Bombay High Court
Habib Educational And Welfare ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 8 September, 2015
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
dgm 1 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition NO. 6002 OF 2015
Habib Educational & Welfare Society's
M.S. College of Law,
At village Deoghar, Post Khanivali, Wada,
Dist. Palghar, established and run by
the abovementioned Trust registered
under the Bombay Public Trust Act,
1950, Through its Chairman/Secretary
having office at 111, Habib Educational
Complex, M. H. Mohai Road, Kausa,
Mumbra, Dist. Thane-Pin Code 400 612 ... Petitioners
vs.
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary, Higher &
Technical Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-400032
2 The Registrar,
University of Mumbai,
G. Road, Mumbai
3 Bar Council of India,
(Statutory Body constituted under
the Advocates Act, 1961)
Through its Secretary, having office
at 21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional
Area, New Delhi - 110 002
4 The Secretary,
Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa,
2nd Floor, High Court Building,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 032 ... Respondents
1/28
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2015 23:54:48 :::
dgm 2 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 4841 OF 2015
ALDEL EDUCATION TRUSTS THROUGH
ITS CHAIRMAN ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE SECRETARY AND ANR ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6018 OF 2015
HABIB EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY'S ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE SECRETARY, HIGHER AND TECHNICAL
EDUCATION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr. C.K. Thomas i/by M/s. C.K.
Thomas & Associates for the Petitioners in all matters.
Mr. A. B. Vagyani, Government Pleader with Mr. C. P. Yadav, AGP and
Ms. Tina Hazarika for Respondent/State in all matters.
Mr. R. A. Rodrigues for Respondent No.2/University in
WP/6002/2015.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
A. A. SAYED, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : September 02, 2015
PRONOUNCED ON : September 08, 2015
dgm 3 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.) :-
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
parties.
2 As in all these matters the basic issues are common and so
also the Respondents, we are disposing of all these Petitions by this
common judgment.
3 In Writ Petition No.6002/2015, the Petitioners have
applied for New Law College at Palghar within time from the
academic year 2015-16. The University has recommended their case.
The State Government, however, has not taken decision on individual
Application filed by the Petitioners. In Writ Petition No.4831/2015,
the Petitioners have applied for starting additional new Degree
Courses in the Petitioner's existing college at Palghar for the academic
year 2015-16 and accordingly applied within time. The University has
recommended the Petitioner's case. The Respondent/State, however,
dgm 4 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
has not taken decision on individual Application filed by the Petitioner.
In Writ Petition No. 6018 of 2015, the Petitioner has applied for
starting various courses in M. S. College of Arts, Science, Commerce
and BMS at Palghar within time for the academic year 2015-16. The
University recommended the case. The State Government has not
taken decision on individual Application filed by the Petitioners. The
State Government however, has not granted the Applications of the
Petitioners by issuing the impugned Government Resolution dated
29.04.2015; therefore, these Petitions are filed in June 2015.
4 All these Petitioners who are a religious minority
community trusts/institutions as contemplated under Article 30 (1) of
the Constitution of India, made Applications pursuant to an
Advertisement issued by Respondent No.2/University to
establish/start new college/additional new degree courses, having
sufficient/requisite infrastructure facilities and staff for the current
academic year based upon the Perspective Plan - 2015-16 (the Plan)
of non-agricultural Universities issued by Respondent No.2-University.
Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra (the State), instead of rejecting
dgm 5 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
and/or granting permission to the Petitioners, in time, though the
University has recommended the respective cases of Petitioners
without communicating any timely decision, issued the impugned
Government Resolution dated 29 April 2015. By this Resolution, the
State has decided not to grant approvals to proposals for starting new
colleges, courses etc and directed the University to prepare a fresh
perspective plan, though the perspective plan for academic year 2015-
16 is in existence. On 20 July 2015 (Exhibit I), the State issued
another connected resolution to constitute the related committee even
after the cut off date as per the statute. This in effect amounts to
rejection of permission sought by their respective applications made in
October 2014.
5 Respondent No.2/University has also filed its affidavit
dated 10 July 2015. The State has filed its affidavit dated 15 July
2015 (Writ Petition No.6002/2015). The State has filed additional
affidavit on 24 July 2015. The relevant averments in the affidavit of
the State, made in support of the stated policy decision/resolution in
question, are reproduced below:-
dgm 6 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
"3 The reasons for taking the said policy
decision is as under:
In the academic year 2012-13, out of total intake
capacity of the students doing Graduate and
Postgraduate Courses in Higher Education, around
27% seats were lying vacant. In the academic year
2013-14, out of total intake capacity of the students,
around 28% seats were lying vacant. And in the
academic year 2014-15, out of total intake capacity of
the students, around 26% seats were lying vacant.
