1. Heard Mr. Jasani, learned Advocate for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner's grievance is about the insistence for submission of essentility certificate.
3. Mr.
Yajnik, learned counsel has appeared for respondent No.3 and submitted that so far as respondent No.3 is concerned, it does not require any essentiality certificate once the essentiality certificate is granted to the petitioner for its parent/first institute. He has clarified that if the essentiality certificate is granted in favour of the existing institute then, for starting another institute or for starting additional division, respondent No.3 does not insist for essentiality certificate. He also clarified that the said requirement is conveyed by the respondent No.1 State and the said requirement is introduced and imposed by the respondent No.1 State.
4. Learned A.G.P. has relied on resolution dated 21.04.2011 (page 34) and submitted that it is in view of the said resolution that the respondent No.1 is insisting for essentiality certificate.
5. Having regard to the above mentioned submissions by learned Advocate for respondent No.3, Notice be issued to the respondents making it returnable on 14th June 2012. Mr. Yajnik, learned Advocate has waived service of notice for respondent No.3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall file reply affidavit before the returnable date. Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top