Bombay High Court
Aryan Arvind Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 12 September, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
1076-WP-10464,10387-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1076 WRIT PETITION NO. 10464 OF 2025
ANAND SHIVDAS TEKALE
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10387 OF 2025
ARYAN ARVIND SHINDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
....
Mr. V. N. Khiste and Mr. Ashitosh Kulkarni, Advocates through VC
i/b Mr. V. B. Dhage, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/10464/2025
Ms Akshara S. Madake, Advocate for Petitioner in
WP/10387/2025
Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for the Respondents - State
Mr. M. D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in both the
Petitions
....
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 12.09.2025 PER COURT :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGP for respondent State and learned counsel for the contesting respondent i.e. Common Entrance Test (CET) Cell, State of Maharashtra.
1 of 15 (( 2 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025
2. In these petitions, notice was issued on 21.08.2025, returnable on 09.09.2025.
3. On 09.09.2025, when one of these petitions was taken up for consideration, this Court was informed that petitions raising identical issues pending before the Principal Seat, were to be listed on 12.09.2025 i.e. today. This Court was also informed that steps were being taken to club these petitions with the pending petitions at the Principal Seat, raising identical issues. Hence, we kept these Petitions for further consideration today.
4. Evidently, there is no order on the administrative side for transferring these petitions to the Principal Seat, to be taken up with the writ petitions raising identical issues. We are further informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that although the said petitions raising identical issues are listed today before the Principal Seat, they are still not called out for hearing. In that light, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they would press for ad-interim / interim relief in these and petitions and for that purpose hearing on these petitions was commenced at about 4.10 p.m.
5. We have extensively heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in
2 of 15 (( 3 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025 order to appreciate whether the documents and material on record, as well as the position of law brought to the notice of this Court, would indicate that interim relief can be granted to the petitioners. Particularly in the light of the fact that the petitioners claimed that even if the definition of "Non-Resident Indian" (NRI) in the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fees) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2015"), stands amended, since the process of admission had already commenced and the petitioners had applied for registration of their names in the NRI quota, their candidature ought to be considered on the basis of the information brochure and the requirements specified by the respondent CET Cell at the time when the forms were submitted by the petitioners.
6. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the petitioners applied for being registered under the NRI category on 21.05.2025 i.e. petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10387 of 2025 and 22.06.2025 i.e. petitioner in Writ Petition No.10464 of 2025. Their applications were under consideration when ordinance was issued on 24.06.2025 by the respondent State amending the definition of NRI under Section 2(n) of the Act of 2015. While their applications for 3 of 15 (( 4 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025 registration of NRI quota was still pending, the respondent CET Cell issued a general circular dated 01.07.2025, referring to the amended definition as per the ordinance brought into effect from 24.06.2025 and further specified the documents required to be produced by the candidates applying under the NRI category. The said circular specifically stated that the registration fee paid previously by candidates / applicants like the petitioners, would be refunded and that all such candidates claiming to be in the NRI category, were required to register afresh and apply on the new portal by paying necessary processing fee mentioned on the portal.
7. Pursuant to the said general circular dated 01.07.2025, it appears that the earlier applications for registration in NRI category submitted by the petitioners, were deleted including the documents uploaded in support of such applications and thereupon the petitioners applied afresh after 01.07.2025. These subsequent applications for registration were considered and the CET Cell responded by recording "eligibility not approved" as they were found not eligible as per the revised definition of NRI.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court in these petitions with the principal prayer that even if the 4 of 15 (( 5 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025 amended definition of NRI was to be taken into account, the said amendment ought to be brought into effect prospectively and that their original applications for registration ought to be considered on the basis of the situation which prevailed before the ordinance dated 24.06.2025 came into operation. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court to the requirement that existed in respect of the NRI category when they applied for registration in May and June 2025, in pursuance of the information brochure originally uploaded by the CET cell. It was submitted that the requirement of documents under the said information brochure, was based on the regime that was existing, which was sourced from the decision of the "Pravesh Niyantran Samiti". The relevant portion of the same reads as follows:-
"2. As per the definition passed by the "Pravesh Niyantran Samiti" in its aforesaid meeting, it is clear that the persons having first degree blood relation with the student, therefore the following relations are to be considered as sponsored of the candidate for granting admission in NRI Quota, the details of which are as under,-
i) Father/Mother, or
ii) Real Brother/Sister, or
iii) Father/Mother of father i.e. paternal grand father/grand mother, or
iv) Father/mother of mother i.e. maternal grand father/grand mother, or
v) The real brother/sister of father/mother, or 5 of 15 (( 6 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025
vi) First degree - paternal and maternal cousins i.e. children's of above clause (v) of the candidate.
3. Such person should be NRI and should ordinarily be residing abroad, with documentary evidence to that effect and also affidavit in support of the aforesaid facts.
