AMRAPALI DOULAT AMRAOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38519-DB
                                                      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
                                   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..