Bombay High Court
Nisargadeep Shikshan Prasarak Mandal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 26 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:19321-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2093 OF 2024
Nisargdeep Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad
17/2, Banjara Colony, Naik Nagar,
Chhtrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad),
Through its Secretary,
Shri Vijendra S/o. Gulabsing Jadhav,
Age. 54 years, Occu. Social Service,
R/o. : 17/2, Banjara Colony, (Aurangabad),
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Tq. And Dist. (Aurangabad),
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University,
Chhatrapati Sambhaninagar (Aurangabad),
Through its Registrar,
University Campus, Near Soneri Mahal,
Jaysinghpura, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad),
Maharashtra - 431 004.
3. Shri Dyaneshwar Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha
Through its Secretary,
R/o. Pachod, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
(Aurangabad).
4. Pandit Dindayal Uppadhay Shikshan Sanstha,
Dharmaveer Sambhaji Vidyalay, CIDCO, N-5,
Savarkar Nagar, Chhatrapti Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad).
5. The Maharashtra State Commission for Higher
Education and Development,
Through its Chair Person, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2
6. Rajendra S/o. Gulabsingh Jadhav,
Age. 56 years, Occ. Retired/Secretary
R/o. 17/2, Banjara Colony,
Near Santoshi Mata Mandir,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad). ...Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. M.V. Ghatge
Addl. GP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 5 : Mr. A.R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. S.S. Tope
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. V.P. Latange
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Y.V. Kadake
Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. P.B. Shirsath
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 12 AUGUST 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 26 AUGUST 2024
JUDGMENT [Shailesh P. Brahme, J.] :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the parties, heard finally at the admission stage.
2. By way of present petition jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is invoked to challenge letter
dated 22.09.2023, issued by respondent no. 1 inducting new
locations for issuing Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as
'LOI' for the sake of brevity and convenience) for 2024-2025,
government resolution dated 15.02.2024 issuing LOI to
respondent nos. 3 and 4 and government resolution dated
3
15.07.2024 granting final approval to them. Petitioner is also
seeking ancillary orders.
3. The controversy pertains to opening of a College at
Chitte-Pimpalgaon, Taluka and District Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar. The LOI and final permission are regulated under
Maharashtra Public Universities Act 2016 (hereinafter referred to
as 'Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience). Respondent no. 6
is a faction of the office bearers who is at loggerhead with the
Secretary of the petitioner. The petition is opposed by all the
respondents.
Background of the petition :
4. The petitioner is a Registered Public Trust. It was
issued with LOI to run Shri Tuljabhavani Arts and Science College
on permanent non grant basis at Chitte-Pimpalgaon, Taluka and
District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, vide government resolution
dated 15.07.2024. Its College was given affiliation also which was
continued up to 2020-2021.
5. As there were complaints, criminal cases against the
office bearers and serious lapses, an enquiry was conducted by
4
Committee appointed by University. Report was submitted by
covering letter dated 23.08.2023, recommending withdrawal of
affiliation. Consequently, the respondent no. 2 - University had
withdrawn affiliation vide order dated 06.09.2022. It was
challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9809/2022 in the
High Court which was dismissed on merits vide judgment and
order dated 29.08.2023. Being aggrieved, Special Leave Petition
was preferred which was also dismissed by Supreme Court on
06.10.2023.
6. The petitioner submitted applications to respondent
no. 2 - University for renewal of affiliation and for providing
password as all the defects have been removed. By way of our
order dated 14.06.2024 passed in Civil Application No.
3460/2024, respondent no. 2 - University accepted the
application of petitioner for affiliation. Later on, it was rejected
and is under challenge in Writ Petition No. 8542/2024. Presently,
we are not considering the said writ petition. The fact remains
that petitioner is prosecuting independent remedy soliciting
affiliation.
7. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No. 5079/2022
challenging letter dated 22.04.2022 issued by Deputy Secretary of
5
respondent no. 1 and notification - advertisement dated
25.04.2022, inviting proposals for opening new College at Chitte-
Pimpalgaon. It is pending. It is claimed that presently petitioner
does not have affiliation but it has infrastructure to run the
College and the College has not been closed down. The
subsequent developments paved way for the petitioner to prefer
present matter.
