Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1767 (BOM)

Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal v. State of Maharashtra

2014-08-08

A.A.SAYED, ANOOP V.MOHTA

body2014
ORAL JUDGMENT (PERANOOP V. MOHTA, J.): Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2 The Petitioners are minority institution, imparting the technical education since 1991 based upon the requisite approvals/permissions from the Respondent Authorities and have sufficient infrastructures including movable, as well as, immovable properties, as required to run the colleges/institutes. 3 The Petitioners have challenged order dated 25 November 2013 whereby, Respondent No.2 The Director, Directorate of Technical Education (for short, “DTE”) demanded penalty for alleged admission of excess 22 students and for uploading 60 students' names late, on DTE Website, therefore, directed to deposit Rs.1,04,00,000/( Rupees one crore four Lacs) (Rs.44,00,000/for 22 students and Rs.60,00,000/for 60 students). The Petitioners, filed the present Petition on 20 January 2014. This Court, after hearing the parties, by order dated 25 March 2014, granted an adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) by observing as under: “1. Inspite of the directions given by this court in Writ Petition No. 1602 of 2012 which was decided on 28th January, 2013 directing the Respondents to give hearing to the Petitioners and thereafter take action against them, the Respondents have passed the impugned order without affording any opportunity to the Petitioners of being heard. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent seeks time to take instructions. Perusal of the order passed by this court dated 28th January, 2013, more particularly paragraph 10 clearly indicates that the Respondents were directed to give an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners and thereafter to take decision in respect of alleged admission of 22 students by the Petitioners. In paragraph 10, the Division Bench of this court has observed as under: … … … 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are at liberty to take action against the petitioners for their having allegedly illegally admitted the said 22 students under the TWF Scheme, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard.” 2. The impugned order does not indicate that before passing the said order any such opportunity of being heard was given to the Petitioners. Prima facie, therefore, said order is contrary to the directions given by this court. Adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) is granted. The reply to be filed before 22.4.2014. The impugned order does not indicate that before passing the said order any such opportunity of being heard was given to the Petitioners. Prima facie, therefore, said order is contrary to the directions given by this court. Adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) is granted. The reply to be filed before 22.4.2014. Stand over to 22nd April, 2014.” Prayer clause (b) reads thus: “(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Petition, the 2nd Respondent be restrained by an Order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from taking any action against 2nd Petitioner College in pursuance of the Impugned Order dated 25/11/2011 at Exhibit “O” hereto;” And thereby, stayed impugned order dated 25 November 2013. 4. The Petitioners have taken out a Notice of Motion for urgent reliefs as inspite of pendency of this Petition and above order, the Petitioner, according to Respondent No.2, has not deposited the amount so demanded and Respondent No.2 therefore, refused to grant approval to the students of the year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14. This, in our view, is totally unjust and unacceptable approach of Respondent No.2. That will hamper the career of students admitted by the Petitioners in the respective courses, for those years, in accordance with law, particularly in the present case in view of the order passed by this Court as referred above. 5. We have noted that the career of the students cannot be disturbed, merely because there is a dispute regarding the recovery of penalty amount, between the Management and the concerned Authorities. The Authorities are free to take action to recover such monetary claims, in accordance with law, however, the students should not be penalized and/or suffer, for such dispute. 6. In affidavit in reply dated 7 August 2014 to the Notice of Motion filed by Respondent No.2 DTE, the contentions are reiterated based upon notice dated 25 November 2013. After hearing both the parties, we have also noted that the basic issue was about admission of 22 students, which the Petitioners, as stated above, are admitted based upon their practice and entitlement as stated to be permissible. The Petitioners throughout denied the charges, as well as, the claims so raised by the Respondents in this regard. By the impugned order/communication, for the first time, without giving any show cause notice, about these alleged late uploading of 60 students on website, imposed the penalty. The Petitioners throughout denied the charges, as well as, the claims so raised by the Respondents in this regard. By the impugned order/communication, for the first time, without giving any show cause notice, about these alleged late uploading of 60 students on website, imposed the penalty. This is also an incorrect way of imposing penalty and demanding such huge amount. According to the Petitioners they have followed the due procedure, apart from the order of the Court. We have also noted and as contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, that their submissions are not even recorded in the impugned order though they have filed written notes of arguments. By filing affidavit and/or giving justification in the reply, is also unacceptable way of dealing with such penalty issue, specifically when the Petition itself is pending in this Court. 7. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and considering the action so initiated and the penalty so imposed by the Respondents without following due procedure of law and basically the principle of natural justice, we are inclined to pass the following order: ORDER a) Impugned order dated 25 November 2013 is quashed and set aside, with liberty to the concerned Respondents to issue fresh show cause notice on all points, in respect of 22 students, as well as, 60 students and pass a fresh order after giving hearing to the Petitioners, in accordance with law. b) We direct, Respondent No.2, to grant approval to the admission of the students admitted by Petitioner No.2 to the respective courses for the year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and all necessary consequential orders, so far as the other Respondents are concerned. (c) It is clarified that the Respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law after taking decision on the show cause notice, if any. (d) The Petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the Notice of Motion. (e) There shall be no order as to costs. (f) The parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.