4. To prove the NRI status of the claimant/sponsor, following documents are required to be submitted,-
i) Original Affidavit (of current Academic Year) of claimant/sponsor disclosing his full identity i.e. full name, age, residence, occupation, relationship with candidate, etc duly signed by the sponsor (Marked as Annexure - D), and
ii) Sponsors Valid Passport & VISA, and
iii) Certificate of Embassy stating NRI status of the Sponsor, or
iii) Proof of residence showing minimum continuous 182 days stay of claimant NRI in abroad for the Academic Year of admission, prior to the admission date, and/or
vii) Proof of residence i.e. Telephone bill / Electricity Bill / Water supply bill / Rent Receipt / Lease Agreement / Property Tax copy, etc from last six months (with full name and address of the sponsor)."
9. It is submitted that the said regime contemplated sponsorship under the NRI category, and if an NRI satisfied the requirements of documents as per Clause 4 quoted herein above, he or she could sponsor a first-degree blood relative as specified in Clause 2.
6 of 15 (( 7 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025
10. It is the case of the petitioners that they satisfied the said requirement and hence, they applied under the NRI category. It is submitted that their candidature ought to be considered applying only the above quoted clauses of the requirement specified by the " Pravesh Niyantran Samiti" and they ought to be held eligible in the NRI category.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the relevant portion of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of "P. A. Inamdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 6 SCC 537 and Anushka Rengunthwar and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2023) 11 SCC 209. The second judgment has been relied upon, specifically, to contend that the ordinance which has now become an Act, cannot have retroactive operation and that therefore, the petitioners ought to be granted urgent interim relief, particularly because, the time period for completing admissions under the NRI category is only till tomorrow i.e. 13.09.2025.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent i.e. CET Cell, submitted that the whole purpose of the aforesaid ordinance and the Act amending the definition of NRI 7 of 15 (( 8 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025 under Section 2(n) of the Act of 2015, is to ensure that genuine NRIs and their children and wards, are able to take benefit of the NRI category. The purpose is to identify the genuine claimants under the NRI category, as is evident from the relevant observations made in the case of P.A. Inamdar and Anushka Rengunthwar (supra), as well as from the statement of objects and reasons of the ordinance and the Act, wherein the relevant portion of P.A. Inamdar (supra) has been quoted. Considering the fact that by enacting legislation and amending the definition of NRI under the Act of 2015, the State legislatively laid down the policy, the CET Cell issued general circular dated 01.07.2025, in line with the said amendment and thereupon specified documents which effectively took forward the very reason why the amended definition was introduced. It was submitted that after the introduction of the general circular dated 01.07.2025, genuine NRI candidates have been applying and they have been granted registration. Last date for registration was 25.08.2025 and the time period for completing admissions in the NRI category is virtually over, as the last date is tomorrow and in such circumstances it would not be in the interest of justice to consider the prayer for ad- interim / interim relief being pressed by the petitioners. It was 8 of 15 (( 9 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025 submitted that this Court may not grant any such interim relief as it would disturb the whole process of admissions in the NRI category.
13. We have given anxious consideration to the contentions raised on behalf of the rival parties and particularly the vehement submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, pressing for urgent ad- interim / interim relief. Before considering the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations made by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (7 Hon'ble Judges) in the case of P. A. Inamdar (supra). The relevant observations read as follows:
"131. Here itself we are inclined to deal with the question as to seats allocated for Non-Resident Indians ("NRI" for short) or NRI seats. It is common knowledge that some of the institutions grant admissions to a certain number of students under such quota by charging a higher amount of fee. In fact, the term "NRI" in relation to admissions is a misnomer. By and large, we have noticed in cases after cases coming to this Court, neither the students who get admissions under this category nor their parents are NRIs. In effect and reality, under this category, less meritorious students, but who can afford to bring more money, get admission. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that a limited number of such seats should be made available as the money brought by such students admitted against NRI quota enables the educational institutions to strengthen their level of education and also to enlarge their educational activities. It was also pointed out that people of Indian origin, who have migrated to other countries, have a desire to bring back of their children to their own country as they not only get education but also get reunited with the 9 of 15 (( 10 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025 Indian cultural ethos by virtue of being here. They also wish the money which they would be spending elsewhere on education of their children should rather reach their own motherland. A limited reservation of such seats, not exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made available to NRIs depending on the discretion of the management subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilised bona fide by NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, merit should not be given a complete go-by. The amount or money, in whatever form collected from such NRIs, should be utilised for benefiting students such as from economically weaker sections of the society, whom, on well-defined criteria, the educational institution may admit on subsidised payment of their fee. To prevent misutilisation of such quota or any malpractice referable to NRI quota seats, suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed. So long as the State does not do it, it will be for the Committees constituted pursuant to the direction in Islamic Academy to regulate."