Case of the petitioner.
8. Petitioner submitted applications to secure affiliation
but those were not being considered by the University. By letter
dated 22.09.2023, respondent no. 1 instructed respondent no. 2 -
University to invite the proposals for newly added locations for
opening of new Colleges for the year 2024-2025. The location of
Chitte-Pimpalgaon where the petitioner was running College was
one of the added locations. In pursuance of the letters dated
22.09.2023, respondent no. 1 addressed a letter dated
03.11.2023, thereby extending the date for submitting the
proposals up to 15.11.2023. Respondent no. 4 submitted proposal.
Respondent no. 3 did not submit any proposal at all.
6
9. Respondent no. 1 addressed letter dated 25.01.2024 to
respondent no. 2 - University directing it to forward proposal of
respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 1 considered the proposal of
respondent no. 3 which was not routed through the University as
also the proposal of respondent no. 4. The petitioner made
representation on 07.02.2024 to the respondents protesting the
consideration of the proposals of any of the Colleges for location
Chitte-Pimpalgaon which was already having a College run by the
petitioner. By government resolution dated 15.02.2024, LOI was
issued to respondent no. 3 as well as 4 for opening new Colleges
at Chitte-Pimpalgaon. By distinct government resolution dated
15.07.2024, final approval was also issued to respondent nos. 3
and 4. Being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the writ petition.
10. Learned counsel Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge appearing for
the petitioner submits that location Chitte-Pimpalgaon has not
been included in the perspective plan for 2024-2025 to 2029-2030
and no permission could have been given to open new Colleges. It
is illegal to introduce new location in the annual plan. He would
submit that without following due procedure of law impugned
LOIs and final permissions were given which is contrary to
7
Sections 107, 109 (2), 109 (3) (d) of the Act. The petitioner is
already running a College at Chitte-Pimpalgaon at location in
question and has taken required steps to restore the affiliation.
Impugned resolutions are against norms settled by Dr. Narendra
Jadhav Committee and it is leading to unhealthy competition. It is
further submitted that respondent nos. 3 and 4 are run by
politically influential persons and, therefore, total go by was given
to the statutory procedure.
11. Learned counsel would further submits that the
petitioner has locus to maintain the petition because he is
prosecuting Writ Petition No. 8542/2024 soliciting affiliation and
there is unhealthy competition which is likely to cause loss to the
petitioner. He seeks to rely on following judgments :
i. M.S. Jairaj Versus Commissioner of Excise, Kerala , 2000 AIR
(SC) 3266 ;
ii. Ajintha Bahu Uddeshiya Seva Bhavi Sanstha, Aurangabad
Versus The State of Maharashtra and others, passed by this High
Court in Writ Petition No. 10391/2021 ;
iii. Trimurti Pawan Pratishthan Versus State of Maharashtra ,
2024 DGLS (Bom.) 2681 ;
iv. Raju Ramsing Vasave Versus Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar
and Others, 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 1.
8
12. Respondents have opposed the petition. They have
filed affidavits and additional affidavit to contest the petition. The
learned counsels representing them advance following
submission :
Case of respondent no. 1 - State :
13. The perspective plan for 2024-2025 was approved by
respondent no. 5 - Commission vide letter dated 29.07.2023,
thereby, permitting to add the location in question. Accordingly,
instructions were given to the Universities and the Colleges for
inviting proposals to open new Colleges in the year 2024-2025.
Respondent no. 2 - University recommended respondent no. 4 -
College. By invoking powers under Section 109 (3) (d) of the Act,
the proposal of respondent no. 3 - College was called for and
considered. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 - Colleges were found fit as
per government resolution dated 15.09.2017 and LOI were issued.