5 I respectfully say that under Section 82 (5)
of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the State
Government has absolute discretion to grant or reject
permission to open a new College or institution, taking
into account (i) the State Government's budgetary
resources (ii) the suitability of the Managements
seeking permission to open new Institutions and (iii)
the State level priorities with regard to location of the
Institutions of higher learning. Thus, as per the said
Section, it is not obligatory upon the State Government
to grant permission to the Managements to open a new
College or Institution, though the applications are
recommended by the Non-agricultural Universities.
6 I say that recommendations made and
perspective plan submitted by the non-agricultural
Universities to the State Government will be given due
consideration for the next academic year 2016-17."
The Petitioners, through their rejoinders have reiterated their claim for
this academic year 2015-2016.
6 The University conceded to the position that most of the
dgm 7 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
Petitioners have filed/applied to start new colleges/additional courses
from academic year 2015-2016 along with the prescribed fee in time.
Those applications were placed before the Management Council (The
Council) of the University some time in April 2015 as per the
provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (The Act) and
Government Resolutions dated 30 October 2010 and 2 September
2013. The Council by respective Resolution dated 28 April 2015
accepted the respective applications and forwarded the same to the
State by letter dated 30 April 2015. The University has also pointed
out that the State by letter dated 16 June 2015 directed it to refund
the fees received from the concerned colleges which applied for
affiliation. The University, therefore, in view of Government
Resolution dated 29 April 2015 and communication dated 16 June
2015 has stopped processing these applications further. Similar
affidavits are filed by the Universities in all the matters. The learned
counsel appearing for the University has also placed on record the
essential and requisite teaching days, workload for
University/colleges which are applicable to the new college and/or
new courses in the respective academic year.
dgm 8 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
7 The relevant Sections of the Act are Sections 82 and 83 ,
which are extracted hereunder:-
"82 Procedure for permission.
[(1) The university shall prepare a perspective Plan,
and get the same approved by the State Council for
Higher Education for educational development for the
location of colleges and institutions of higher learning
in a manner ensuring equitable distribution of facilities
for Higher Education having due regard, in particular,
to the needs of unserved and under-developed areas
within the jurisdiction of the university. Such plan
shall be prepared by the Board of College and
University Development, and shall be placed before the
Academic Council and the Senate through the
Management Council and shall, if necessary, be
updated every year.]
(2) No application for opening a new college or
institution of higher learning, which is not in
conformity with such plan, shall be considered by the
university.
(3) The managements seeking permission to open a
new college or institution of higher learning shall apply
in the prescribed form to the Registrar of the university
before the last day of October of the year preceding the
year from which the permission is sought.
(4) All such applications received within the
aforesaid prescribed time limit, shall be scrutinised by
the Board of College and University Development and
be forwarded to the State Government with the
approval of the Management Council (on or before the
first day of May of the year), with such
recommendations (duly supported by relevant reasons)
dgm 9 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
as are deemed appropriate by the Management
Council."
(5) Out of the applications recommended by the
university, the State Government may grant permission
to such institutions as it may consider right and proper
in its absolute discretion, taking into account the State
Government's budgetary resources, the suitability of
the managements seeking permission to open new
institutions and the State level priorities with regard to
location of institutions of higher learning:
Provided, however, that in exceptional cases
and for the reasons to be recorded in writing
any application not recommended by the
university may be approved by the State
Government for starting a new college or
institution of higher learning:
[Provided further that, from the [academic
year 2011-2012], such permission from the
State Government shall be communicated to
the university [on or before 15th June of the
year], in which the new college is proposed
to be started. Permissions received
thereafter shall be given effect by the
university only in the subsequent academic
year.]
[(5A)Notwithstanding any thing contained in the
second proviso to sub-section (5), for the academic
year 2011-2012, such permission from the State
Government shall be communicated to the University
on or before 20th August, 2011 and shall be given effect
by the University in the same academic year.]
