Bombay High Court
Digitek Krida Vikas Sanshodhan Va vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 November, 2010
Bench: V.C. Daga, A. B. Chaudhari
wp3631.10.odt 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3631/2010
PETITIONER :- Digitek Krida Vikas Sanshodhan Va
Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Sindi (Railway),
Tq. Seloo, Distt. Wardha - through its Secretary
Shri Amol s/o Sureshrao Sontakke, r/o Sindi (Railway),
Tq. Seloo, Dist. Wardha.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary Higher and
Technical Education Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai : 32.
2. Rashtrasanta Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur
University, Nagpur, Through its Registrar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Shri A.I. Sheikh, Adv. for petitioner]
[Smt. B.H. Dangre, Addl. G.P. for respdt. No.1.]
[Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Adv. for respdt. No.2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND
A. B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
DATED : 18.11.2010
ORAL J U D G M E N T (PER : V.C. DAGA, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.
2. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner is a Trust and
Society registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and under the
Societies Registration Act. Respondent No.1 has prepared perspective
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:23 :::
wp3631.10.odt 2/10
plan as required by Section 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act,
1994, wherein it was shown that there was a need to establish two
graduate Arts-Social Science, Commerce, Science College with one
Home Science College.
3. The petitioner finding it possible to run Arts College, Home
Science and Commerce College offering degrees of Bachelor in Arts
(B.A.), Bachelor in Fashion Designing (BDF) and Post Graduate Diploma
in Commercial Computer Applications (PGDCCA) respectively at Alipur
Tahasil : Hinganghat, District Wardha applied to respondent No.2 in the
requisite format for permission to start college for the above courses
for the Academic Session 2008-09.
4. Respondent No.2 after completing all the formalities vide
its covering letter dated 27.1.2008 forwarded application of the
petitioner with positive recommendation to respondent No.1. The
application of the petitioner was not considered. Consequently, the
petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India by way of Writ Petition No.4215/2008. Since
the petitioner was not communicated any reason for rejection of its
application, the learned A.G.P. appearing in that petition made a
statement that the petitioner shall be communicated with the reasons
recorded by the State Government. With the result, on the statement
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:23 :::
wp3631.10.odt 3/10
made by the learned A.G.P., Writ Petition No.4215/2008 was disposed
of vide order dated 24.09.2008, permitting the State Government to
communicate the reasoned order to the petitioner.
5. Despite the aforesaid order and positive direction issued by
this Court, the respondent No.1 - State Government failed to comply
with the said order. Consequently, the petitioner again approached this
Court by way of another writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.
5157/2008, which was disposed of by an order dated 8.4.2009 with the
following observations.
"In the instant case, the casual attitude
shown by the State Government is a matter of concern.
Because of the inaction on the part of the State
Government to communicate its decision to the
petitioner, the petitioner has to approach this Court by
filing two petitions and had to incur lot of expenditure,
apart from inconvenience suffered by the petitioner.
We deprecate the attitude of the State Government and
direct the State Government to communicate its
decision taken in respect of the proposal of the
petitioner as well as reasons given for rejecting the
same within fifteen days from the date of
communication of this order. The petitioner, in our
view, has made a case for imposing exemplary costs on
the State Government. Hence, we direct the State
Government (Respondent No.1) to deposit the costs of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:23 :::
wp3631.10.odt 4/10
Rs.7,000/- (rupees seven thousand) in this Court within
a period of four weeks from the date of communication
of this order. On such deposit, it will be open for the
petitioner to withdraw the same."
(Emphasis supplied)
6. Needless to mention that considering the attitude of
defiance adopted by the State Government and casual approach in
dealing with the applications of the citizens or the institutions in a
casual manner, this Court was pleased to impose costs of Rs.7,000/-
while disposing of the petition with further liberty to the State
Government to communicate the reasoned order on the application
made by the petitioner.
7. In spite of the above order, the State Government did not
take any positive step. With the result, the petitioner was again
required to knock the doors of this Court by filing third writ petition
bearing Writ Petition No.2472/2009, which again was decided by an
order dated 8.3.2010 with the following observations.
"Hence, the petitions are allowed. The
respondent is directed to pass a reasoned order in
regard to the proposals of the petitioners and
communicate the same to the petitioners within a
period of one month from the date of this judgment.
The respondent - State should also deposit costs of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:23 :::
wp3631.10.odt 5/10
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) in case of
the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2909/2009,
2892/2009 and 2472/2009 and Rs.7,000/- (Rupees
Seven Thousand Only) in case of the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.2911/2009 within a period of one month."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Reading of the aforesaid para would show that second time
the cost was imposed on the State Government in the sum of Rs.
15,000/-, almost double than the earlier one for non-compliance of the
order of this Court.
9. In spite of the aforesaid orders the application made by the
petitioner was rejected in a most casual manner without even
communicating a single ground of rejection. No reasons are to be
found in the order dated 29.3.2010, communicated to the petitioner.
