ASSOCIATION OF THE MANAGEMENTS OF AGRICULTURE AND ORS vs HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDU. DEP. THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS — WP/9103/2025

Case under Bombay University Act Section NA. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 23rd April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010278352025

Filing Number

WP/17770/2025

Filing Date

09-May-2025

Registration No

WP/9103/2025

Registration Date

04-Jul-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

Bench Type

Division

Category

EDUCATION ( 11 )

Sub-Category

TUITION FEE ( 21 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

23-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--Disposed Off

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bombay University Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASSOCIATION OF THE MANAGEMENTS OF AGRICULTURE AND ORS

    Adv. Sandeep Ramesh Waghmare

  2. 2.PROF KALLAPA SHANKAR BANDI, SECRETARY K. K. WAGH EDUCATION SOC., NASHIK

  3. 3.K. K. WAGH COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

  4. 4.K. K. WAGH CLG. OF AGRICULTURE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, NASHIK

  5. 5.K. K. WAGH CLG. OF FOOD TECHNOLOGY, NASHIK

  6. 6.K. K. WAGH CLG. OF HORTICULTURE, NASHIK

  7. 7.K. K. WAGH CLG. OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY, NASHIK

  8. 8.K. K. WAGH CLG. OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, NASHIK

  9. 9.GRAMONNATI MANDALS CLG OF AGRICULTURE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, NARAYANGAON

  10. 10.SHRI SHIVAJI CLG OF HORTICULTURE, AMRAVATI

  11. 11.CSMSS CLG OF AGRICULTURE

  12. 12.SMT. SUMITRABAI ANDHARE CLG OF AGRICULTURE

  13. 13.MAROTRAO WADAFALE CLG OF AGRICULTURE, YAVATMAL

  14. 14.SHRI SANT SHANKAR MAHARAJ CLG OF AGRICULTURE, PIMPALKHUTA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDU. DEP. THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS

  2. 2.SOCIAL JUSTICE AND SPECIAL ASSISTANCE DEPARTMENT

  3. 3.UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT

  4. 4.TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

  5. 5.OTHER BACKWARD BAHUJAN WELFARE DEPARTMENT

  6. 6.FINANCE DEPARTMENT

  7. 7.INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

  8. 8.THE STATE COMMON ENTRANCE TEST CELL

  9. 9.AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FIDHERIES DEPARTMENT

  10. 10.MAHARASHTRA COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH (MCAER)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

    SUMMARY OF WP/9103/2025 The Bombay High Court disposed of consolidated writ petitions from educational institutions (diploma, professional, and agriculture colleges) seeking pending payments for scholarships, freeship, and reimbursements from the state. The court converted the petitions into representations and directed authorities to scrutinize claims within five months, holding hearings with petitioners. If amounts are admissible, payment must follow within four weeks of determination; if not, reasoned orders denying entitlement must be issued. The court expressly avoided deciding merits, keeping all parties' rights open for future adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Aug-2025

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice N. R. Borkar

  4. 11-Jul-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Shri Justice N. R. BorkarView PDF

  5. 11-Jul-2025

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice N. R. Borkar

  6. 30-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 09-May-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/9103/2025

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY OF WP/9103/2025 The Bombay High Court disposed of consolidated writ petitions from educational institutions (diploma, professional, and agriculture colleges) seeking pending payments for scholarships, freeship, and reimbursements from the state. The court converted the petitions into representations and directed authorities to scrutinize claims within five months, holding hearings with petitioners. If amounts are admissible, payment must follow within four weeks of determination; if not, reasoned orders denying entitlement must be issued. The court expressly avoided deciding merits, keeping all parties' rights open for future adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case