SATCHIKITSA PRASARAK MANDAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-24
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: NAGPUR)
Decided on June 07,2017

SATCHIKITSA PRASARAK MANDAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VASANTI A NAIK, J. - (1.)By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the State Government, dated 03/06/2013 appointing an administrator on the petitioner No.2-college and imposing a fine of Rs.50,000/- per student on the petitioner No.1-society.
(2.)Shri Bhangde, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, states at the outset that the part of the impugned order by which the appointment of administrator is made on the petitioner No.2- college has become infructuous would not survive. It is stated that in pursuance of an order of withdrawal of affiliation, dated 01/07/2013, the affiliation granted to the petitioner No.1-society to run the petitioner No.2-college is cancelled. It is stated that since the college is closed from 2013, the part of the order appointing the administrator on the petitioner No.2-college would not survive. It is however stated that the part of the order that directs the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- per student for transfer of the students to other institutions is bad-in-law. It is submitted that the order imposing the penalty of Rs.50,000/- per student is passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that though the order imposing the costs of Rs.50,000/- per student is penal in nature, the petitioners were not granted an opportunity whatsoever to show cause against the proposed action. It is submitted that a show cause notice was not served on the petitioners before the penalty was imposed. It is submitted that there is no authority in the respondents in law to impose the penalty on the petitioner-society or for that matter on any educational institution, either under the Maharashtra University Health Sciences Act, 1998 or under the Maharashtra Educational Institution (Management) Act, 1976. It is submitted that in the absence of any authority in the State Government to impose the penalty, the penalty could not have been imposed. It is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside for an additional reason that the order is sans reasons and does not record as to which of the minimum standard requirements were not fulfilled by the petitioner-society. It is stated that it is casually observed in the impugned order that the penalty of Rs.50,000/- per student is imposed on the petitioner-society for not fulfilling the minimum standard requirements. It is submitted that since the State Government has not mentioned the deficiencies in the management of the college and/or the non-compliance of the specific minimum standard requirements, the order would be bad-in-law.
(3.)Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State Government, has supported the order of the State Government. It is stated that before the action of appointment of the administrator was taken, a show cause notice was served on the petitioners. It is submitted that the impugned order is passed after affording ample opportunity to the petitioners. It is however fairly admitted that a specific notice asking the petitioners to show cause as to why the penalty of Rs.50,000/- per student should not be imposed upon the petitioners is not served on the petitioners. It is submitted that since the minimum standard requirements were not fulfilled by the petitioners, the impugned order was passed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.