931-WP-9734-2011.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9734 OF 2011 Patil Ramchandra Sukdev Lecturer in Geography at B. Nene College Pen, District Raigad 402 107 … Petitioner Versus 1. Pen Education Society C/o. B. Nene College Pen, District Raigad 402 107. (through its President) 2. The Principal B. Nene College Pen, District Raigad 402 107 3. The University of Mumbai University Building, Fort Mumbai 400 032 (through Registrar) 4. The State of Maharashtra (Through Department of Higher Education), Mantralaya 400 032 … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1491 OF 2012 Pen Education Society Pen, District : Raigad, through its President … Petitioner Versus Gayatri Shimpi 1 GAYATRI RAJENDRA SHIMPI Digitally signed by GAYATRI RAJENDRA SHIMPI Date: 2025.12.03 12:11:58 +0530 931-WP-9734-2011.odt 1. Ramchandra Sukdev Patil Lecturer in Geography at B. Nene College Pen, District Raigad 402 107. 2. The University of Mumbai University Building, Fort Mumbai 400 032 3. Government of Maharashtra Through Department of Higher Education, To be served an office of the Government Pleader, High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai … Respondents **** None for the Petitioner in WP No. 9734 of 2011. Mr. Kanaiha Yadav i/b Mr. Neel Helekar, Advocates for the Petitioner in WP No. 1491 of 2012. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for Respondent – State in WP No. 9734 of 2011. Mr. M. M. Pable, AGP for Respondent - State in WP No. 1491 of 2012. Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Mr. Jainendra Sheth, Advocates for Respondent No.3 in WP No. 9734 of 2011 and Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 1491 of 2012. **** CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 28th NOVEMBER, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) 1. The First Petition is filed by the beneficiary. Both these Petitions are in the Prioritised Category of Cases. Gayatri Shimpi 2 931-WP-9734-2011.odt 2. None appears for the Petitioner in WP No. 9734 of 2011, either in the Court Hall or through the VC mode. 3. The First Petition is filed by the beneficiary of the order passed by the Grievances Committee of the University of Mumbai under Section 57 of the 1994 Act. He prays for execution of the said order. 4. The Second Petition is filed by the Education Society challenging the order of the Grievances Committee which has been ratified by the Management Council of the University. The order, therefore, became executable. 5. By the First Petition, the Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus from this Court to direct the Education Society to execute the said order. On 6th February, 2012, this Court passed an order in the First Petition which records that the learned Advocate for the Management had sought time to consider whether the Management has challenged the said decision of the Grievances Committee. Hence, the matter was adjourned. Gayatri Shimpi 3 931-WP-9734-2011.odt 6. By the First Petition, the Petitioner seeks implementation of the decision and in the Second Petition, the Management challenges the very same decision. Under Chapter XVII, Rule 18, Entry No.41 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 the Second Petition challenging the decision of the Grievances Committee, which has exercised quasi-Judicial functions, would be maintainable before the learned Single Judge. Once the said order is challenged by the Management, pending decision on the challenge, this Court cannot direct that the impugned order be executed. Per contra, if the learned Single Judge dismisses the Petition, the beneficiary of the order passed by the Grievances Committee can pray for implementation of the said decision. If the Petition filed by the management is allowed and the order of the Grievances Committee is set aside, the beneficiary would have remedies available thereafter. 7. In such a peculiar circumstance, there is no purpose in keeping the First Petition filed by the beneficiary Shri Patil Ramchandra Sukdev, pending. The said Writ Petition no. 9734 of 2011 is, therefore, disposed off. Rule is discharged. Gayatri Shimpi 4 931-WP-9734-2011.odt 8. The Second Petition filed by the Education Society bearing Writ Petition No. 1491 of 2012, be placed before the learned Single Judge for adjudication. The parties are at liberty to circulate the said Petition and request for a final hearing. 9. Needless to state, if Patil Ramchandra Sukdev succeeds before the learned Single Judge, he would naturally request the Court for a direction to seek the implementation of the decision of the Grievances Redressal Committee. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Gayatri Shimpi 5