Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Gunai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Rajiv Gandhi Polytechnic, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Fees Regulating Authority, Maharashtra State, which had refused to condone the delay in filing a review application. The petitioners were dissatisfied with the fee structure fixed by the authority for the current year as compared to earlier years. The authority had rejected the review application on the ground that it had no power to condone delay under the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015. The High Court noted that the Act does not contain any provision for condonation of delay. However, considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Court condoned the delay and directed the authority to consider the review application on its merits as early as possible. The Court observed that the contents of the review application should be considered expeditiously to avoid further delay. The petition was disposed of with the direction that the authority shall decide the review application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Condonation of Delay - Inherent Power - Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015 - The Fees Regulating Authority has no express power to condone delay in filing review applications under the Act. However, in the interest of justice and to avoid further delay, the High Court condoned the delay and directed the authority to consider the review application on merits. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Fees Regulating Authority under the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015 has the power to condone delay in filing a review application when the Act does not contain any provision for condonation of delay.
Final Decision
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the review application and directed the Fees Regulating Authority to consider the review application on its merits within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Inherent power of court
- Absence of express provision
- Interest of justice
- Review application
- Fee fixation
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 74
Writ Petition No.7591 of 2017
Anoop V. Mohta, Sunil K. Kotwal
N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar for petitioners, M.A. Deshpande (AGP) for State, U.S. Malte for respondent No.2
Gunai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Rajiv Gandhi Polytechnic
State of Maharashtra, Fees Regulating Authority, Director of Technical Education
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Fees Regulating Authority refusing to condone delay in filing review application.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought condonation of delay and direction to authority to consider review application on merits.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were dissatisfied with the fee structure fixed by the authority for the current year and filed a review application which was delayed.
Previous Decisions
The Fees Regulating Authority passed an order fixing per student fee for the concerned year; the review application was rejected on ground of delay as the Act has no provision for condonation.
Issues
Whether the Fees Regulating Authority has power to condone delay in filing review application under the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the authority has no power to condone delay, hence the review application was rejected.
Respondents did not oppose the condonation of delay.
Ratio Decidendi
In the absence of an express provision for condonation of delay, the court may exercise its inherent power to condone delay in the interest of justice to avoid further delay in the matter.
Judgment Excerpts
The provisions with regard to condonation of delay is absent. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we are inclined to condone the delay, if any, in filing the review.
The regulating authority, therefore, to consider the review application on its own merits as early as possible, to avoid further delay in the matter.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a review application before the Fees Regulating Authority challenging the fee fixation order. The authority rejected the review application on the ground that it had no power to condone delay. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015:
