{"id":206438,"date":"2008-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-07T22:36:23","modified_gmt":"2018-01-07T17:06:23","slug":"g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"G.H.R.Education Foundation … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
G.H.R.Education Foundation … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, K.U. Chandiwal<\/div>\n
                               - 1 -\n\n\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.5450 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n    1) G.H.R.Education Foundation society\n       having its Registered Office at\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n       Nagpur, Shraddha House, 6th Floor,\n       Kingsway, Nagpur, District Nagpur,\n       Through its Secretary.\n\n    2) G.H.R. Education Foundation\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n       Society's G.H. Raisoni Institute\n       of Engineering & Management,\n       Pachora Road, Jalgaon - 425 002,\n       Through its Principal.                    .. PETITIONERS\n\n        VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                              \n    1) The State of Maharashtra\n                   \n       Through Secretary,\n       Department of Higher and\n       Technical Education, Mantralaya,\n       Annexe, Mumbai.\n                  \n    2) The Director of Technical\n       Education, Govt. fo Maharashtra,\n       Mumbai.\n\n    3) The North Maharashtra University,\n      \n\n\n       Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon,\n       Through its Registrar.                    .. RESPONDENTS\n   \n\n\n\n                               .....\n\n    Shri P.M.Shah, Sr.Counsel h\/f Mr.Nitin B. Suryawanshi,\n    Advocate for petitioners;\n\n\n\n\n\n    Shri N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader, for Resp.Nos. 1 & 2;\n    Shri A.B.Girase, Advocate for Respondent No.3.\n\n                               .....\n\n\n                           CORAM:   F.I.REBELLO &\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.\n\n                           Date :   24th SEPTEMBER,2008.\n\n\n    JUDGMENT (PER:- F.I.REBELLO,J.):\n<\/pre>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
    .         Rule.        Heard forthwith.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n    2)        The       petitioner No.1 is a society, registered under\n\n    the Societies Registration Act.                It has been recognized as\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n    a     minority institution.            No Objection Certificate                 issued\n\n<\/pre>\n
    by the Competent Authority dated 9th July, 2007 is annexed<\/p>\n
    to     the     petition.         Petitioner    No.2      is     an      educational<\/p>\n
    institution run by petitioner no.1-society.                        The Executive<\/p>\n
    Body     of     petitioner no.1 is the body of petitioner                        no.2.\n<\/p>\n
    The     primary        object    of    petitioner      no.1       is     to     impart<\/p>\n
    education within the State of Maharashtra and presently it<\/p>\n
    is conducting various courses and running various colleges<\/p>\n
    at     Nagpur,        Jalgaon    and    Ahmednagar        in      the     State        of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
    3)        The       petitioners       applied to All India Council                   for<\/p>\n
    Technical           Education    (A.I.C.T.E.)     to      run        postgraduate<\/p>\n
    courses        in     Business    Administration, i.e.               M.B.A.          and<\/p>\n
    Mechanical Engineering along with other courses, which are<\/p>\n
    being        conducted     by    the petitioners         in     their       existing<\/p>\n
    college.            A.I.C.T.E.    is constituted in pursuance of                     All<\/p>\n
    India        Council     for     Technical Education Act,              1987.         The<\/p>\n
    object        of the A.I.C.T.E.         is for the proper planning                   and<\/p>\n
    coordinate          development of technical education                   throughout<\/p>\n
    the     country, promotion of qualitative improvement of such<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                              – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
    education and proper maintenance of norms and standards in<\/p>\n
    the     technical education system and the matters                           connected<\/p>\n
    therewith.            A.I.C.T.E.      is the final authority in respect<\/p>\n
    of      granting        recognition       to     the        technical            courses<\/p>\n
    throughout India.             The law on this point is settled by the<\/p>\n
    Judgment        of     the    Supreme Court in Jaya              Gokul       Education<\/p>\n
    Trust     Vs.     Commissioner & Secretary to Government                            Higher<\/p>\n
    Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala, State and<\/p>\n
    Anr.     – (2000) 5 SCC 231.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    4)        A.I.C.T.E.          by its communication dated 30th                       June,\n\n    1998     addressed\n                            \n                             to     the   Principal         Secretary,           Higher         &\n\n    Technical       Education and Employment Department, Govt.                                of\n                           \n    Maharashtra,          Mumbai, informed that they have approved the\n\n    proposal        of petitioner no.1-soceity for starting                          courses\n\n    in     M.B.A.         and Mechanical Engineering.                A copy        of     this\n      \n\n\n    communication          was    also addressed to the                petitioners            as\n   \n\n\n\n    also     to the Registrar of the concerned university in                                the\n\n<\/pre>\n
