E-Paper
Bombay HC directs state to decide ILS student’s complaint by Aug 11
ILS Law college student Mayur Suhas Garud had filed the petition, contending that an earlier high court order dated February 12, 2026, had not been complied with
The Bombay High Court directed the state to decide a complaint filed by an ILS Law College student against the institution by August 11, while disposing of a writ petition, noting the matter is already under the state’s consideration.
A division bench of Justices R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash, in an order passed on July 14, directed the Higher and Technical Education Department to complete the hearing process and pass a fresh reasoned order within two weeks of the scheduled hearing on July 28.
ILS Law college student Mayur Suhas Garud had filed the petition, contending that an earlier high court order dated February 12, 2026, had not been complied with. His counsel informed the court that despite directions issued in a connected matter on May 7, the state had not yet decided his complaint.
During the hearing, the state government, through Assistant Government Pleader V.S. Nimbalkar, informed the court that the petitioner’s hearing was scheduled for July 28 and notices had already been issued to all concerned parties.
Recording the statement, the bench directed the state to hear the petitioner, the Indian Law Society (ILS) and other parties connected with the dispute before passing a decision on the complaint by August 11.
The court also noted developments in a related matter concerning fee fixation proposals submitted by the Indian Law Society for the academic years 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25.
Referring to its earlier order of June 29, the bench observed that it had directed the Savitribai Phule Pune University to decide the pending fee fixation proposal within two weeks. During the hearing, the university informed the court that its Fee Fixation Committee had passed an order on July 10 determining the fee structure for the concerned academic years. The order was placed on record, while counsel for ILS Law College sought time to obtain instructions from the institution regarding the decision.
Observing that the state had now been directed to decide Garud’s complaint within a fixed timeline and that the university had already decided the fee fixation issue, the high court held that nothing further remained to be heard and disposed of the petition.
