Laxmi Education Society vs State of Maharashtra, through the Government Pleader, Original Side, Mumbai

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(Bom) 1692

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SWATANTER KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
Laxmi Education Society & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Government Pleader, Original Side, Mumbai & Others
WRIT PETITION NO.73 OF 2002 WITH APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1246 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2497 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1246 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2008 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 246 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2008 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 248 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 304 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 338 OF 2009
Decided on : 10-12-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:S.H. Mehta i/b. Madekar & Co., M.P. Rao, Sr.Counsel a/w Girish Kulkarni i/b. Prakash Mahadik & Co., M.P. Rao, Sr.Counsel a/w Girish Kulkarni i/b. A.G. Kothari, Ms. Gayatri Singh i/b. Bhavana Mhatre, Advocates, Mohan Pillai, Petitioner present in person. For the Respondents: Nilesh Pawaskar, Sp. Counsel a/w B.H. Mehta, AGP.

Headnote:Maharashtra Educational Institution (Management) Act, 1976 - Section 3(1) - Secondary School Code, Rule 7.5 - Closure of Junior Colleges - Management filed petition for closure of colleges - Matter remanded to Tribunal by single Judge - Appeal against by Management - Competent Authority passed order to appoint Administrator under Section 3(1) of Act - Held - Right to close Junior College of Management not absolute right when College Government-aided - Tribunal cannot reopen issue of closure - Proposal of Management cannot be rejected by Appropriate Authority - Order, rejecting proposal of Management not sustainable - Concerned Authorities directed to consider claim of petitioner by giving fair opportunity - Management to appear before Competent Authority for reconsideration of proposal regarding closure of Junior College - Petition disposed of. - Having regard to the nature of reliefs claimed in this writ petition, Court would think it proper to direct the concerned respondents to examine the claim of the petitioners stated in this petition, if already not done so far. The respondents would treat the present petition as further representation of the petitioners, both in respect of junior colleges as well as Degree College and issue appropriate orders, as may be advised in accordance with law. This petition, therefore, is being disposed of leaving all questions open. The concerned Authorities would consider the claim of the petitioners by giving fair opportunity to the petitioners/Management to put across their point of view and to allow them to produce such other documents other documents as may be advised. The Authorities would however, dispose of the representation as expeditiously as possible.
Courts are of the considered view that the Management in the present case cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. For, it has come on record that the Management did not co-operate with the online admission process. Besides, although no new admissions were given in the two Junior Colleges, the Management continued to receive salary grants in respect of permanent employees in the two Junior Colleges and the said employees had virtually no work and were made to sit idle. Ordinarily, the petitions filed by the Management ought to be thrown out at the threshold on this count alone. Be that as it may in Court’s opinion, the Competent Authority may consider of recovering the amount so paid to the Junior Colleges towards salary grants for the relevant period, which is from the public exchequer. It would be open to the Competent Authority to take recourse to such measures, as may be permissible in law in that behalf. It is for the Authorities to take appropriate action against the Management for their act of commission and omission, if they so desire, Besides, it would be open to the other private parties to take recourse to such remedy, as may be permissible against the Management for the breach of direction issued by the Competent Authority as well as that of the order of the Court. All aspects will have to be dealt with on its own merit in such proceedings. In addition, the Management would be obliged to abide by the directions that would be issued by the Competent Authority on the proposal for closure of the two Junior Colleges. Although Courts would however, relegate the Management before the Competent Authority for reconsideration of the proposal regarding closure of the two Junior Colleges afresh in the light of the observations made by Court in this judgment.

Judgment :-

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. We propose to dispose of all the six main matters and the derivative proceedings therein together by this Judgment. For, all these matters pertain to the same educational institution, which had started and administering two junior colleges in question on grant in aid basis and also because the issues raised are overlapping.

2. The main proceedings(Writ Petitions) are filed by the Management on one hand and by the Public spirited persons espousing the cause of the students on the other. Besides, the above numbered appeal being Appeal No.299 of 2008 arises out the decision of the School Tribunal. This Appeal is filed by the Management against the decision of the School Tribunal on the appeal instituted by the permanent employees of the junior colleges, who in turn challenged their termination on account of closure of junior colleges.

3. The first main Petition being W.P.No.73 of 2002 which is in earlier point of time, has been filed by three Petitioners-the Management(Laxmi Education Society), the Principal of Sir. M.V.College of Science and Commerce, Seth L.U.Jhaveri College of Arts and the Principal of Shri Chinai College of Commerce & Economics respectively. According to the Management, they were running two colleges for Arts and Commerce and Science and Economics and Commerce faculties which were affiliated to the University of Mumbai. All the three Colleges were receiving 100% grants from the State of Maharashtra. However, in due course the State stopped disbursing non-grant salaries payable to the concerned colleges, as also failed to carry out requisite assessment of accounts within a reasonable time and did not revise their fees structure. As the Colleges were aided colleges, there was restriction on amount of fees to be collected from the students. As a result, the Colleges were facing severe financial hardship and led to a situation where it was practically impossible to run and manage the Colleges and conduct classes. It is in this backdrop the Management filed the said Petition for the following reliefs.

“a) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, conduct and complete the assessment for the Junior Colleges run by the petitioner No.2 from the year 1991-92 and furnish the Assessment Reports and be further directed to assign, reasons in the event certain expenditure were to be disallowed;

b) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, conduct and complete the assessment for the Junior Colleges run by the Petitioner No.3 from the year 1995-96 and furnish the Assessment Reports and be further directed to assign, reasons in the event certain expenditure were to be disallowed;

c) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, effect payments of the non-salary expenditure incurred by the Junior Colleges run by the Petitioner No.1 as per Exhibit C;

d) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, conduct and complete the assessment for the Degree Colleges run by the Petitioner No.2 from the year 1997-98 and furnish the Assessment Reports and be further directed to assign, reasons in the event certain expenditure were to be disallowed;

e) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, conduct and complete the assessment for the Degree Colleges run by the Petitioner No.3 from the year 1998-99 and furnish the Assessment Reports and be further directed to assign, reasons in the event certain expenditure were to be disallowed;

f) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, effec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document