SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 292

A. S. CHANDURKAR, JITENDRA JAIN
Administrative Council Walchand College of Engineering – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through the Ministry of Higher and Technical Education – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. S. S. Patwardhan a/w Mr. Y. G. Thorat & Mr. H. M. Khupsare i/by Mr. Ashok Tajane
For the Respondent:Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. G.P. a/ w Mr. N. K. Rajpurohit, AGP, Ms. Anjali Helekar, Mr. Rajdeep Khadapkar, Mr. Rui Rodriques a/w Mr. Jainendra Sheth, Mr. Sadashiv Deshmukh
Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Shailesh Naidu, Ms. Rashmi Raghavan, Mr. Prasad Shenoy, Ms. Viloma Shah and Mr. Harshad Vyas, Mr.Ativ Patel, Mr. Darshit Jain & Mr.Pradeep Kumar i/by AVP Partners for Petitioners in WP/14369/22 and Respondent No.6 in WP/13025/16.
Mr. Ram Apte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Padmanabh D. Pise a/w Ms. Sejal A. Hariyan i/by P. Padmanabh & Associates for the Petitioner in WP/13025/16 & Applicant in IA/1057/2020 in WP/13025 of 2016 & for Respondent No.4 in WP/14369/22.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions concerning control of college management. (Para 2 , 3)
2. historical context and the establishment of the college. (Para 4 , 5)
3. various state departments and parties articulate their positions. (Para 6)
4. arguments against the control of respondent no.4. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. arguments relating to the regulatory compliance of petitioner no.1. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. court's analysis focusing on historical context of control. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20)
7. historical context crucial in determining current control dynamics. (Para 18 , 32 , 57)
8. intention and agreements regarding governance structure. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
9. assessment of ugc regulations and implications on governing structure. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
10. conclusions about the legitimacy and powers of petitioner no.1. (Para 67 , 70 , 72)
11. subsequent actions are decided based on prior agreements. (Para 68 , 69)

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2. This is one of those matters whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top