    instant        case Respondent No.3.           The approval order clearly<\/p>\n
    sets     out     that     the    approval        is     for      introduction             of<\/p>\n
    additional       courses        for the academic year 2008-2009.                          In<\/p>\n
    the     note     to     the Revised order it was set out                     that       the<\/p>\n
    approval         for      the     additional          course(s)\/Increase                  in<\/p>\n
    Intake\/variation in intake is valid for two years from the<\/p>\n
    date     of issue of the letter for getting affiliation                               with<\/p>\n
    respective       university        and    fulfilling           State        Government<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
    requirements            of    admission.           It     is      the     case       of     the<\/p>\n
    petitioners          that      pursuant         to the      approval          granted         by<\/p>\n
    A.I.C.T.E.,          the      petitioners         were         entitled         to      admit<\/p>\n
    students       for M.B.A.            and Mechanical Engineering                    courses.\n<\/p>\n
    According          to     the petitioners, admission to                     M.B.A.          and<\/p>\n
    Mechanical          Engineering courses is governed and controlled<\/p>\n
    by Respondent nos.              1 and 2.          Respondent Nos.             1 and 2 are<\/p>\n
    the    appropriate            authority to frame the Rules,                      governing<\/p>\n
    admissions          and       which conducts Central Admission                       Process<\/p>\n
    (C.A.P.),          in     which      students       are        allotted       to     various<\/p>\n
    colleges.           Respondent           No.3 is the affiliating body,                      who<\/p>\n
    conducts examinations and declares the results and confers<\/p>\n
    respective          degrees         on    the      students.           For         obtaining<\/p>\n
    admission          in any Institution for the course in M.B.A.                                or<\/p>\n
    Mechanical Engineering, it is necessary for the candidates<\/p>\n
    of    State        of Maharashtra to undergo an examination,                              i.e.<\/p>\n
    Common Entrance Test (C.E.T.).\n<\/p>\n
    5)        The schedule of C.E.T.                  was published by Respondent<\/p>\n
    No.2 in its notification dated 9.6.2008.                             As far as M.B.A.\n<\/p>\n
    course     is concerned, admission to the said course was                                     to<\/p>\n
    commence       on 3.7.2008 and it was scheduled to be completed<\/p>\n
    by    30.08.2008.              In    respect       of     Mechanical          Engineering<\/p>\n
    course,       it        was    to commence on 16.6.2008 and was                        to     be<\/p>\n
    completed          by     15.09.2008.           According to the            petitioners,<\/p>\n
    pursuant       to the approval by A.I.C.T.E.                       dated 30.06.2008,<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
    petitioner           no.2 forwarded a            communication\/representation<\/p>\n
    dated        7.8.2008 to the Respondent No.1 informing about the<\/p>\n
    approval        of        A.I.C.T.E.       and      thereby          requested            that<\/p>\n
    petitioner           no.2-college         be     included       in      the     list         of<\/p>\n
    institutions              imparting      education leading to M.B.A.                       and<\/p>\n
    Mechanical           Engineering         courses.     Though the             petitioners<\/p>\n
    have        approached        Respondent No.1 and 2 for                  inclusion           of<\/p>\n
    name of petitioner no.2-college in the list of colleges in<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra           State       for admission of students to both                        the<\/p>\n
    courses,        the name of petitioner no.2 was considered                                only<\/p>\n
    for     the     degree course of M.B.A.                  The Respondent Nos.                   1<\/p>\n
    and     2     forwarded
\n                                ig    the    students through            C.A.P.          to    the<\/p>\n
    petitioner           no.2-college         only     for     admission           to     M.B.A.\n<\/p>\n
    course.              This         is      clear      from          the         Government<\/p>\n
    Resolution\/Circular dated 31.7.2008.\n<\/p>\n
    6)          Petitioners, it is submitted, have already invested<\/p>\n
    huge         amounts        in     the     infrastructure            and       purchasing<\/p>\n
    equipments            for        mechanical       engineering           course.            The<\/p>\n
    petitioners           have       also    appointed         required           staff        and<\/p>\n
    lecturers        for        imparting education, as AICTE has                       granted<\/p>\n
    permission           to     start the said course.              As AICTE is              final<\/p>\n
    authority            for     granting      approval,           according            to     the<\/p>\n
    petitioners, Respondent Nos.                    1 to 3 ought to have granted<\/p>\n