Again there is a serious lapse and default on the part of the State
Government to comply with the orders of this Court The translated
copy of the said order reads thus :
ORDER
"In view of the Order passed by the Hon'ble
High Court, dt. 3.3.2010, it is informed as under :-
Provision has been made in Section 82 of
Maharashtra University Act 1994 for granting approval
wp3631.10.odt 6/10
to new colleges. As per this provision, every year an
advertisement is being published in news paper for new
Colleges on overall consideration of the need of the
areas within the jurisdiction of the University and by
preparing unified scheme for fair distribution of
educational facilities and accordingly applications are
being received by the University upto 31st October. The
applications so received are being scrutinized through
the Colleges and University Development Board and
proposals are being forwarded to the Government by
the University
ig till 31 December
recommendations of Management Council. Task Force
alongwith
Committee is being constituted on Government level for
scrutiny of those proposals. The scrutiny of proposals is
being done by the Task Force Committee and later on
the Government grant permission to new college by
utilizing the discretionary powers u/s 82 (5) of the
Maharashtra University Act, 1994. As defined u/s 2 (31)
(c) of said Act, the State Government means the
Government of Maharashtra and Government's decision
means the Government's decision in accordance with
the regulations framed under Article 166 (3) of the
Constitution of India. The Department accordingly
issues orders as per decision of the Government.
While granting permission to new college as
provided under the Act, the following general norms are
being considered.
wp3631.10.odt 7/10
1) The proposals from district having less GER
shall be considered for granting permission to new
college.
2) Generally societies from remote areas shall
be given priority.
3) Although norm of population of backward &
Minority class has not been set up yet, the aspect of
population of Backward Class & Minority shall be
considered.
4) Since the Central Government has directed
to increase GER upto 15%, the permission shall be
granted to those colleges proving to be helpful in
increasing GER to 15% from existing 11% in
Maharashtra i.e. increasing GER by average 4%.
5) Recently the State Government has
determined to give admission to D. ED. Diploma after
degree and thus in view of that the increasing need
shall also be considered.
6) Though colleges are not proposed in some
areas in master plan of the University, the abovesaid
aspects/need shall be taken into consideration while
granting permission to new college.
7) The Women's Educational Societies, good
management & availability of teacher, these aspects
shall be considered while granting permission to college.
8) It shall also be seen that it will be
convenient geographically to the boys & girls from Rural
areas to take college education.
wp3631.10.odt 8/10
For the abovestated reasons proposal of
your society for new college was rejected on the
Government level."
10. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the State was asked to put her finger on any of the lines of the order,
which according to her, could be said to be a reason for rejection of
application. She found it difficult, though she tried her best to locate.
Without reasons, it is not possible to read the mind of the State
Government, as to why the application of the petitioner in this case
was rejected. In the absence of any reason, any order can be said to
be an order in breach of principles of natural justice. Needless to
mention on that any order of the judicial, quasi judicial or
administrative authority has to be a reasoned order. It should be self
explanatory order and should not keep the Court guessing for reasons.
Reasons provide link between conclusion and evidence. The vital link
is safeguard against arbitrariness, passion, prejudice and humour. The
reason is a manifestation of mind of the adjudicator. It gives an
opportunity to the Court to see whether or not the order is based on
relevant consideration to the material on record. [See State of West
Bengal...Versus...Atul Krishna Shaw and another, reported in AIR
1990 Supreme Court 2205, Kedar Lal...Versus...Babulal Vyas
wp3631.10.odt 9/10
and others, reported in 2003 (9) Supreme Court Cases 624 and
Suga Ram Alias Chhuga Ram...Versus...State of Rajasthan and
others, reported in 2006 (8) Supreme Court Cases 641]. In view
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mohinder Singh Gill and another...Versus...The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in 1978 (1)
Supreme Court Cases 405, the order must be self contained order,
which cannot be supplemented by the affidavit.
11. Here is a case, wherein the institution is approaching this
Court on third occasion against the State Government to know reasons
for adverse order. On earlier two occasions, opportunity was given to
the State Government to communicate reasons for rejection of the
proposal made by the petitioner. This Court granted an opportunity not
once but twice.
12. The most casual approach adopted by the State
Government needs to be viewed seriously. At any rate, the procedure
adopted by the State Government cannot be allowed to stand. The
order dated 29.3.2010 can hardly be said to be legal order. In the
result, the impugned order, rejecting application made by the
petitioner is quashed and set aside. The State Government is directed
to decide the application, made by the petitioner, afresh on its own
wp3631.10.odt 10/10
merits with a reasoned order following the principles of natural justice
within two weeks from the date of communication of this order and
communicate its reasoned decision within one week thereof.
13. Petition is allowed in terms of this order subject to payment
of costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be paid
to the petitioner, first by the State Government. The State shall
recover the same from the Officer following principles of natural
justice, who has decided the application, made by the petitioner,
without following directions of this Court and in breach of the principles
of natural justice. The State shall report compliance of this order and
recovery of cost within three weeks from this order. Learned Additional
Government Pleader undertakes to communicate this order to the
State Government.
Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with cost as
quantified herein.
JUDGE JUDGE
ssw