[(5B) Notwithstanding any thing contained in this Act
or any other law for the time being in force, on and
from the date of commencement of the Maharashtra
Universities (Second Amendment) Act, 2013, -
dgm 10 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
(a) no management shall establish or open a new
college or an institution of higher learning in the
State, except with the prior permission of the
State Government;
(b) no management shall start a new course of study,
subject, faculty or additional division, except
with the prior permission of the State
Government.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, the
expressions "establish or open a new college or an
institution of higher learning" and "start a new course
of study, subject, faculty or additional division", shall
include establishing or opening of any such college or
an institution of higher learning, and starting of any
such course of study, subject, faculty or additional
division, on the basis of no grant-in-aid from the State
Government.
(5C) Notwithstanding any thing contained in the
second proviso to sub-section (5), for the academic
year 2013-2014, such permission from the State
Government shall be communicated to the university
on or before the 15th July 2013 and shall be given effect
by the university in the same academic year.]
(6) No application shall be entertained directly by the
State Government for the grant of permission for
opening new college or institutions of higher learning."
83 Procedure for affiliation:- (1) On receipt
of the permission from the State Government under
section 82 the Academic Council of the university shall
consider grant of first time affiliation to the new
college or institution by following the prescribed
procedure given in sub-section (2) and after taking into
account whether and the extent to which the stipulated
dgm 11 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
conditions have been fulfilled by the college or
institution. The decision of the Academic Council in
this regard shall be final.
-------------------------------------------------
(5) The procedure referred to in sections 82,
except the second proviso to sub-section (5) thereof,
shall mutatis-mutandis, apply for the permission to
open new courses and additional Faculties. The
procedure for permission for starting new subjects and
additional divisions in the existing colleges and
institutions shall be such as may be prescribed by the
State Government, from time to time.
.............................."
As per the above provisions, a perspective plan under Section 82(1) of
the Act needs to be prepared after detailed study and required to be
submitted to the State. The State has to submit the same to Higher
Education Council for necessary approval. As per Section 82(3) of
the Act, it is mandatory for the institutions to submit the applications
to seek permission for starting new colleges, faculty/subjects or
courses and/or additional Division, before 31 October to the
respective Universities. The concerned University needs to take into
consideration, the plan and other relevant factors. All those proposals
as per the plans of the Universities are required to be scrutinised as
per the provisions of the Act, including the procedure prescribed in
Government Resolution dated 30 October 2010 and the criteria
decided by the State from time to time, at their respective level. The
dgm 12 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
University and the State, under the above statute/provisions, are
required to grant approvals to the eligible proposals, if they fulfill the
criteria. There is no issue that uniform net-work of colleges are
required to be established throughout the State for providing higher
education to the students from rural, hilly, tribal and nexalite affected
area.
8 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners have
relied upon the following judgments :
(1) Social Society, MORBA vs. Principal Secretary, Higher and
Technical Education Department, Mumbai and 1
(2) In re The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Special Ref No. 1 of 19582
9 The learned Government Pleader has produced a Note on
Legal Issues and the following judgments in support of the
submissions and are read and referred also:
(1) Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of 3
(2) Sindhi Education Society v. Govt (NCT of Delhi)4
1 2011 (4) Mh. L. J. 316
2 AIR 1958 SC 956
3 AIR 2000 SC 2003
4 (2010) 8 SCC 49
dgm 13 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
(3) Bajaj Hindustan Limited v. Sir Shad Lal Enterprises Limited and
anr.1
(4) Ugar Sugar Works Ltd v. Delhi 2
(5) Transport & Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust3
(6) Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and ors.4
(7) His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.5
10 Admittedly, inspite of the respective recommendations
from the University within the prescribed date so fixed, the State has
not taken any decision on the individual Applications, before 15 June
2015, as contemplated under the Act. No decision has been
communicated to the Petitioners till this date. On the contrary, the
State issued the resolutions dated 29 April 2015 and 20 July 2015 and
did not take any decision on the individual proposals so submitted by
the Petitioners and forwarded by the Universities for this academic
year 2015-16. Nothing is mentioned and/or even discussed about the
existing plan so published, which is the basis for the institutions to
apply for the respective permissions/approval for starting new colleges
1 (2011) 1 SCC 640
2 (2001) 3 SCC 635
3 (2011) 2 SCC 575
4 (2007) 14 SCC 517
5 (1973) 4 SCC 225
dgm 14 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
and/or additional courses in their respective areas/institutions. The
State, instead of taking any decision, positive and/or negative, on the
individual Applications, within the mandated period, confronted the
Petitioners and the University with the Resolution and even directed to
refund the fees/charges so recovered/received by the University in
their proposals by referring to the stated source i.e. Section 82 of the
Act. This action of State, in our view, by not taking decision on
individual Applications by June 2015 is in breach of the provisions of
above Sections of the Act. The action is also in breach of their own
policy decision and the mandate of provisions of the Act, whereby it is
obligatory on their part to issue guidelines and/or direct the
Universities to prepare perspective plan for the coming academic year
before October of preceding year. The University, as recorded, have
already acted upon the earlier provisions/statutory provisions as
contemplated under Section 82(1) of the Act and published and
declared the plan. All the Petitioners and similarly situated persons,
as noted above, have acted upon the same, before 31 October 2014.