    consequential              permission      to     start      the      new      course        in<\/p>\n
    Mechanical           Engineering.          The respondents could not                      have<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                              – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
    ignored        the    same, considering the law laid down                          by    the<\/p>\n
    Supreme         Court      in   State     of     Maharashtra              Vs.           Sant<\/p>\n
    Dnyaneshwar           Shikshan       Shastra      Mahavidyalaya                &        Ors.,<\/p>\n
    reported in 2006 AIR SCW 2048.                 Another institution of the<\/p>\n
    petitioner no.1, namely G.H.Raisoni College of Engineering<\/p>\n
    at Nagpur, run by Ankush Shikshan Sanstha, a society which<\/p>\n
    is sister concern of petitioner no.1, was granted approval<\/p>\n
    on     30.06.2007        for    two     post    graduation           courses,           i.e.<\/p>\n
    M.C.A.         and    M.Tech.        Respondent nos.           1 and 2         permitted<\/p>\n
    both     the courses in the said institution and the same                                 is<\/p>\n
    reflected        in    Govt.         Resolution    dated         31.7.2008.              The<\/p>\n
    action     therefore
\n                             ig on the part of the respondents                         in    not<\/p>\n
    granting        permission\/affiliation to the petitioners herein<\/p>\n
    is     discriminatory          and    violative of Article                14       of    the<\/p>\n
    Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
    7)        In     spite     of repeated requests on the part of                           the<\/p>\n
    petitioners,          Respondent nos.          1 and 2 did not forward any<\/p>\n
    students        to the petitioner no.2-college for admission                              to<\/p>\n
    Mechanical        Engineering         course.     Petitioner            no.2,       being<\/p>\n
    unaided        minority     institution,         and      as     per      its       intake<\/p>\n
    capacity,        is entitled to admit 60 students in its college<\/p>\n
    by     following transparent admission process.                         In the          list<\/p>\n
    of documents filed before this Court, they have annexed an<\/p>\n
    advertisement         issued in Dainik Janshakti on 8.7.2008                             for<\/p>\n
    inviting        applications in the various faculties                        including<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
    Mechanical Engineering and M.B.A.                        The courses was started<\/p>\n
    in     the     month of August 2008 for the first term                             and      the<\/p>\n
    examination           are likely to be held in October 2008 and the<\/p>\n
    last     date        for     submission of examination forms                       is     17th<\/p>\n
    September,          2008.         It is in these circumstances that                         the<\/p>\n
    respondents           have       moved     this Court for            the      reliefs         as<\/p>\n
    prayed in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
    8)        Reply        has been filed on behalf of Respondent                             No.2<\/p>\n
    by      Ajit        Ramrao        Thete,        Joint     Director         of     Technical<\/p>\n
    Education,          Aurangabad.            It    is pointed          out      that,       that<\/p>\n
    notification dated 9th June, 2008 would show that the IVth<\/p>\n
    and     last        round        of admission       to    Engineering\/Technology<\/p>\n
    courses        in the State of Maharashtra has been conducted by<\/p>\n
    the     Director           as and by way of personal counselling                          from<\/p>\n
    25th     to        28th August, 2008 and after this last round,                               no<\/p>\n
    admission whatsoever can be effected.                           In view of that, it<\/p>\n
    was     not possible to add into the admission process even a<\/p>\n
    single        new seat, whether as and by way of new Engineering<\/p>\n
    College or a new course in an existing Engineering College<\/p>\n
    or     addition in the intake capacity of an old                              Engineering<\/p>\n
    college        with        old     recognition          and     affiliated           course.\n<\/p>\n
    Reference           is      made     to     the     advertisement               issued        by<\/p>\n
    A.I.C.T.E.            on     24.9.2007          wherein       it is      set      out     that<\/p>\n
    letters        of     approval issued after 30th June shall not                               be<\/p>\n
    valid        for     the current academic year, but shall be                            valid<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                              – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
    only     for     the next academic year.           It is, therefore,                 set<\/p>\n
    out     that     all these colleges to whom letters of                     approval<\/p>\n
    have     been     issued by A.I.C.T.E.           after 30th         June,        2008,<\/p>\n
    those        approvals are not valid for effecting admissions in<\/p>\n
    the     current        academic year 2008-2009, but valid                  for      the<\/p>\n
    next     two academic years.             We may mention here itself that<\/p>\n
