Bombay High Court : Petitioners, who are not part of the management, have the right to approach the court under Article 226 even though the provision primarily contemplates action by the management
Title: Nanasaheb Babasaheb Dharbale & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Decided on: 23.08.2023
+ WRIT PETITION NO. 4978 OF 2022
CORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL & ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
Facts of the case
In this case, the petitioners are members of the teaching and non-teaching staff of a college called the College of Pharmacy. This college is managed by a trust under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, and it has been operating for around two and a half decades. Several issues have arisen over the years regarding the payment of salaries and benefits to the staff, adherence to regulations by the management, withdrawal of approval by the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the college’s overall state of affairs.
The primary issue revolves around the management of the College of Pharmacy. The petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Director of Technical Education (DTE) under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976. This order refused to take over the management of the college.
Issues:
Whether the DTE’s decision to not invoke Section 3 was valid and lawful?
Contentions:
The petitioners argue that the college’s management has consistently failed to meet its obligations, resulting in various legal issues such as unpaid arrears to staff and the withdrawal of approval by AICTE. They contend that the DTE’s decision to not exercise its powers under Section 3 of the Educational Institutions Act is arbitrary, capricious, and against the earlier observations made by the court in a related case.
On the other hand, the management and the Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) support the DTE’s decision. They assert that the college has effectively been in a “No Admission” category since 2018-2019 due to a lack of fresh admissions, rendering it practically non-functional. They argue that Section 3 of the Educational Institutions Act might not be applicable in such a scenario and that the college’s closure and lack of approvals further justify the DTE’s decision.
Decision:
The court begins by addressing the preliminary objection raised by the DTE regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the availability of an appeal under sub-section 4 of Section 3. The court dismisses this objection, stating that the petitioners, who are not part of the management, have the right to approach the court under Article 226 even though the provision primarily contemplates action by the management.
Regarding the vires of Section 3 of the Educational Institutions Act, the court observes that the vires of the Act has not been challenged in this case, and the management cannot raise such a challenge in the current context.
The court agrees with the observations made in an earlier order regarding the mismanagement of the college. However, it emphasizes that invoking Section 3 of the Educational Institutions Act would practically amount to reviving a non-functional institution, as the college has been effectively closed for more than three years. Considering the college’s closure and lack of approvals, the court agrees that the DTE’s refusal to take over the management is justified.
In conclusion, the writ petition is dismissed, and the court upholds the DTE’s decision not to invoke Section 3 of the Educational Institutions Act.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law