2008 (Bom) and connected cases. Later, having found that there was an obvious omission, the High Court made an amendment to the order dated 9-6-2008 WP No. 2881 of 2007, order dated 9-6-2008 (Bom), by order dated 20-6-2008 Khandesh College Education Society v. Arjun Hari Narkhede, WP No. 2881 of 2007, order dated 20-6-2008 (Bom) by adding the words “if admissible under law” after the words “are entitled to claim reimbursement by way of grant from the respondent State”. It is submitted that the High Court having made the said amendment in the order dated 9-6-2008, ought to have made the said correction in the impugned order dated 7-4-2008 also as that order also contained a similar omission by oversight. 4. Therefore, it will be appropriate if the petitioner State approaches the High Court and points out that the correction having been found necessary in the order dated 9-6-2008 it ought to have been made in the order dated 7-4-2008 also when correcting the order dated 9-6-2008. With the said observation, the SLPs challenging the order dated 7-4-2008 are dismissed.