1 PB-901.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 901 WRIT PETITION NO. 545 OF 2026 AMRAPALI DOULAT AMRAO VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Kamble Shirish M. AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. V.M. Kagne Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. S.S. Tope … CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 24.08.2026 PER COURT : . By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put-forth the following prayers : “ B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondents to accept the Petitioner's Ph.D. thesis in the subject of Pali and Buddhism under the supervision of Dr. Ashok Namdeo Tayade, and process it further for evaluation as per University rules. C. Direct the Respondents to condone the delay in submission of the thesis and accept the same upon payment of prescribed late fees..” 2. Since there is no dispute about the factual matrix of this matter by both the sides, we do not propose to deal with the same elaborately. Suffice it to state that the petitioner, who is desirous of acquiring a Ph.D. degree has submitted her application for grant of registration on 2026:BHC-AUG:38519-DB 2 PB-901.doc the respective dates. Respondent/University had extended the period for submission of the thesis from time to time and eventually, the last extension was granted up to 31.03.2025. Thereafter, since the respondent/University has refused to grant further extension as well as accept the thesis of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since previously the respondent/ University had granted extension for submission of thesis to the petitioner, therefore, as a last chance the University be directed to grant further extension of one (01) month to submit her thesis. If this Court directs, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a fine/penalty with the respondent/University. He placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court at Nagpur in the case of Roshan Mahadeorao Moon vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University in Writ Petition No.1077 of 2023 dated 10.11.2023 to contend that, in the case of similarly circumstanced students, this Court has directed the University to extend the time. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/University would submit that, as per Ordinance No.193 of Respondent/University, the 3 PB-901.doc petitioner was expected to complete the research work and produce her draft thesis within eight (08) years as stipulated by the University. Considering the dates of her registration, it could be seen that, even after almost 12 years the petitioner failed to submit her thesis, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for respondent/State, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/University and perused the record. No doubt, as per the Ordinance No.193, after completion of statutory period, the petitioner was expected to complete the research work and submit her thesis within a reasonable period, however, fact remains that the respondent/University had extended the period for submission of thesis from time to time. This shows that the University itself did not adhere to the time frame prescribed as per the Ordinance therefore, the question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of granting extension of time to submit her thesis. 6. We find that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Roshan Mahadeorao Moon (supra) 4 PB-901.doc the relevant observations of which reads thus : “5. The petitioner in his application dated 16.06.2022 sought to bring to the notice of the Vice Chancellor the aforesaid public notice dated 17.05.2022 and seek benefit thereof. The same has however not been taken into consideration in the communication dated 01.07.2022 on the premise that the application for extension of the period of registration ought to have been made by 09.12.2019 but the petitioner had made the same subsequently. The issue that requires consideration is if the University itself did not abide by the time frame prescribed by Clause 9 of Direction No.29 of 2012 whether benefit in the facts of the present case of public notice dated 17.05.2022 issued by the University Grants Commission could be extended to the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the date of submission of the application form is to be considered as date of registration of its approval by the Research and Recognition Committee. However, as indicated above when the time frame prescribed therein was not be adhered to by the University, whether it was justified in insisting for such compliance from the petitioner. We find that in the facts of the present case, it would be necessary for the University to consider whether the benefit of the public notice dated 17.05.2022 issued by the University Grants Commission can be extended to the petitioner. This public notice was brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor but the same has not been taken into consideration while refusing to extend the time to submit the thesis. 6. In aforesaid facts, we find that the petitioner's request for extension of time to submit the Ph. D. thesis requires re-consideration at the hands of the University in the light of the observations made hereinabove and after taking into consideration the public notice dated 17.05.2022 issued by the University Grants Commission. The said public notice itself rec examination on case-to-case basis and we are of the view that the petitioner’s case also deserves examination in this context.” 7. In view of the fact that the petitioner has dedicated almost 12 years of her life in undertaking the work of research and is desirous of submitting her thesis so as to obtain Ph.D. degree within one (01) month, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, by way of indulgence, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit her thesis. It is made clear that this decision shall 5 PB-901.doc not be treated as a precedent. We, therefore, pass the following order : ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) Subject to petitioner’s depositing Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with the respondent/University within one week, we direct respondent/University to grant extension of one (01) month to the petitioner for submission of her thesis. iii) Needless to state that if the petitioner fails to submit the thesis within stipulated time, this order shall stand revoked without further reference to this Court. ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. ) vsj..