The University has also acted upon the time table so fixed and after
verifying the proposals and as found fit and correct, as having
complied with all the requisites as contemplated in Section 82(1)(2)
dgm 15 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
and (5), forwarded their respective recommendations to the State
within the prescribed period. The sudden detour is against the
existing plan and practice apart from the law.
11 We have noted the affidavits filed by the State and the
reason for the Resolution, as under :
"4 .......... As a result since last three years on one
hand Managements were seeking permission to open
new colleges/divisions/faculty/courses on the basis of
recommendations made by the concerned University
and on the other hand out of total intake capacity of
colleges, almost 25 percent seats were lying vacant.
Also some colleges had to close down due to short fall
of students. I say that no balance the Demand -
Supply ratio, the Higher and Technical Education to
State Government in its wisdom has issued a resolution
dated 29th April 2015, as per section 82(1) of the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 whereby all non
agricultural Universities in State of Maharashtra have
been directed to prepare and submit to the State
Government their perspective plan with
recommendations within a period of three months
from the date of issuance of said G.R and on the basis
of such recommendations and perspective plan
received from the respective non-agricultural
Universities, will be submitted to the State Higher
Education Council headed by the Chief Minister, who
will take final decision in the matter in accordance
with law."
12 Government Resolution dated 29 April 2015, as stated to
be the policy decision of the State, not to grant permission to open
dgm 16 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
new colleges/division/faculty for the academic year 2015-16, is issued
by overlooking the earlier policy decision and the directions issued to
prepare perspective plan for academic year 2015-16 in the month of
October 2014 and/or even prior to that. The said plan, as noted, is
still in existence. Therefore, the prior action to prepare fresh
perspective plan by the University for 2015-16 and/or future year
2016-17, in no way, in our view, should have been the reason to deny
the proposals, recommended by the University for this year. The
affidavit itself shows that the Government intended to have the fresh
plan for academic year 2016-17. The whole action is contrary to the
scheme of the Act as well as earlier Circular/Government Resolution
so issued by the State of preparing perspective plan which have a
statutory foundation for the Petitioners and/or such institutions to
send their respective proposals in time. The State's sudden detour is
against the existing plan, practice and own directions, apart from the
law.
13 The submission that the State has "absolute discretion"
referring to Section 82, based upon the stated policy decision, in our
view, is unacceptable. The whole action of State, in our view, is
dgm 17 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
arbitrary, unreasonable and is in breach of their own statutory
provisions and the Circulars, apart from the breach of the "principles
of legitimate expectation" and "the doctrine of promissory estoppel".
There was nothing wrong when they issued last year
direction/guidelines to prepare the perspective plan as per the still
existing statutory provisions. The change in policy, even if any, which
is the domain of the State, in the facts and circumstances, ought to
have been used and/or utilised prospectively for the year 2016-17 and
ought not to have been for the current year 2015-16.
14 The basis of 26% vacant seats, if any, in all the subjects
and locations, based upon the data so collected, cannot be utilized to
take such abrupt decision/resolution and/or no individual decision.
This reflects non-application of mind and arbitrary use of power in
view of specific provisions of the Act and the policy. The stated
approximate 50% vacant seats of Engineering or Medical courses or of
other courses, cannot be clubbed in such fashion to deny or deprive
the students/people to have new colleges/courses, in their area or
institutions for other subjects, specifically when the proposals are well
within the ambit of the existing plan and the law. These resolutions,
dgm 18 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
the State could not utilize in cases of Engineering or Medical courses
for this year, as the supreme Authority AICTE and MCI have already
granted approval to start or approved their proposals. The State's
submission therefore, only for these colleges/institutions of other
subjects, is discriminatory and unsustainable.
