1. Heard Mr. Oza, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Jasani, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Thakkar, learned Advocate for respondent No.3.
2. It emerges from the record that against the order dated 3rd October 2011 passed by respondent No.1 the petitioner had preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has, vide order dated 15th February 2012, accepted the appeal and remanded the case to respondent No.1 with certain directions.
3. The directions passed by respondent No.2 is to the effect that respondent No.1 must carry out fresh inspection to verify the availability of staff and adequate facilities in the college of the petitioner. Almost two and half months have passed, however, it is not clear as to whether respondent No.1 has carried out fresh inspection or not. If it is not carried out, the reason for not complying the order passed by respondent No.2 is also not available on record.
4. In present case the Court directed the office to issue notice to all respondents under order dated 30.04.2012. However, from the cause list it is not possible to ascertain as to whether direct service is effected or not. The fact remains that reply affidavit by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are not filed.
5. In view of the fact that respondent No.3 University has already declared the list of affiliated and recognized colleges, wherein name of the petitioner institute does not appear, and in view of the fact that the process of admission and allotment of students is to commence shortly, the petitioner has requested for appropriate order by way of interim relief.
6. Respondent No.3 University has very vehemently opposed such request relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale And Others [(2012)2 SCC 425].
7. However, considering the fact that if the process of admission and allotment is over then the petition would be rendered infructuous and/or the petitioner may not be able to secure sufficient number of admissions for the forthcoming academic year, it may be necessary to pass appropriate interim order. However, before making any order Court would prefer to be satisfied as to whether the respondent No.1 has complied with the order dated 15.02.2012 or, despite passage of almost two and half months, no actions have been taken. In the event it comes out that any actions have not been taken by respondent No.1 during past two and half months period, the Court may have to rely on the observations made by respondent No.2 in order dated 15.02.2012 and pass appropriate order. So as to enable the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to place relevant factual aspects on record, time until 10th May 2012 is granted. S.O. to 10.05.2012.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top