14. The thrust of the aforesaid observations made by the Supreme Court is that the procedure for identifying NRI category and granting admissions to the professional courses, has to ensure that such NRI category / quota, is utilised only by bona-fide NRIs and their children or wards. The above quoted observations show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court expected appropriate legislation or regulations to be framed to prevent misutilisation of such quota or any malpractice. It was also specified that so long as the State does not legislate or bring in a regulation, the fee regulation committee could regulate the procedure for identifying such category / quota.
10 of 15
(( 11 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025
15. It is also relevant to note that the statement concerning the aforesaid ordinance, brought into force on 24.06.2025 and eventually made into an Act by the legislature, specifically referred to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. A. Inamdar (supra). The ordinance amended the definition of NRIs in Section 2(n) of the Act of 2015. It must be kept in mind that the purpose of the amendment was to ensure that non-genuine NRIs do not secure admissions under the NRI category/quota.
16. The said ordinance came into force on 24.06.2025. At that stage, the petitioners had undoubtedly applied for registration in the NRI category, as per the rules then in force, in accordance with Clauses 2 to 4 quoted above, and in terms of the categorization procedure specified by the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti. The above quoted Clauses 2 to 4 contemplated sponsorship of students by NRIs, such students being first-degree blood relatives of the sponsoring NRIs.
17. It is to be noted that such a regime, which allowed persons who are first-degree blood relations of NRIs to utilise the NRI category/quota, could be said to be in direct conflict with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. A. 11 of 15 (( 12 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025 Inamdar (supra), as quoted above. The State legislated and brought about an amendment to the definition of 'NRI' with effect from 24.06.2025, at a time when the registration process was still underway. There can be no doubt that the said law was brought into force with the intention of ensuring that only bona fide NRIs and their children or wards are categorised as NRIs eligible to take advantage of the NRI quota. While this may have had an adverse effect on the petitioners, we are of the opinion that the CET Cell had no option but to ensure that the procedure being followed was in tune with the amended law brought into force on 24.06.2025. It was with this purpose that the general circular dated 01.07.2025 was issued. Although the said circular does not expressly state that the practice of sponsorships under the earlier regime pursuant to the requirements specified by the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti was discontinued, the effect of the revised documentation requirements specified in the circular, by implication, did away with such sponsorships and restricted the NRI category to only those NRIs who satisfied the amended definition, along with their children or wards.
18. We are of the opinion that, since the said general circular was issued pursuant to the law enacted with effect from 24.06.2025 12 of 15 (( 13 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025 which, in turn, was enacted to further the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar (supra), this Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, ought not to issue any interim order that would effectively operate against the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
19. This is not a case where the CET Cell, on its own, has issued a circular changing the rules of the game after the game has begun. Instead, this is a case where a law has been enacted, which now governs the field, with the intention of identifying genuine and bona fide NRIs, as well as their children and wards, for the purpose of availing the benefit of the NRI quota. Considering the said intention of the law, we are not inclined to grant ad-interim/interim relief in favour of the petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
20. It is not as if the NRI quota has been completely abrogated, instead, an effort has been made to restrict it to genuine NRIs, their children and wards. It is relevant to note here that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.10464 of 2025 is claiming relief on the basis that his sister is an NRI and she is ready to sponsor his 13 of 15 (( 14 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025 admission. Similarly, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.10387 of 2025 is claiming relief on the basis that his maternal aunt is an NRI and she is ready to sponsor his admission. Thus, both the petitioners are neither NRIs, nor are they children of wards of NRIs.
21. The judgment in the case of Anushka Rengunthwar (supra) can be distinguished on the ground that, in the said case, a notification superseded an earlier one, effectively shutting out an entire category of candidates from access to admission to professional courses. Such are not the facts in the present case. It is also brought to our notice that candidates genuinely by falling within the amended definition of NRI and satisfying the requirements of documents as per general circular dated 01.07.2025, are being considered for admission in the NRI category.
22. There is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent CET Cell, by placing reliance on an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Prithvansh Malhotra vs. State of Punjab and Others (Order dated 18.10.2024 passed in CWP No. 25047 of 2024 (O&M)). In the said case, the Division Bench of the High Court also considered a change in the definition of NRIs after the last date for submission of 14 of 15 (( 15 )) 1076-WP-10464,10387-2025 applications for professional courses. It was held in the said judgment that the effort of the State to ensure that the NRI quota is utilised only by genuine NRIs and their children or wards must be encouraged and upheld, rather than favouring candidates who do not satisfy the criteria of genuineness and bona fides.
23. Even otherwise, it is undisputed that the petitioners have obtained admissions to professional courses and colleges under the open category, and their insistence on ad-interim/interim relief appears to be solely for the purpose of improving their positions in professional courses or colleges. We are of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be said to be left high and dry in the absence of an ad-interim/interim order, and this is another reason why we are not inclined to grant any such relief to the petitioners.
24. In view of the above, the prayer for grant of ad-interim / interim relief, is rejected.
25. The petitions shall now be placed for further consideration on 10.10.2025.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANISH PITALE, J. ]
SMS
15 of 15