1 906-wp-12287- 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12287 OF 2026 Sai Seva Shikshan Prasarak Mandal’s Shri Indrapal Baburao Chaughule Law College ...Petitioner Vs. University of Mumbai, through its Registrar and Others ...Respondents ----------------- Mr. Adi Rusi Jijina and Mr. Akshay Raju Shinde, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rui Rodrigues, for the University/ Respondent No.1. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl.G.P. a/w. Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP, for the Respondent / State. Mr. Prasad L. Gajbhiye a/w. Mr. Jayvrat Sakhare, for Respondent No.2 BCI. ----------------- CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATED : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.:- 1. By this Petition, the Petitioner Law College is seeking quashing and setting aside of impugned letter / communication dated 20th July 2026 issued by Respondent No.1 University of Mumbai and consequential actions in so far as imposing penalty to the tune of Rs.10 Lakhs along with reduction in intake capacity to the extent of 50%. Further, the Petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned letter dated 13th July Mamta Kale 1/4 MAMTA AMAR KALE Digitally signed by MAMTA AMAR KALE Date: 2026.09.21 16:49:13 +0530 2 906-wp-12287- 2026.doc 2026 issued by Respondent No.2 Bar Council of India (BCI). The Petitioner is also seeking a direction to Respondent No.1 University of Mumbai for granting Continuation of Affiliation Letter with 100% intake capacity for the Academic Year 2026-27. 2. This Petition has been filed belatedly. The Petitions by other Law Colleges were filed over a one and half months back and which had sought similar prayers. It was in view of CAP Rounds having commenced at that time that this Court had passed an Order dated 7th August 2026 in respect of other Law Colleges. Today, the CAP Rounds are near completion with CAP Round III Merit List scheduled to be released today. The Petitioner has taken no steps to move this Court prior to today. 3. Respondent No.1 University, for whom Mr. Rodrigues is appearing, has made a statement that they are not inclined to enter into an agreement with the Petitioner Law College for restoration of the intake capacity as they had done with other Law Colleges. Mr. Rodrigues also submitted that the intake capacity which was reduced to 50% by the impugned communication dated 20th July 2026 has been sought to be challenged on 11th September 2026 by filing of this Petition. He further submitted that, in the event Petitioner Law College wishes to proceed with reduced intake capacity, they may do so as per the impugned communication. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Mamta Kale 2/4 3 906-wp-12287- 2026.doc penalty of Rs.10 Lakhs has been paid for granting Continuation of Affiliation. 5. Mr. Gajbhiye, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 Bar Council of India (BCI), also states that the letter issued by Respondent No.2 BCI was also way back on 13th July 2026 and it was made clear that a final opportunity was given to all Law Colleges to submit and complete applications on or before 31st July 2026. A subsequent communication dated 3rd August 2026 issued by Respondent No.2 BCI has also stated that there are deficiencies in the Petitioner College which are required to be addressed. This is with regard to the request made by the Petitioner Law College to regularize the 3-Year LL.B. Course with intake of two sections of 60 students in each section and 5-Year B.A. LL.B. integrated course with intake of one section of 60 students for the academic session/s 2019-20 and to regularize the 3-Year LL.B. degree course with intake of two sections of 60 students in each section and for imparting 5-Year B.A. LL.B. integrated degree course with intake of one section of 60 students from the Academic Session/s 2020-21 to 2025-26. 6. We have considered the submissions. This Court while considering the Petitions filed by the Law Colleges seeking similar reliefs had considered the interest of the students. In view of commencement of the CAP Rounds and the approach taken by Respondent No.1 University, which was agreeable to sit with the Law Colleges in order to arrive at a step Mamta Kale 3/4 4 906-wp-12287- 2026.doc by step program with revised guidelines, we had shown indulgence in restoring the intake capacity upon submission of written undertakings to comply with the step by step program and guidelines by Law Colleges. In the present case, the Petitioner Law College has filed the present Petition belatedly when CAP Rounds I and II are already over and CAP Round III Merit List is scheduled to be released today. There is no opportunity given to Respondent No.1 University to even sit with the Petitioner Law College in order to arrive at a step by step program and revised timelines as had been arrived at by other Law Colleges. Further, Respondent No.2 BCI has also to grant approval, which approval cannot be granted in view of belated filing of the Application by the Petitioner Law College. 7. In view thereof, we find no substance in the present Petition. 8. The Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.] Mamta Kale 4/4