    in     the     said     advertisement, the terminology used                    is     as<\/p>\n
    under :\n<\/p>\n
             “The         letter     of    Approval issued after            30th        June<\/p>\n
             shall         not     be valid for the current academic                  year<\/p>\n
             but      shall
\n                             ig    be     valid only for     next     two      Academic<\/p>\n
             years.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It is, therefore, clear that only those to whom letters of<\/p>\n
    approval        are     issued        after 30th June,     which        cannot        be<\/p>\n
    considered        but        those    issued up to 30th         June     would        be<\/p>\n
    entitled        to admit students for the current academic year.\n<\/p>\n
    Reference        is also made to the Judgment of the Full                        Bench<\/p>\n
    of     this     Court passed on 8.8.2008 and 22.8.2008                     in       Writ<\/p>\n
    Petition        No.     3916 of 2001 and other petitions.                    Various<\/p>\n
    paragraphs from the said judgment have been quoted.                             We do<\/p>\n
    not     find     in any of the paragraphs any legal bar                      on      the<\/p>\n
    respondents           or on the petitioners admitting the                  students<\/p>\n
    for the academic year 2008-2009.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                   – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
    9)       Reply           has also been filed on behalf of                              Respondent<\/p>\n
    No.3-university               by      Digambar s\/o Maroti Mahajan,                         Section<\/p>\n
    Officer.            It     is        pointed out that though the                       order       was<\/p>\n
    passed        by A.I.C.T.E.                on 30th June, 2008, the                     petitioner<\/p>\n
    institution              has         not     taken         any      steps       for          getting<\/p>\n
    affiliation          till date and on this ground of delay                                   alone,<\/p>\n
    the     petition          is        liable     to     be     dismissed.                The        State<\/p>\n
    Government,              by        letter     dated         31.7.2008           has          granted<\/p>\n
    permission to the petitioner institution for various other<\/p>\n
    courses,          but the course of Mechanical Engineering has not<\/p>\n
    been     included             in     the     said      list.             In    terms         of     the<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra<\/p>\n
                         Universities             Act,     from           the      academic           year<\/p>\n
    2001-2002,          such permission of the State Government                                   shall<\/p>\n
    be     communicated to the university on or before 31st                                           May,<\/p>\n
    of     the        year     in        which new college              is      proposed          to     be<\/p>\n
    started.            Permission             received thereafter shall be                       given<\/p>\n
    effect        by the university only in the subsequent                                   academic<\/p>\n
    year.         The        petitioner,          as     pointed          out      earlier,           till<\/p>\n
    18.9.2008          has        not     received        any     permission\/recognition<\/p>\n
    order        and as such the University is not in a position                                        to<\/p>\n
    grant        affiliation             for     this academic year.                  As     per       the<\/p>\n
    norms        prescribed by the AICTE as well as the                                 university,<\/p>\n
    the     student          has to complete the term prescribed                               by      the<\/p>\n
    AICTE        as     well        as     university.          The first           term         of     the<\/p>\n
    Engineering          Course ends in the month of November.                                   As per<\/p>\n
    the     norms of the university, 80% attendance is                                     necessary<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
    to    grant    the        term.       Reference     is     also     made       to     the<\/p>\n
    provisions      of Section 82 and 83 of the Universities                             Act.\n<\/p>\n
    It    is, therefore, submitted that the petition ought to be<\/p>\n
    dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    10)     The     questions for consideration before this                           Court<\/p>\n
    would be :\n<\/p>\n
            (i)          After        AICTE      had granted approval on                30th<\/p>\n
            June,        2008,       was the State Government               within        its<\/p>\n
            authority              not    to    grant    recognition             to       the<\/p>\n
            petitioners
\n                              ig   for    admitting      the     students          to     the<\/p>\n
            Mechanical Engineering course ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (ii)         If         the    petitioners         have     admitted          the<\/p>\n
            students,          was it in breach of the brochure and                         or<\/p>\n
            any other statutory provisions ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (iii)        What       is the procedure that the                 petitioner<\/p>\n
