Vikas Parishad Mandrem
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 of 34 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION (FILING) NO.83 OF 2021 1. Vikas Parishad Mandrem, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its address at C/o Mandre College of Commerce, #conomics $ Management, %aba 'ev (agar, (ear Village Panchayat Mandre, Mandre, )a!uka Pedne, *oa, re+resented &y its Secretary Shri (arayan ,. (aik 2. Mandrem College of Commerce, #conomics And Management, %aba 'ev (agar, (ear Vi!!age Panchayat Mandre, Mandre, )aluka Pedne, *oa, through the Chairman of the Managing Committee, Adv. Ramakant D. .halap Versus 1. State of *oa through the Chie" Secretary, having of"ice at Secretariat, Porvorim, *oa. 2 of 34 2. The 'irector, 'irectorate of /igher #ducation, *overnment of *oa, Porvorim, *oa. 3. The Secretary, /igher #ducation, *overnment of *oa, having of"ice at Secretariat, Porvorim, *oa. 4. *oa 2niversity, )aleigao Plateau, *oa-403206 ... Respo !en"s. Mr. Parag Rao 4ith Ms. M. (aik, Advocates "or the Petitioners. Mr. 'evidas ,. Pangam, Advocate *enera! with Mr. P. Arolkar, Additional *overnment Advocate "or the Respondents (o.1 to 3. Ms. A. A. Agni, Senior Advocate with Ms. ,ay Sa4aikar, Advocate "or the Respondent (o.4. Co#$% :- M. S. SONA) & BHARATI H. DANGRE, J-. Reser.e! o : 13.01.2021 P#o o/ 0ed o & 16.02.2021 -UDGMENT:( Per BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable "orthwith. /eard "inally 3 of 34 4ith the consent of the learned counse! "or the parties. 2. Alleging belligerent and discriminatory treatment a""orded to the Petitioners in not admitting the petitioner no.-, the College run &y petitioner no.1-grant-in-aid and "urther alleging that the said denia! is on "limsy and partisan grounds, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking relie" of 6uashing and setting aside the said action of the State *overnment and writ in the nature of a mandamus directing the respondents to grant aid to the petitioners 4.e.". academic session 2013-14. 3. The petitioner no. 1 is an educationa! society registered under the relevant provisions of the Society Registration Act, 1860 and claim to be a +ioneer in the educationa! "ield in the State, having started the secondary school education in the year 1978 and a higher secondary section "rom the year 1990. Since the students in the adjoining area 4ere "inding it di""icult to enrol themselves in the +rimary section in the school which 4ere located at a distance, a primary section came to be added in the year 1995. The petitioner no.1-Society aim to make education easily accessible and available to the children of Mandrem and nearby vi!!ages. At the three levels the Petitioner is +resently providing education and is in receipt of grant- in-aid "rom the very inception when ste+s 4ere taken to initialise the 4 of 34 distinct levels of education. 4. The grievance of the petitioners pertain to the re"usa! of the respondent to provide aid, when the petitioner no.1 intended to "urther extend their hori;on to provide education at graduation leve!. Considering the "act &ased scenario, in absence of any government or private college providing degree education in Mandrem in the year 2012 and the on!y college avai!able being the *overnment College at Pernem, located at a distance of about -0 kms "rom the college of the petitioners and since the said college was assessed to be beyond the reach of the students who 4ere as+irant of prosecuting their graduation studies and residing at Morjim, Palyen, .eri and )erecol locality at a distance of 26kms, 28kms, 30kms and 35kms respectively, the petitioner no.1 applied "or a""iliation to the *oa 2niversity to start degree college in the stream of Arts, %.Com, %%A and Vocationa! course on 26.09.2011. The need is "urther intensi"ied, as per the Petitioners since the *overnment College at Pernem is not directly accessible along the (ationa! /ighway 17 and is located in Village Vernoda on the outskirts of the Pernem Municipal area and the students of Mandrem and the nearby vi!!ages 4ere re6uired to "ollo4 the ardous route &y changing - buses to reach college. 