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.