            had     to       follow in admitting the students,                     and      if<\/p>\n
            admitted,          role of the respondents in allowing                        the<\/p>\n
            students          to prosecute their studies and appear for<\/p>\n
            the examinations ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    11)     In     so        far    as    the issue of       recognition           of     the<\/p>\n
    petitioner          by     Respondent        No.1    and       affiliation              by<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
    Respondent           No.3 is concerned, in our opinion, once                              AICTE<\/p>\n
    granted        approval, the said respondents are bound by                                 what<\/p>\n
    is set out in the Judgment in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar<\/p>\n
    Shikshan        Shastra           Mahavidyalaya          (supra)         as     also        the<\/p>\n
    Judgment        of     the Supreme Court in Jayu Gokul                         Educational<\/p>\n
    Trust     (supra).          Once permission is granted, it is neither<\/p>\n
    open     to     the State Government, nor to the                         university           to<\/p>\n
    refuse permission or affiliation, as the case may be.                                       The<\/p>\n
    State     Government has no power to reject the prayer of the<\/p>\n
    institution           or overrule the decision of N.C.T.E.                           In     the<\/p>\n
    instant        case,        the     State Government, to whom                   letter        of<\/p>\n
    approval        was<\/p>\n
                               addressed,       granted permission                for      M.B.A.\n<\/p>\n
    course,        but     did        not      communicate        their       decision          for<\/p>\n
    granting        permission          to Mechanical Engineering course                          on<\/p>\n
    the     spacious        plea        that the Brochure            has      already         been<\/p>\n
    published        and        the names of the institution could not                            be<\/p>\n
    included.            Such     a     plea     is    unavailable           to     the       State<\/p>\n
    Government.            The        State Government, was, therefore,                       duty<\/p>\n
    bound     to grant approval based on the approval granted                                     by<\/p>\n
    AICTE in favour of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    .         In     so        far as Respondent No.3 is concerned, it                            is<\/p>\n
    true     that        the     petitioners          have    not      yet        applied       for<\/p>\n
    affiliation.            The       contention of the petitioners is                        that<\/p>\n
    they were waiting for the approval of the State Government<\/p>\n
    so     as to apply for affiliation with Respondent no.3.                                      As<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                           – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
    respondent        no.3    has not granted approval, they                       did      not<\/p>\n
    apply, but they would apply now considering that they have<\/p>\n
    already        admitted    the     students and approval is                    for      the<\/p>\n
    academic        year 2008-2009.       In so far as the university                         is<\/p>\n
    concerned,        the Supreme Court in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan<\/p>\n
    Shastra        Mahavidyalaya       (supra) has specifically                    set      out<\/p>\n
    that     once recognition has been granted by N.C.T.E,                               every<\/p>\n
    university        is     obliged     to        grant    affiliation            to     such<\/p>\n
    institution        and sections 82 and 83 of the University                             Act<\/p>\n
    do not apply to such cases.\n<\/p>\n
    .\n<\/p>\n
              Question No.1 is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
    12)       We      then     proceed        to     consider        the      process         of<\/p>\n
    admission.        We may first refer to the Govt.                     Resolution of<\/p>\n
    11th June, 2007 in the matter of giving recognition to the<\/p>\n
    educational        institutions of minority societies, who                            wish<\/p>\n
    to     acquire     the status of           religious\/linguistic                minority<\/p>\n
    institutes        in the State.       In terms of the said Government<\/p>\n
    Resolution, following paragraphs are relevant :\n<\/p>\n
              “(3)    While giving admission to the first year of
\n              the educational portion, it is binding on the
\n              institute which has been given the status of<\/p>\n
              minority to give admission to at least 51% of the
\n              students of the religion of which the minority
\n              institute belongs. In case it is not possible to
\n              get the students of that minority society to the
\n              management, the concerned     minority educational
\n              institute   can seek students     from the    State<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                      – 13 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Government authorities.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (4)………………………………………..