5 of 34 5. The case of the petitioner no.1 is that 4ithin the radius of 10 kms "rom the college at Mandrem there are 0 institutions which are imparting higher secondary education, namely, /arma! Panchakroshi /igher Secondary School at /armal, .amleshwar /igher Secondary School at .orgao and St. <avier /igher Secondary School at Siolim, a+art "rom the petitioner no.1's o4n institution being Sapteshwar /igher Secondary School at Mandrem. As per the data collated &y the Petitioner no.1, a&out 480 students become eligible to pursue their graduation every academic year. ,uxtaposed against the existing scenario of only one *overnment college at Vernoda, which cater to the education of students +assing higher secondary education "rom *overnment /igher Secondary School at Pernem, Colvale and (ag;ar which has a capacity of 120 students clearing HSSC #:am, the college in Vernoda is their "irst choice being the closest college. /o4ever, in light of the limited 120 seats available in *overnment College at Pernem "or %.Com 'egree course, as per the petitioner 480 students "rom 1 places mentioned above who passed their higher secondary education are unable to access the degree education in Mandrem or in Pernem taluka. Considering the acute need of the students in Mandrem and the adjoining area, the petitioner took up the initiative of providing 6ua!ity education in the College run &y it in Commerce stream. 6 of 34 6. >n the application of Petitioner no.1, the Respondent no.-, 'irector of /igher #ducation granted approva! (>C on 14.03.2012 to start the %%A course on se!" "inance &asis. >n 17.07.2012 approva! came to be granted "or the %.Com course on grant-in-aid basis. This approva! was ho4ever made subject to the concurrence of the ?inance 'epartment of *oa *overnment. The *oa 2niversity also granted it a""iliation to the petitioner no.-3 college on 17.07.2012 "or the %.Com degree course "or the academic year 2012-2013. Accordingly, the petitioner no.- started %.Com course "rom 17.07.2012 and it is the case of the petitioner that the a""i!iation came to be extended "om time-to-time &y *oa 2niversity upto the year 2015-2016. >ut of blue, the Respondent no.2, on 21.06.2013 in"ormed the petitioner that the administrative approva! "or starting of %.Com graduation course which 4as granted &y earlier letter dated 17.07.2012 stand withdrawn as the ?inance 'epartment did not agree with the proposal. @n the 4ake of this communication, the *oa 2niversity also sought to withdra4 its a""iliation "or the academic year 2016-2017 and this constrained the petitioner to approach this Court &y invoking its writ jurisdiction praying "or 6uashing and setting aside of the communication dated 08.06.2016 issued &y the *oa 2niversity as 4e!! as "or 6uashing of the communication dated 21.06.2013 issued &y the respondent no.2. 7 of 34 @nterim re!ie" 4as granted in "avour of the petitioner and permission 4as granted to admit the students "or the academic year 2016-2017. The proceedings culminated into a detailed 5udgment and order +assed &y the /igh Court on 04.04.2017, where the impugned communications 4ere 6uashed and set aside. Liberty was given to the respondent no.- and the 2nder Secretary B/omeC to a""ord an opportunity of hearing to the petitoner be"ore taking any decision on withdra4al of approval. 7. The grievance as raised in the petition is to the e""ect that concurrently, when the proposa! of the Petitioners 4as rejected, certain other Societies, which enjoyed the politica! +atronage 4ere permitted to start the college/curriculum, proposed &y them irrespective of the "act that another college which was running the same course 4as located at a short distance. The petitioners have placed on record the notings which are obtained under the Right )o @n"ormation Act, to assai! decision taken in the case of the Petitioner no. 1 and also in case of other institutions and the Petitioners allege nepotism and a partisan approach at the instance of the State "unctionary to negate the claim of the Petitioner no.1. 8. The petition proceeds to state that instead of abiding &y the directions issued &y this Court in the Drit Petition, being 8 of 34 a""ording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, a sho4 cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 05.07.2017 in the &ackdrop of the comments of"ered &y the ?inance 'epartment B#:+.C 'epartment on the proposa! to sanction grant to the college of petitioner no.1 and to which the petitioner responded in writing . Persona! hearing was also held &y the respondent no.- but in the ultimatum, a decision was arrived at, which 4as communicated to the petitioner no.1 on 02.07.2018 wherein the approva! to start %.Com course in the petitioner no.2-institution was maintained but the same was subject to a stipulation that petitioners wi!! run the %.Com programme/degree course on se!" "inance basis, there&y rejecting the re6uest "or grant-in-aid. @t it this communication which is assailed &y the petitioners in the present writ petition. 9. @n support of the petition 4e have heard the learned counse! Mr. Parag Rao 4ith Ms. M. (aik. Mr. Rao would lay emphasis on the notings which in detai! dea! with the re6uest of the petitioner no.1 "or grant-in-aid "or running the %.Com curriculum in the petitioner no.2-institution.