Namita Education And Welfare ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 8509 Bom

Rane                           * 1/9 *        WP-1959-2017
                                                     (SR. 13)
                                          Tuesday, 7.11.2017


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                   WRIT PETITION NO. 1959 OF 2017


Namita Education and Welfare
Society, having registered office
at Shree Complex, Bldg no.5/201,
J Wing, Sayani Road, Dadar (W)
Mumbai-400 025.                           ....Petitioner

         :VERSUS:

1. State of Maharashtra
Ministry of Higher & Technical
Education, Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra
State, Through the Government
Pleader, High Court, Bombay

2. University of Mumbai
Through its Registrar,
Fort, Mumbai-400 032.                     ....Respondents


                                  *****


Mr. B.P. Pandey a/w. Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar i/by. Mr.
Vikas B. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Himanshu Takke, Asst. Government Pleader for the
State, respondent no.1.

Mr. Rui A. Rodrigues, Advocate for respondent no.2.




::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 00:34:22 :::
 Rane                                   * 2/9 *            WP-1959-2017
                                                                 (SR. 13)
                                                      Tuesday, 7.11.2017


                 CORAM :-                 B.R.GAVAI &

                                          SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

                 DATE :-                  7TH NOVEMBER,         2017.




JUDGMENT (PER :- SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) :

1. The State, in its Higher and Technical Education

Department declined the permission to the petitioner

Institute, for opening new faculty in Bachelor of Arts and

Science in their existing College on 23rd September, 2016

and thus this petition.

2. The petitioner, Society is running the Institute by

name, Siddharth College of Arts at Boradpada, Post-

Chargaon, Tal-Ambernath, District-Thane which has been

granted permission for B.ED and B. Com faculties without

grant-in-aid by the State. The University, by

advertisement dated 9th December, 2015 invited

proposals as per the provisions of the Maharashtra

Universities Act, 1994 for the academic year 2016-17

from the Management/interested Societies/Trusts of

Rane * 3/9 * WP-1959-2017 (SR. 13) Tuesday, 7.11.2017

affiliated Colleges to start new college

program/division/subjects (Under Graduates and Post

Graduates). In response thereto, the petitioner had

applied for opening new B.SC and B.A. Faculty. The Local

Enquiry Committee submitted its inspection report to the

Mumbai University on 16th April, 2016 on norms as

prescribed. It appears, the management Council in its

meeting dated 27th April, 2016 resolved to grant

affiliation qua two faculties, then applied for by the

petitioner, Society and forwarded its recommendation to

the State in terms of Section 82(4) of the Maharashtra

Universities Act, 1994.

3. It is the petitioner's case that, there was no

response from the State and hence information was

sought under the Right to Information Act, whereby it

was informed that the approvals were granted to the

respective institutes by respondent no.1 vide orders

dated 4th July, 2016 and 9th September, 2016 which were

published on its website. These orders were not

Rane * 4/9 * WP-1959-2017 (SR. 13) Tuesday, 7.11.2017

displaying the names of the petitioner's institute on the

website. The petitioner, however, was not communicated

with the reasons for declining the permission and as such

the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 327 of 2017,

wherein the order of rejection/declining permission

passed by the respondent no.1, dated 23 rd September,

2016 was submitted to the petitioner. Writ Petition No.

2327 of 2017 was disposed off with liberty to challenge

the order of rejection dated 23rd September, 2016 which is

impugned in the present petition.

4. The State filed its reply through Dr. Bhosale,

Joint Director of Higher Education, Konkan Region and

resisted the petition on various grounds amongst which

the foremost ground is, Government vide policy decision

dated 23rd September, 2015 decided not to grant

permission for opening a new College and the State had

decided to prepare a master plan. In other words, the

petition was opposed on the ground of a mistaken belief

that the petitioner had applied to start a "new Degree

Rane * 5/9 * WP-1959-2017 (SR. 13) Tuesday, 7.11.2017

College".

5. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and

Learned AGP for the State.