\n             (A)……………………………………….
\n             (B)……………………………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (C)………………………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (5)     All the minority students who are admitted<\/p>\n
             by management running the educational portion by
\n             the prescribed method, as      per merits and by
\n             transparent admission method, shall be residents of
\n             Maharashtra State as also it is incumbent that they
\n             shall pass the Secondary School Education and<\/p>\n
             Higher   Secondary Education    Examination   from
\n             Maharashtra only.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (6)     The management running     the educational
\n             portions in addition to school education shall, by
\n             following the policy of the State Government of<\/p>\n
             provisions of prescribed percentage of admission to
\n             every   Department, the    management shall    give<\/p>\n
             admission to minimum 51% of the admission strength
\n             to the students who are residents of Maharashtra.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .        It     would    therefore be clear that            an     institution<\/p>\n
    which has been granted minority status will have to comply<\/p>\n
    with the said directions.\n<\/p>\n
    .        Next     reference can be made to the brochure                     issued<\/p>\n
    by Respondent nos.        1 and 2.     In terms of para 2.1 of this<\/p>\n
    brochure,        seats     available      for        admission            through<\/p>\n
    Centralized       Admission Process (C.A.P.) is set out.                     In so<\/p>\n
    far      as   unaided     minority     engineering            colleges           are<\/p>\n
    concerned,       Maharashtra   State seats would be 85%                   of     CAP<\/p>\n
    Seats    and All India seats on the basis of AIEEE would                           be<\/p>\n
    15%     of the CAP seats.      The CAP seats would be carved                     out<\/p>\n
    based on the formula given as under :\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    – 14 –<\/p>\n
                “CAP         Seats = Sanctioned Intake – (Minority Seats +<\/p>\n
                Institute level seats.)<\/p>\n
    13)         We      have then para 2.4 of the brochure, which                                         sets<\/p>\n
    out the Seats as mentioned below are not covered under the<\/p>\n
    CAP     and the respective institutions are the authority for<\/p>\n
    admissions              to     these        seats.            The      candidates                seeking<\/p>\n
    admission               under        these     seats          shall          submit          separate<\/p>\n
    application\/s                       to        the               concerned                   admission<\/p>\n
    authority\/authorities.                       In     so    far as            unaided         minority<\/p>\n
    Engineering<\/p>\n
                                 Colleges         are        concerned,             the        Admission<\/p>\n
    Authority           is        The        Principal       of     the       Un-Aided          Minority<\/p>\n
    Engineering              College.          In so far as the seats to be filled<\/p>\n
    in     at     Institute              level,       it     is to         be     decided            by    the<\/p>\n
    respective               Minority            Institute.              We       are          not        here<\/p>\n
    considering              the     seats over and above sanctioned                              intake.\n<\/p>\n
    Our     attention was invited by counsel for the                                       respondents<\/p>\n
    to     admission of NRI candidates to point out that they are<\/p>\n
    eligible           to        apply       only against Institute                    level         seats.\n<\/p>\n
    Para        2.6.2        provides          for allocation and                   reservation             of<\/p>\n
    seats        for        admission          through       CAP           for      all        types        of<\/p>\n
    institutes              and     seats        available          for          Institute            level<\/p>\n
    admission\/seats                  for         Minority          community              in      unaided<\/p>\n
    institutes.                  Under       column 4 – Unaided Minority                        Colleges<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra              State       seats would be the CAP seats – 15%                                 of<\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                           – 15 –\n<\/p>\n
    CAP     seats     for AIEEE and they would be divided as 70%                        of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra       State seats coming under CAP, which are to be<\/p>\n
    divided         under    Home     University     and     Other        than       Home<\/p>\n
    University.\n<\/p>\n
    14)       From    all the Paras of the Brochure what emerges is<\/p>\n
    that     in     so far as unaided minority Engineering                   colleges<\/p>\n
    are     concerned,       the    procedure for filling in              the       seats<\/p>\n
    would be that the candidates have to directly apply to the<\/p>\n
    concerned        authority\/authorities.         The allocation of seats<\/p>\n
