Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj ... vs State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10277 Bom

WP 4217-2021                                 1                      Judgment

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                  WRIT PETITION NO. 4217 OF 2021
Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Education Society,
New Panjra, Koradi, Ta. Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur,
through its President Shri Maroti Ramkrushna Wagh,
aged about 47 years, R/o 157, Ganesh Nagari, Koradi Road,
Bokhara, Nagpur - 441111.
                                                                PETITIONER
                                .....VERSUS.....
1.   The State of Maharashtra,
     through its Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2.   The Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University,
     Nagpur, through its Registrar, Nagpur.
                                                              RESPONDENT S

                 Shri A.I. Sheikh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for respondent No.1/ State.
              Shri P.K. Rahulkar, Advocate for respondent No.2.


CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI - PHALKE, JJ.

DATE : 6/10/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge raised in this Writ Petition is to the order dated

20/8/2020 issued by the Higher Technical Education Department of the

State of Maharashtra thereby refusing to grant final approval to the

petitioner - Society to start a degree college pursuant to the letter of

intent issued earlier.

WP 4217-2021 2 Judgment

3. The Society with a view to start a womens college in the

faculty of Arts, Commerce and Science took necessary steps for being

issued the letter of intent in terms of the prescribed procedure under the

Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (for short "the Act of 2016").

Accordingly on 31/1/2019, the letter of intent was issued to the Society

under Section 109(3)(d) of the Act of 2016. Thereafter, on 26/12/2019,

the Society was informed by the Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur

University that necessary documents along with the proposal be

submitted so as to consider the grant of final permission. The Society on

6/1/2020 submitted the requisite documents along with the proposal to

the University. The Expert Committee appointed by the University

inspected the proposed building where the College was to be started and

submitted its report on 8/6/2020. On 3/7/2020, the University positively

recommended the case of the Society for starting the degree college and

forwarded the same to the State Government. However, by the impugned

order dated 20/8/2020, the State Government refused to grant

permission to start the degree college on two counts namely there were

no documents with regard to the construction undertaken that were

prepared by the local authorities and that there were no documents to

indicate that the NAAC Accreditation Process was under progress. Hence

this Writ Petition.

WP 4217-2021 3 Judgment

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view

of the positive recommendation by the University, it would not be

permissible for the State Government to have refused to grant necessary

permission to start the degree college by seeking to raise discrepancies in

the proposal. If at all the State Government desired any documents other

than those which were submitted with the proposal, it ought to have

granted an opportunity to the Society to clear the deficiencies. Placing

reliance on the decision in Rahbar Education and Welfare Association Vs.

S.N.D.T. Women's University and another [Writ Petition No. 3264/2019

decided on 28/1/2020] it was submitted that since the denial of the

permission by the State Government was in breach of the principles of

natural justice, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. He further

submitted that if an opportunity is granted, the requisite documents

sought by the State Government can be supplied for necessary

compliance.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent

No.1 supported the impugned order. According to him, since there was no

compliance with the requirements of item Nos. 7 and 18 of the norms as

prescribed, the permission came to be refused. It was for the petitioner to

have supplied those documents for due consideration along with the

proposal. In addition, a reference was made to the reply filed on behalf of WP 4217-2021 4 Judgment

respondent No.1 to submit that the validity of the letter of intent was only

till 31/1/2020 and therefore no further steps could now be taken. He

therefore submitted that the Writ Petition was liable to the dismissed.

The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 - University

submitted that in terms of the report of the Expert Committee,

recommendation had been made to the State Government on 3/7/2020

to enable the Society to start the degree college.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we

have perused the documents on record. It is undisputed that the requisite

procedure as contemplated by Section 109(3) of the Act of 2016 was

completed by the petitioner and hence on 3/7/2020, the University

recommended the case of the Society for starting the degree college. The

impugned order indicates that the documents with regard to the

construction undertaken and permission of the local authorities as well as

the documents to indicate the NAAC procedure being complied with had

not been supplied. We find that in the light of the positive

recommendation by the University, the State Government ought to have

first given some notice to the petitioner calling upon it to supply the

requisite documents so as to consider its proposal. If such notice would

have been given, the Society would have had an opportunity to supply WP 4217-2021 5 Judgment

those documents and comply with the said deficiencies as pointed out by

the State Government. In the absence of any such opportunity, there was

no occasion for the Society to submit such documents. We find that in

Rahbar Education and Welfare Association (supra), this Court has

observed that while considering the proposal under Section 109(3) of the

Act of 2016, if the State Government desires any further compliance from

the Society, the same should be brought to its notice and an opportunity

should be given to supply the said documents. The observations in the

said decision support the stand of the Society. In that view of the matter,

we find that an opportunity to clear the deficiencies ought to have been

given before finally considering the petitioner's proposal.

7. Insofar as the aspect of lapsing of the letter of intent is

concerned, that ground is not stated in the impugned order. Same has

been stated only in the affidavit-in-reply. We do not find it necessary to

go into that question since the validity of the impugned order will have to

be tested on the basis of reasons contained therein. In any event, the

learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon the provisions of

Section 109(3)(e) and (f) of the Act of 2016 to substantiate his stand that

the letter of intent has not lapsed.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that an WP 4217-2021 6 Judgment

opportunity to the petitioner deserves to be granted to clear the

deficiencies mentioned in the impugned order. Accordingly, the following

order is passed :

i. The order dated 20/8/2020 is quashed and set aside. In terms

of the deficiencies pointed out in the said order, the petitioner is at liberty

to supply those documents to the State Government within a period of

four weeks from today. The State Government shall thereafter within a

period of eight weeks re-consider the proposal in accordance with law

and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and take necessary

decision on the request for permission to start the degree college. It is

noted that the perspective plan was for a period of five years i.e. from

2019-20 to 2023-24. The decision taken by respondent No.1 shall be

communicated to the petitioner.

ii. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(URMILA JOSHI - PHALKE, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

SUMIT

Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN AGRAWAL Signing Date:07.10.2022 15:28