It is further contended that both these Colleges were issued with
LOI as per the proviso to Section 109 (3) (d) of the Act. The
impugned resolutions are issued after following due procedure of
law. The petitioner has no locus to maintain the petition. A
reliance is also placed on State of Hariyana : Amrit Singh Versus
Chanan Mal : State of Haryana, 1976 AIR (SC) 1654.
9
Case of respondent no. 2 - University :
14. Having suffered de-affiliation and dismissal of Writ
Petition No. 9809/2022 which was confirmed by Supreme Court,
the petitioner has no locus to file petition. The College of the
petitioner does not exist and it has no nexus with respondent no.
2 - University and newly permitted Colleges. The affiliation of the
petitioner's College was withdrawn after conducting due enquiry
vide order dated 06.09.2022. There was mismanagement by the
office bearers of the petitioner and serious lapses were noticed
requiring to resort to de-affiliation. Learned counsel relies on the
judgment of Gurukul Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Pratishthan,
Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra and others , passed
by this High Court in Writ Petition No. 9155/2020.
Defence of respondent nos. 3 and 4 - Colleges :
15. It is submitted that the petitioner has no locus standii
and they were issued with LOI and final permission by following
due procedure of law. It is the case of respondent no. 3 that the
location in question was included in the perspective plan and it
submitted proposal within time. LOI was issued under Section 109
(3) (d) of the Act. It is contended by respondent no. 4 that it was
running Secondary and Higher Secondary School at Chitte-
10
Pimpalgaon. Previously also, the University had recommended its
proposal. There is no illegality in the impugned resolutions.
16. We have considered rival submissions of the litigating
sides advanced across the bar. We have gone through the their
respective affidavits and documents which are placed on record.
Having considered the matter on merits, we find following
relevant undisputed facts :
i. The affiliation of petitioner's college was withdrawn
on 06.09.2022. It was confirmed up to the Supreme Court. A
separate Writ Petition No. 8542/2024 is sub judiced,
soliciting affiliation.
ii. Location of Chitte-Pimpalgaon was incorporated in
annual plan of 2024-2025 by approval of respondent no. 5
vide letter dated 29.07.2024.
iii. Respondent no. 3 had submitted proposal in pursuance
of letter dated 25.01.2024, directly to the State Government.
iv. Respondent no. 4 had submitted the proposal which
was positively recommended by the respondent no. 5 -
University.
v. By invoking powers under Section 109 (3) (d),
respondent nos. 3 and 4 were granted LOI.
11
17. To crystallize the controversy for adjudication, we
propose to formulate following points :
POINTS
I. Whether petitioner has a locus ?
II. Whether addition of location Chitte-Pimpalgaon in
annual plan 2024-2025 is legal and valid ?
III. Whether LOI and final approval given to respondent
no. 3 - College is legal and valid ?
IV. Whether LOI and final approval given to respondent
no. 4 is legal and valid ?
REASONING
Point no. I :
18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have
vehemently objected maintainability of the petition. Admittedly,
affiliation of the petitioner's College was withdrawn on
06.09.2022. The withdrawal is confirmed up to the Supreme
Court. The petitioner has been making attempt to solicit re-
affiliation. It submitted application on 26.09.2023 for issuing
password. By intervention of the Court, the application for
affiliation was accepted by respondent no. 2 - University. Having
suffered rejection of the application, petitioner is prosecuting Writ
12
Petition No. 8542/2024. If it succeeds, the affiliation would be
restored and it would be in a position to run Arts and Science
College at Chitte-Pimpalgaon. The matter pertains to location of
Chitte-Pimpalgaon. Three colleges are staking claim to run College
at a small place, Chitte-Pimpalgaon. The apprehension of
petitioner for unhealthy competition cannot be said to be unreal.
19. Learned counsel Mr. Yuvraj Kakde appearing for
respondent no. 4 has drawn our attention to Section 2 (12) of the
Act. According to him for want of affiliation, the petitioner cannot
be said to have any existing College at Chitte-Pimpalgaon.
