Bombay High Court
SAI SEVA SHIKSHA PRASARAK MANDALversusUNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI THR ITS REGISTRAR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The petition is dismissed as it was filed belatedly and no step‑by‑step compliance program could be arranged.
Summary
The petitioner, Sai Seva Shikshan Prasarak Mandal’s Shri Indrapal Baburao Chaughule Law College, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a University of Mumbai letter that imposed a Rs.10 lakh penalty and reduced its intake capacity by 50%, and to restore full intake for the 2026‑27 academic year. The petition was filed belatedly, after other law colleges had obtained relief and after the CAP Round I and II processes were completed, with CAP Round III merit list due on the same day. The University indicated it would not enter into a restoration agreement, while the Bar Council of India had earlier set a final deadline of 31 July 2026 for applications and noted deficiencies in the college’s compliance. The High Court, recalling its earlier indulgence to other colleges based on student interests and a step‑by‑step program, found that the petitioner’s delayed filing precluded any such arrangement and that the BCI could not grant approval. Consequently, the court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of a penalty and reduction of intake can be entertained when filed after the stipulated deadlines and after similar reliefs have been granted to other institutions.
Subjects
- affiliation
- intake capacity
- penalty
- University of Mumbai
- Bar Council of India
- CAP rounds
- procedural delay
- petition dismissal
Judgment
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.
-----------------
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
MAMTA AMAR
AMAR KALE
KALE Date:
2026.09.21
16:49:13
+0530
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 20 th 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 13 th July
Mamta Kale 1/4
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 7 th 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 13 th 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 31 st 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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.