AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J
Heard learned advocate Ms.Sirpukar for petitioner andlearned advocate Mr. Naik for respondent no.2 and learned advocate Mr.Gaikwad for
respondent no.1.
Respondent no.3 is formal party and hence a notice uponis waved. The matter is heard finally as the controversy appears to be concluded by
the judgment dated 12.9.2018 in Writ Petition No. 7207 of 2017 decided at Nagpur.
The petitioners have no objection if course adopted injudgment dated 12.9.2018 is restored too in the present matter.
After hearing respective counsel, we find that respondent no.l regulating authority while allowing admission of petitioners to be regularized have
made penalty payable to itself. We do not see any reason for the same. Because of further hearing in this respect, learned advocate
Mr.Gaikwad had requested for an adjournment to enable to him to obtain instructions from respondent no.1 or then to file suitable reply/affidavit.
However, we do not find the adjournment necessary.
This Court has already upheld similar order, but then divided the burden cast upon respondent no.2 equally between students and respondent
no.2.
As the petitioners have themselves given no objection for such apportionment, we are inclined to follow the same line. However, the additionalÂ
tuition fees to be paid as penalty for regularisation is made payable to Juvenile Justice fund under Child and Welfare to be maintained by
State Government in terms of Section 105 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The amount shall be so deposited in that fund within one week from today. After  amount is so deposited, the provisional approval of
admissions shall be confirmed and admission shall stand regularised.
Consequently, the result of petitioners if withheld, shall also be declared.
Rule is made absolute accordingly, no costs.