15 There cannot be any issue that, the State for the
betterment of the public in view of national and international demand
of education of every sort, taking into consideration to establish
Foreign Universities in India to enhance the education standards of
Indian educational institutions has to take policy decisions. The State
has directed the Committee to prepare the new perspective plan on
the parameters of new educational development, new research, new
facility and the related reforms in examination, pattern and also for an
adequate educational provision in Tribal, Rural and Naxalite hit areas,
including Privatization and deemed University Status. The basic
purpose as per the provisions and as per the practice to have a
perspective plan in advance so as to ensure that it meets the growth of
the population. The Committee has to take note of criteria of
geographical location in terms of taluka, faculties, proximity of similar
dgm 19 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
colleges in the area and also to take note of innovative courses to be
encouraged. It is always on the basis of data so quoted including the
recommendation of the then existing committees and as per Section
82 of the Act. The perspective plan must have been placed before the
Managing Council in the month of September 2014 or at least prior to
October 2014. The Academic Council, having once resolved and
accepted the plan for the year 2015-16 and submitted to the Council
for Higher Education, the State and the Hon'ble Chancellor as per
Section 36 (2) of the Act, we see no reason to overlook the same
and/or not to follow the same for the year 2015-16, merely because
the State has decided to have new perspective plan for the year 2016-
17. The State ought to have taken decision within the time so
prescribed based upon 2015-16 plan, in question. The non-
compliance of statutory compliance by disregarding the perspective
plan, which was prepared by following due procedure under the Act
and specifically when agreed and accepted by the State and the
Council, the submission based upon the Ghaziabad Development
Authority (Supra) that the invitation by the State would not attract
the principle of Contractual Obligation and therefore, individuals
cannot claim as a matter of right to accept their offer/proposal, at the
dgm 20 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
instance of State, in view of above background, is unacceptable. The
Judgment so referred and relied upon, was in a matter of tender and
allotment of plots. The facts and circumstances are totally distinct and
distinguishable.
16 The practice to issue letter of intent, even if any, for above
reasons that itself may or may not be the reason and/or entitlement to
claim the rights, but as per the provisions of the Act and the
Resolution so referred, in our view, the State Government is bound to
take decision in accordance with law, based upon the perspective plan
as already declared prior to October 2014.
17 The absolute discretion, therefore, even if any, cannot be
read and used by the State not to take decision on individual
applications within the statutory period so prescribed, having once
invited the applications in the month of October 2014. The deserving
applicants, if even otherwise, eligible in view of the provisions so read
and referred above, having all infrastructures and material to justify
their case/claim and as they have incurred substantial expenses and
are otherwise eligible, being minority institutions and/or not, the
legitimate expectations is definitely that the State would act in
dgm 21 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
accordance with law within the time so prescribed. There is no escape
from it. There is no provisions pointed out and/or referred to show
that the State has power and/or authority to take such decision within
the time so prescribed in the background so referred above. The State
Government, in our view, failed to take decision in time as per the
scheme of the Act, now cannot be permitted to take shelter of stated
abrupt policy decision. Such situation is never contemplated and/or
provided under the Act and/or any Government Resolution. The
doctrine of "absolute discretion" cannot invoked for such purpose.
The action of the Respondents is nothing but wrong interpretation
and/or wrong understanding of provisions of law and the power.
Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with such inaction which is
contrary to the provisions of statute and their own earlier policy
decision.
18 The submission is that the judicial review in such policy
decision is very limited and restricted unless exceptional case is made
out. Reference is made to Bajaj Hindustan Limited (Supra). In view of
the above reasons, the abrupt policy/resolution so brought in, is
arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and violative of Article 14,
dgm 22 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
19(1) of the Constitution of India. The judgments so cited are of no
assistance, as the same were revolving around the economic and fiscal
regulatory measures and administrative decisions. We are not
interfering with the policy decision so taken by the experts in the
interest of public at large, however, are definitely interfering with the
sudden detour of the State by overlooking their own earlier years'
policy and the plan. There is nothing to show that the earlier decision
so taken was contrary to any provisions of law and/or the then
existing policy decision. The State is always free to have their own
policy in the interest of public at large. Normally, there is no question
to interfere with the same, however, as the case is made out and
without disturbing the policy, we are only interfering to the extent of
not taking timely decision as per the provisions of Act and the
Resolution. The existing plan, is in the interest of public at large.