6. Perused the report of the Local Inspection

Committee and the impugned order dated 23 rd September,

2016 with Annexure thereto, inter-alia, pointing out the

deficiencies. Also perused the provisions of Section 82(5)

of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.

7. The Learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner has pointed out that, the State refused the

permission for want of compliance of norms, enumerated

against point nos.7, 11, 12 (2.1), 12(2.3), 14 and 15. As

against this, he has taken us through the Local Committee

Report on norms of which non-compliance was alleged. It

could be seen that, as against point no.7, the Local

Committee found that a "detailed budget of current year"

was available but respondent no.1 denied, it without

placing any other document in support thereof. As

against Point no.11, the Local Committee found certified

Rane * 6/9 * WP-1959-2017 (SR. 13) Tuesday, 7.11.2017

copy of documents, showing land was Non-Agricultural

where the College is being run; As against this, in the

impugned order, respondent no.1 reported that the land is

not Non-Agricultural land. As against Clauses-12(2.1)

and (2.3) which relates to water storage facility and

drainage facility, the Local Committee had reported, these

norms were not applicable, may be for the reason that,

there is already a College running wherein the petitioner

intends to start the new faculties. As against Point no.14,

which relates to facility of Library Books, but in the

impugned order, it is reported "cannot be substantiated"

This observation is not comprehendable. Be that as it may

be, as against Point no.15, the Local Committee put a

remark "this requirement is applicable only to a new

College starting for the first time", as against this, in the

impugned order remark is that, the papers are not

available.

8. It would be interesting to read the Affidavit

filed by the State and in particular paragraph-4. The

Rane * 7/9 * WP-1959-2017 (SR. 13) Tuesday, 7.11.2017

Affidavit does not refer to the alleged deficiencies pointed

out in the impugned order by respondent no.1. On the

contrary, the State's reply proceeds on a footing that the

permission was refused because the petitioner had

applied to start a "new Degree College" and in view of the

Government Resolution dated 29th April, 2015 the State

had resolved not to grant permission for opening "new

Colleges". The Affidavit further proceeds to say that, the

permission has been refused for want of master plan in

place for 2016-17.

9. The State could not place on record any

document to substantiate its observation in the impugned

order and/or to negate the report of the Local Enquiry

Committee, which had visited the College and after

verification submitted a report to the University.

10. That after going through the reports as

aforesaid, we have no manner of doubt that the order

impugned dated 23rd September, 2016, inter-alia

declining permission to the petitioner to start the new

Rane * 8/9 * WP-1959-2017 (SR. 13) Tuesday, 7.11.2017

faculties of B.A. and B.Sc in their existing colleges, is

nothing but complete non-application of mind and

erroneous. Neither in the impugned order, nor in the

Affidavit, the State could point out that, the report of the

Local Enquiry Committee on norms as against point nos.7,

11, 12, 14 and 15 was incorrect and/or erroneous.

11. In our view, in absence of any material

contrary to the report of the Local Inspection Committee

who had an occasion to visit the premises of the

petitioner, the said report would have a primacy and

cannot be set aside and/or faulted with unless some other

documents are placed on record contrary to the report of

the Local Inspection Committee.

12. In this view of the matter, we are of the

considered opinion that, the order passed by respondent

no.2 purportedly under Section 82(5) of the Maharashtra

University Act, 1994 dated 23rd September, 2016, inter-

alia, declining the permission to the petitioner to start a

new Faculty of B.A. and B.Sc in their existing College for

Rane * 9/9 * WP-1959-2017 (SR. 13) Tuesday, 7.11.2017

the academic year 2016-17 is erroneous and bad in law

and as such quashed and set aside.

13. The petition therefore succeeds. Rule is

discharged and hence the following order.

14. The impugned order dated 23rd September,

2016 insofar as it relates to the petitioner is quashed and

set aside. Respondent no.1 is directed to grant permission

to the petitioner to start the process of B.Sc and B.A. from

Academic Session 2018-19. Needless to state that, the

intake capacity for the said courses will be determined by

the University in accordance with law.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (B.R. GAVAI, J)