    has     to     be decided by the concerned Admission                  Authority.\n<\/p>\n
    In<\/p>\n
           the instant case, according to the petitioners,                        under<\/p>\n
    the     sanctioned       strength of 60 students in terms                  of     the<\/p>\n
    approval granted by Pravesh Niyantran Samiti in respect of<\/p>\n
    their sister institution, they have reserved admission for<\/p>\n
    minority students as 51% and admissions at institute level<\/p>\n
    at 20% and admissions through CAP or governing CET at 29%.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore,       out of 60 seats available, 31 to be filled                         in<\/p>\n
    from     minority community;          12 to be filled in at institute<\/p>\n
    level;       and remaining 17 seats were divided – 3 for AIEEE;\n<\/p>\n
    10     for     Home     University;     and 4    for     other        than       Home<\/p>\n
    University.           Thus, in so far as 31 seats and 12 seats are<\/p>\n
    concerned, the authorized authority for granting admission<\/p>\n
    is     the     Principal       of the unaided    minority         institution.\n<\/p>\n
    Merit        being a criterion, as set out by the Supreme                       Court<\/p>\n
    in T.M.A.        Pai Foundation Vs.       State of Karnataka – (2002)<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                             – 16 –\n<\/p>\n
    8 SCC 481, reiterated in Islamic Academy of Education and<\/p>\n
    Anr.      Vs.         State of Karnataka and Ors.             – (2003)          6    SCC<\/p>\n
    697;      and     further reiterated in the case of                    P.A.Inamdas<\/p>\n
    Vs.      State of Maharashtra & Ors.- (2005) 6 SCC 537.                              The<\/p>\n
    seats     to     be    filled     in     by   the    authorized           Admission<\/p>\n
    Authority,       will      have    to    be      based     on     merit       of     the<\/p>\n
    candidates       who have applied and in terms of the Rules for<\/p>\n
    admission.\n<\/p>\n
    15)       In    so     far as seats to be filled in                through          CAP,<\/p>\n
    admittedly,        the     Respondent nos.        1 and 2 have            not       made<\/p>\n
    available<\/p>\n
                    the students to the said seats.                   The last          date<\/p>\n
    for admission was extended from 8.9.2008 to 15.9.2008.                                 In<\/p>\n
    these     circumstances,          the institute could have filled                      in<\/p>\n
    the     seats     again by following the order of merit and                          the<\/p>\n
    other     rules.       In so far as this aspect is concerned,                        the<\/p>\n
    same     is     covered by Para 6.8 of the brochure, which                          sets<\/p>\n
    out as under :\n<\/p>\n
              “The Principal\/Director of the un-aided institution<\/p>\n
              has    to carry out the admissions for the                      vacancies<\/p>\n
              after the CAP Round-IV as per the guide lines given<\/p>\n
              in Annexure-III.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    16)       The    petitioners have admitted the students without<\/p>\n
    getting         approval     of    Respondent       nos.          1    and      2      or<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                 – 17 –\n<\/p>\n
    affiliation              from    Respondent no.3 university.                  The     fact,<\/p>\n
    however,           remains that the petitioners had approached                            the<\/p>\n
    Respondent           no.2       for approval, which, till date                   has      not<\/p>\n
    been     granted.           Thereafter, they have moved this Court                          on<\/p>\n
    11.09.2008           and        since    then the Court is           seized         of    the<\/p>\n
    matter.        Once the Respondents were bound to grant approval<\/p>\n
    and     or     affiliation, as AICTE had granted                       permission           to<\/p>\n
    start        the     courses from the academic years 2008-2009,                             it<\/p>\n
    was     open        for the petitioners, being a minority                        un-aided<\/p>\n
    institute,               considering        the   brochure         issued        by       the<\/p>\n
    Respondent           nos        1 and 2, to have commenced the                 admission<\/p>\n
    process        subject
\n                                ig  to      the procedural      requirements             to     be<\/p>\n
    completed           and further admitting the students in order                             of<\/p>\n
    merit        and     in     terms of the brochure as               also       the        Govt.\n<\/p>\n
    Resolution of 11th June, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
    17)       The petitioners to apply to the Respondent No.3 for<\/p>\n
    affiliation.               On the petitioners so applying, considering<\/p>\n
    Para     78 of the Judgment in Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra),                                  the<\/p>\n
    Respondent           No.3-university          to grant        affiliation.               This<\/p>\n
    affiliation              would       be subject to the petitioner and                      the<\/p>\n