Therefore, this interference. We are not inclined to accept the case of
the absolute discretion to mean and read that the State is free not to
take any decision as per the scheme of the Act though all have acted
as per their earlier declared policy and plan, in time. The non-action
and/or inaction, in our view, itself is a ground to invoke the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
dgm 23 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
19 The case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. (Supra) is also
therefore, of no assistance to the State as the action, in our view, is
unacceptable, arbitrary, unfair and results of misunderstanding of law,
as well as, the power. We are not concerned even with the business
interest of the Petitioners only, but we are definitely concerned with
the public interest in the matter of establishment of new colleges
and/or courses as per the plan of 2015-16 so prepared by the
University based upon the guidelines so issued by the State itself, prior
to October 2014. In view of demand of education and need to
establish respective colleges and/or to add new courses including
innovative courses as per the already published plan, the case of
Transport & Dock Workers Union (Supra) is also of no assistance to the
State. The submission that the power of judicial review, the Court
should not interfere with the decision of the Government referring to
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati (Supra), is also unacceptable for the
reasons so recorded above. In Jagdish Mandal (Supra), therefore, is
also of no assistance as we are not even substituting the decision so
taken, we are definitely interfering with the non-action and/or
inaction on the part of the State Government of not taking the
dgm 24 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
decision in the academic year or before the cut off date so fixed.
20 Once we are coming to a conclusion for the reasons so
recorded above that the action of Respondents basically by the State is
impermissible, we are inclined to modify the prayers as restricted, in
the interest of public at large and by considering the existing practice
and the plan of 2015-16. Therefore, the following order in respective
Writ Petitions:- ig ORDER
a) It is hereby directed to Respondent Nos.1 and 2-
(I) In Writ Petition No. 6002 of 2015:-
i) Respondent-State to forthwith consider the
Petitioners application for starting a new Law
College, (3 and 5 year courses) at Khanivali
Wada Dist. Palghar as provided under Section
82(5) of the Maharashtra Universities Act,
without taking into consideration
Government Resolution dated 29.04.2015
dgm 25 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
(Exhibit "E") and GR dated 20.07.2015
(Exhibit "I") issued by Respondent No.1 in
accordance with law.
(ii) Respondent-University to forthwith take
appropriate action u/s 83 of the Maharashtra
Universities Act, 1994, and consider granting
necessary affiliation to the Petitioners new
Law College (3 and 5 year courses) at
Khanivali Wada Dist. Palghar, in accordance
with law.
(II) In Writ Petition No. 4841 of 2015:-
i) Respondent-State to forthwith consider the
Petitioners application for additional new
Degree Courses in (i) Bachelor of Commerce
(B.Com.), (ii) Bachelor of Management
Studies (B.M.S.), (iii) Bachelor of Arts (B.A.),
and (iv) B. Com. (Accounting & Finance) at
Palghar as provided under Section 82(5) of
the Maharashtra Universities Act, without
dgm 26 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
taking into consideration of Government
Resolution dated 29.04.2015 and GR dated
20.07.2015 in accordance with law.
(ii) Respondent-University to forthwith take
appropriate action u/s 83 of the Maharashtra
Universities Act, 1994, and consider granting
necessary affiliation to the Petitioners
additional new Degree Courses in (i)
Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com.), (ii)
Bachelor of Management Studies (B.M.S.),
(iii) Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), and (iv) B. Com.
(Accounting & Finance) Palghar, in
accordance with law.
(III) In Writ Petition No. 6018 of 2015:-
i) Respondent-State to forthwith consider the
Petitioners application for starting a new
Arts, Science, Commerce and BMS College at
Khanivali Wada Dist. Palghar as provided
under Section 82(5) of the Maharashtra
dgm 27 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
Universities Act, without taking into
consideration of Government Resolution
dated 29.04.2015 and GR dated 20.07.2015
in accordance with law.
(ii) Respondent-University to forthwith take
appropriate action u/s 83 of the Maharashtra
Universities Act, 1994, and consider granting
necessary affiliation to the Petitioners new
Arts, Science, Commerce and BMS College at
Khanivali Wada Dist. Palghar, in accordance
with law.
b) Rule in all the Petitions made absolute accordingly.
c) There shall be no order as to costs.
(A. A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
dgm 28 wp-6002-15 with group-9.9.15.sxw
CERTIFICATE
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed
Judgment/Order.
