Bombay High Court
Mahatma Jyotiba Phule ... vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 26 August, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 1275.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1275 OF 2013
Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Bahhuddeshiya
Sevabhavi Sanstha, Navandi,
Through its Secretary,
Ashok S/o Bhimrao Birajdar,
Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Nalegaon, Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur. ig .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Joint Director,
Higher and Technical Education,
Nanded Region, Nanded.
3. The Director,
Board of College and University
Development, Swami Ramanand
Teerth Marathwada University,
Nanded.
4. Swami Ramanand Teerth
Marathwada University,
Vishnupuri, Nanded,
Through its Registrar. .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2016 00:15:51 :::
2 wp 1275.13
Shri V. J. Dixit, Senior Advocate i/by Shri Hanmant V. Patil,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri V. H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri V. P. Latange, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 26TH AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
parties taken up for final hearing.
2. Mr. Dixit, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner
states that, the petitioner is a registered society and is imparting
education in the region of Marathwada. The respondent No. 4
issued an advertisement in the year 2009-2010, calling proposals
for starting new senior colleges at various places within the
jurisdiction of the respondent No. 4. The petitioner had
submitted proposal for grant of permission for opening new
college in Arts faculty at village Nalegaon under the name and
style as Marathwada Arts College, Gharni Road, Nalegaon. The
petitioner complied with all conditions and criteria provided by
the master plan and the norms of the Government. The
respondent No. 4 forwarded the proposal of the petitioner to the
respondent No. 1 with positive recommendations, as the
petitioner was fulfilling all the requisite preconditions.
3 wp 1275.13
3. By letter dated 16.09.2009 the Government did not grant
permission to the petitioner. The learned senior advocate
submits that, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ
Petition No. 2873 of 2011 challenging communication dated
16.09.2009. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to
the State Government to communicate the petitioner decision
taken by the State Government with reasons. Thereafter
inspection was carried out by the respondent No. 2. Again it was
directed to the petitioner to submit detailed report/proposal. The
petitioner complied the same on 20th March, 2012. The proposal
was rejected on the ground that, the petitioner is not having the
land within the area of Gram Panchayat and the copy of
registered lease deed is not produced, so also there is no facility
of health care and library. The learned senior counsel submits
that, the petitioner complied with all conditions, still the said
order was passed.
4. During the pendency of this writ petition various orders
are passed by this Court. Vide order dated May 07, 2014, the
respondent No. 2 was directed to inspect the proposed college site
and to submit the report. The report was submitted in July 2014.
Though there were deficiencies pointed out in the said report, the
petitioner showed its willingness to remove the said deficiencies.
The learned senior advocate submits that, this Court by order
dated April 28, 2015 had observed that, the petitioner has shown
4 wp 1275.13
its willingness to remove the deficiencies as pointed out in
inspection report of July 2014. This Court again vide order dated
April 28, 2015 directed the respondent No. 2 to inspect the
proposed college site. The learned senior advocate submits that,
pursuance to the said order, inspection was carried out and the
inspection report dated 24th August, 2015 is submitted, wherein
the report was favourable to the petitioner in all respects except
the objection of lease deed not been registered. The learned
senior advocate submits that, the said lease deed is also now
registered on 12th August, 2016.
5. According to the learned senior advocate, now not a single
deficiency exists. All conditions are complied with, as such there
would not be any impediment for the respondents to accord
permission to the petitioner. It is submitted that, even as per the
master plan the senior college is permissible in the said village
and there is no other proposal received for start of senior college
in the said area.
6. Mr. Latange, the learned advocate for respondent Nos. 3
and 4 accepts that, as per the master plan senior college is
permissible at village Nalegaon and as on the date no other
proposal is received for starting senior college at village Nalegaon
in Arts faculty.
5 wp 1275.13
7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that,
considering the deficiencies as existed, the decision has been
rightly taken by the State.
8. As observed earlier, this Court vide various orders passed
in the present petition had given opportunity to the petitioner to
remove the deficiencies and also directed the respondent No. 2 to
carry out the inspection. The last inspection report states that,
the petitioner has necessary infrastructure and only the
petitioner does not have registered lease deed. It is submitted
that, the petitioner has got executed the registered lease deed of
the said land, where the proposed college is to function. The
same is registered on 12.08.2016. It will be for the authorities
now to consider the said aspect of the petitioner. The petitioner
may produce the copy of registered lease deed with the
authorities.
9. In the light of the above, we pass following order.
10. The impugned order dated 30th June, 2016 is quashed and
set aside. The respondent authorities shall reconsider the
proposal of the petitioner for start of new senior college in Arts
faculty at village Nalegaon, Tq. Chakur, considering its
inspection report and the fact that, now the petitioner has also
cured defect of non registration of the lease deed. The petitioner
6 wp 1275.13
shall submit the copy of the said lease deed with the authorities.
The authorities shall thereafter take decision on the said
proposal expeditiously and preferably by the end of December
2016, as it is even if authority comes to the conclusion to grant
permission, the same would be from the next academic year.
Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No
costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/August 16
