Navalbhau Pratishthan Naval ... vs State Of Maha & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 4629 Bom

                                                                   WP No. 969/2004
                                            1


                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 969 OF 2004

1.        Navalbhau Pratisthan,
          Naval Nagar, Dhule,
          District Dhule,
          Through it's Chairman

2.        V.N. Patil Law College,
          N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad
          Through it's Incharge Principal.                ....Petitioners.

                  Versus


1.        The State of Maharashtra
          Through it's Secretary, Higher
          Education Department,
          Mantralaya Mumbai.

2.        The Divisional Joint Director,
          Higher Education, Aurangabad
          Region, Aurangabad.                             ....Respondents.


Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.W. Munde, A.G.P. for respondents/State.


                                   CORAM    :   T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                                SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

RESERVED ON : July 14, 2017.

DECIDED ON : July 18, 2017.

JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

. The petition is filed for giving direction to respondents to

delete the condition of permanent no grant basis mentioned in

letters of 20.7.1999 and 11.8.2000 and to give grant-in-aid to the

petitioner No. 2 law college. Both the sides are heard.

WP No. 969/2004

2) Petitioner No. 1 institution is granted permission by

respondent/State to start law college at CIDCO, Aurangabad in

which there can be three years and five years law courses. These

courses are started by the petitioners. It is the case of petitioners

that though initially the permission was granted to start law college

on permanent no grant basis on 10.1.1996, there was already

scheme of the Government to provide grant-in-aid to the law

colleges. It is contended that to similar law colleges which were

started even after the college of the petitioners, grant-in-aid is given

by the respondents, but the respondents are avoiding to give grant-

in-aid to petitioner No. 2 law college.

3) It is the case of petitioners that by correspondence dated

4.9.2001, 4.12.2001 and 5.3.2002, the petitioners had requested

the respondents to delete the condition of permission of permanent

no grant basis, but as yet the condition is not removed. It is

contended that on 16.3.2002 the Deputy Director of Education, the

authority, had recommended the case of petitioners to Director of

Higher Education, Maharashtra State for giving grant-in-aid to

petitioner law college and the said proposal is forwarded by Director

of Higher Education to the State but no grant-in-aid is given. It is

contended that in the landmark case reported as 1995 (5) SCC 730

WP No. 969/2004

[State of Maharashtra Vs. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi], the Apex

Court has expressed that it is the duty of the State to provide aid to

such institutions, but respondent is not giving grant-in-aid to the

petitioner and it is also indulging in discrimination as to other law

colleges and other colleges grant-in-aid is given by respondents

subsequent to grant of permission to the petitioner.

4) During arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners

produced on record copies of permissions granted to other colleges

and also law colleges and also of the grants given to those colleges.

There is Government Resolution ('GR' for short) of 7.3.2004 issued

in favour of Advocate Ramkrushnaji Rathi Vidhi Mahavidyalaya,

Washim, District Washim showing that grant-in-aid was granted from

the academic year 2003-04 in phased manner. The grant was

increased as per the scheme of the Government to make it 50%,

75% and then 100%. The list includes many colleges situated within

the jurisdiction of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University

and in respect of those colleges, permission was granted on no grant

basis and subsequently, as per the scheme of the Government, the

grant-in-aid was given. The record is produced in respect of colleges

which got the grant-in-aid and which are situated in Vidharbha

region and other regions of Maharashtra. There is record in respect

of grant-in-aid given to law college from Baramati also and it

WP No. 969/2004

appears that permission was granted to that law college in view of

the direction given by this Court in one Writ Petition and it is

receiving grants.

5) Copies of so many representations made by the

petitioners are produced on the record. It appears that in the year

2002, the Divisional Deputy Director had written to the Director of

Education to take decision in respect of law colleges as the

Government was giving grant-in-aid to arts, commerce and science

colleges on the basis of scheme of Government of the year 1995-96.

Copies of correspondence made thereafter till the year 2006 is there,

but no response was given by the Government and it is only

informed that the permission was granted to start this law college on

permanent no grant basis and only after giving of permission by Bar

Council of India to the courses and after taking steps for affiliation

with the University, further steps can be taken. It is not disputed

that the college is affiliated with the University and Bar Council of

India also gave permission in the year 2003 and it is advised to take

further extension of affiliation from the concerned University. Thus, it

cannot be said that there was no affiliation with the University or

there was no approval or permission of Bar Council of India. Thus,

there is record to show that from 2005 onwards there was extension

of approval of affiliation given by Bar Council of India and the

WP No. 969/2004

College is affiliated to the aforesaid university.

6) The learned counsel for petitioners produced on record

copy of the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.

1255/2015 [Shri. Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Sangamner Vs.

State of Maharashtra and Ors.] decided on 5.7.2017. This

Court gave direction to the Government to see that it follows the

policy to give grant-in-aid step by step to all those colleges to whom

permission was granted prior to the year 2001. In that matter, the

permission was granted in June 1998 and so, this Court directed the

Government to give grant-in-aid to the said law college in phase-

wise manner from March 2009. This year was mentioned as the

application for getting grant-in-aid was made on that date. The

petitioner of the present matter is placed on better footing. There is

voluminous correspondence showing that since so many years, the

petitioner is pursuing the matter, but the Government is avoiding to

give grant-in-aid. The institutions which got permission subsequent

to the present petitioner also got grant-in-aid. Such discrimination

cannot be allowed to be made by the respondents. In view of the

aforesaid record, this Court holds that the Government needs to give

grant-in-aid to the petitioner law college from the academic year

2009-2010 in phased manner.

WP No. 969/2004

7) In the result, the petition is allowed. Respondent No. 1

is hereby directed to give grant-in-aid to petitioner No. 2 - V.N. Patil

Law College on the basis of representation made in the year 2001,

but from the academic year 2009-2010 in phased manner as per the

grant-in-aid policy of Government of 1991 and pass appropriate

orders in that regard. Rule is made absolute in those terms.

       [SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.]               [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]


ssc/