AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
The Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following relief’s:
(a)Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing order no. 4-31/ka/marb/2026-27-ay. dated 02.09.2026 passed by respondent no.3, imposing a monetary penalty of Rs. 1,00,000,000 on petitioner no. 2, vide, Annexure –A.
(b)Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing order no. 4-31/ka/marb/2026- 27 ay. dated 14.09.2026 passed by respondent no.3 vide, Annexure- B, insofar as it is founded on the findings in annexure-n, and direct respondent no.3 to reconsider the permission of petitioner no.2 for 2026-27 in accordance with the MESAR regulations within a time fixed by this court;
(c)Declare that the respondents cannot impose a monetary penalty under Section 28(1)(f) of the act on the basis of the SOP dated 10.02.2025, the “punitive policy for 2026 – 27” or the OM dated 11.08.2026, in the absence of regulations framed under section 55 of the act;
(d)Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps under Regulation 71(3)(b), (d), (e) or (g) of the MESAR Regulations, or otherwise, on account of non- payment of the penalty;
(e)In the alternative, remit the matter to respondent no.3 for fresh consideration after furnishing to the petitioners the visitation report, the AEBAS and CCTV analysis, the hearing committee report and the minutes of the 157th and 164th meetings, issuing a show cause notice stating the proposed action and quantum, and affording a personal hearing; or direct respondent no.2 to hear and decide the petitioners appeal dated 14.09.2026 within a time fixed by this Court;
(f)Call for the records relating to the impugned orders; and
(g)Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, including costs, in the interest of justice and equity.”
Admittedly, the petitioners have field an appeal before respondent No.2 on 16.09.2026 and the respondent No.2 has not considered the appeal. Accordingly, Sri.Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that direction be issued to respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal filed under Section 24(3) NCISM within a time bound.
As the matter pertains to the imposition of penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only), and to re-consider the permission of petitioner No.2 for academic year 2026-27 in accordance with law, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.2 on 16.09.2026, the respondent No.2 has not passed any order. In the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to issue direction to respondent No.2 to consider the appeal filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law
In view of the above discussions, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part.
The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in a ccordance with law with 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners.