1 927-wp 6132.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6132 OF 2026 ( THE DNYANWARDHINI BHAUUDDESHIYA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK SANSTHA AND ANR. VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MUMBAI AND OTHERS ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr.Sandeep Marathe, Advocate for petitioners. Ms.Kalyani Marpakwar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Vishwa Gadbaile, Advocate h/f Mr.K.S.Narwade, Advocate for respondent No.4. Ms.Kriti Satpute, Advocate h/f Mr.N.A.Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2026 1) Learned counsel for the respondents, in reply to the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, pointed out that the challenge is only to the Circular dated 31/07/2026 issued by the Bar Council of India relating to the existing Centres of Legal Education for extension of approval of affiliation for the Academic Session 2026-27. It is submitted that the petitioners’ proposal for opening a new college is still pending and, therefore, the said Circular, which applies to existing colleges, will not be applicable to the petitioners. 2) On a specific query put to learned counsel for the petitioners as to how the said Circular is applicable to the petitioners, particularly when the same has been challenged in the present petition, it is submitted that, as per the knowledge of the petitioners, the said Circular is the reason for not granting permission to petitioners to admit the students. KOLHE 2026:BHC-NAG:10731-DB 2 927-wp 6132.2026.odt 3) On a further query as to whether there is any written communication to that effect, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly states that there is no such communication. However, it is the information received by the petitioners that the said Circular is the reason for no decision being taken on their proposal. 4) We are unable to understand how the present petition can be filed challenging the Circular when the said Circular is not applicable to the case of the petitioners and, further, when, till date, no communication has been issued by the Bar Council of India or any other authority rejecting the proposal of the petitioners. In absence of any such communication, no challenge can be raised to the said Circular by the petitioners. 5) Thus, as the petitioners have failed to point out that their proposal for opening a new law college has been rejected, or that no decision has been taken on their proposal in view of the impugned Circular, we are of the opinion that the present petition is premature. 6) Furthermore, it is important to note that the Bar Council of India has informed the petitioners as regards the inspection to be carried out today. This, itself, falsifies the case of the petitioners that, because of the impugned Circular, the respondents are not processing their application. 7) In that view of the matter, for the reasons recorded herein above, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) ( ANIL S. KILOR, J. ) KOLHE Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 18/08/2026 20:08:24