    students           who     have      been     admitted      being       eligible          and<\/p>\n
    fulfilling their requirements, if any.\n<\/p>\n
    18)       In        terms of the Govt.            Resolution dated 11.6.2007,<\/p>\n
    the     petitioners             being minority institution will have                        to<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  – 18 –\n<\/p>\n
    admit     at        least        51%    of     students.          Though         the       Govt.\n<\/p>\n
    Resolution           only speaks of religious minority, considering<\/p>\n
    that     minority           is     both       for    religious          and      linguistic<\/p>\n
    minority,           para     3 will have to be read as                    applicable           to<\/p>\n
    both     religious           and       linguistic       minorities.               The        20%<\/p>\n
    management            quota        will      have    also        to     be     filled          in<\/p>\n
    considering            the       brochure       as     also       the      other           seats<\/p>\n
    considering para 6.1.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n    19)       The        issue       as     to whether the           students         meet       the\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    requirements           for admission will have to be considered                                by\n\n    the     Respondent\n                               \n                                 No.2.        The petitioners,            therefore,           will\n\n    have     to submit the requisite information and                               particulars\n                              \n    to     the Respondent No.2 within seven days from today.                                     The\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Respondent No.2 thereafter, within fifteen days of receipt<\/p>\n
    of     such     information            and particulars, to                decide        as     to<\/p>\n
    whether        the     students have been admitted in terms of                               the<\/p>\n
    Rules and the brochure and communicate the decision to the<\/p>\n
    petitioners and Respondent no.3.\n<\/p>\n
    20)       The petitioners to apply to the Respondent no.3 for<\/p>\n
    affiliation           and     the       Respondent     no.3,          considering            the<\/p>\n
    Judgment in Sant Dyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya<\/p>\n
    (supra)        to     grant        affiliation.       It will be open                 to     the<\/p>\n
    Respondent           no.3 to decide the eligibility of the students<\/p>\n
    for     admission           based      on     the    report       submitted           by     the<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                      – 19 –\n<\/p>\n
    Respondent     no.2   and   it   will also be open         to     them       to<\/p>\n
    consider     the   eligibility of admission in the context                   of<\/p>\n
    the rules of the University.\n<\/p>\n
    .      Questions 2 and 3 answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
    21)    In the light of the above, Rule is made absolute in<\/p>\n
    the terms of what is set out hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
           (K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.)                      (F.I.REBELLO,J.)<\/p>\n
    bdv\/uniplex\/wp5450.08<\/p>\n
    Authentic copy<\/p>\n
    (BD VADNERE,PA)<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:05 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court G.H.R.Education Foundation … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008 Bench: F.I. Rebello, K.U. Chandiwal – 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5450 OF 2008 1) G.H.R.Education Foundation society having its Registered Office at Nagpur, Shraddha House, 6th Floor, Kingsway, Nagpur, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-206438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG.H.R.Education Foundation ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.H.R.Education Foundation ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-07T17:06:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.H.R.Education Foundation … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-07T17:06:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3539,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008\",\"name\":\"G.H.R.Education Foundation ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-07T17:06:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.H.R.Education Foundation … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"G.H.R.Education Foundation ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.H.R.Education Foundation ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-07T17:06:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.H.R.Education Foundation … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-07T17:06:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008"},"wordCount":3539,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008","name":"G.H.R.Education Foundation ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-07T17:06:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-h-r-education-foundation-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.H.R.Education Foundation … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=206438"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206438\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}