Therefore, there is no question of any unhealthy competition. We
would have accepted this submission had the petitioner been not
granted permission to run College and consequently, affiliation
since from 2009-2010. The affiliation of the petitioner was
renewed up to 2019-2020. By order dated 06.09.2022, the
affiliation was withdrawn. The petitioner is not soliciting
affiliation for the first time, rather it is attempting to restore the
affiliation or soliciting renewal of affiliation. Under these peculiar
circumstances, we are not prepared to accept the submissions of
Advocate Mr. Kakade.
13
20. Dr. Narendra Jadhav Committee was appointed.
Norms were laid for opening of new Colleges. As per the norms
distance between two Colleges in the rural area should be 20 k.m.
Without entering into the controversy whether the norms are
directory or mandatory, it can be said that the apprehension of the
petitioner is legitimate. It has locus standii.
Point no. II :
21. The perspective plan under Section 107 of the Act is
published for five years from 2024 to 2029. There cannot be a
perspective plan for 2024-2025 which is a misnomer frequently
referred to in correspondence dated 22.09.2023, 03.11.2023,
public proclamation dated 06.11.2023 and the affidavit-in-reply of
respondents. The annual plan is prepared by Board of Deans and
it has to be in consonance with the perspective plan. It is relevant
to notice following provision Section 37 (1) (i) of the Act :
"37. Powers and Duties of Board of Deans.-
(1) The Board of Deans shall have the following powers and
duties, namely : -
(a) .....
(b) .....
.....
(i) to prepare the annual plan for the location of colleges and
institutions of higher learning, in consonance with the perspective
plan."
14
The Board of Deans prepares the annual plan. Then
the Management Council recommends it for the location of the
Colleges prepared by Board of Deans. Therefore, academic council
approves it. This is the frame work for preparing annual plan
under the statute.
22. The perspective plan is prepared by the University
under Section 107 (5) of the Act. The Board of Deans under
Section 37 (1) (h) of the Act, prepares the perspective plan and
under clause (i) prepares annual plan. The perspective plans and
annual plans are recommended by Management Council under
Section 31 (y) of the Act. Thereafter, Academic Council approves
those plans under Section 33 (1) (q) of the Act. The perspective
plan prepared by the University needs an approval by Commission
under Section 77 (1) (b) of the Act. Thus there is distinction
between perspective plan and annual plan. As per Section 37 (1)
(i) of the Act the annual plan of the University for opening new
Colleges shall be in accordance with the perspective plan in all
respect including the location.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly referred
to our decision in the matter of Trimurti Pawan Pratishthan
15
(supra). It is relevant to refer to paragraph nos. 22 to 26 which
read thus :
"22. As regards the sanctity of the perspective plan as
contemplated under Section 107 is concerned, reading of Section
107 alone would not suffice. It is also necessary to understand the
process which is required to be followed before any public
university prepares a perspective plan, tenure of which is five
years. As indicated therein the plan has to be approved by the
Commission constituted under Section 76, which means the
Maharashtra State Commission for Higher Education and
Development. It comprises the Chief Minister as the Chairman and
Minister for Higher and Technical Education as the Vice-Chairman.
There are Secretaries of as many as seven departments of the
State, Educationist, Vice-Chancellors, Principals, eminent teachers,
five other Ministers, Leaders of Opposition, Members of the
Legislative Council and Assembly as its members. Section 77 lays
down the functions and duties of the Commission and clauses (a)
and (b) of Sub- Section 1 of Section 77 expressly lays down and
empowers the Commission to prepare guidelines for perspective
plan for each University, for the location of the Colleges and
institution of higher learning in a manner ensuring equitable
distribution or facilities for higher education and to approve the
comprehensive perspective plans submitted by the universities.
23. The Tasks of preparing a perspective plan is imposed upon the
board of Deans. Even it has to prepare the annual plan. Even
before it is placed before the commission for final approval, the
draft goes through the scrutiny by the academic council, Senate
and Management Council. If such is the meticulous and detail
procedure to be followed before the comprehensive perspective
plan for a period of five years is prepared and becomes final, one
need not overemphasize its sanctity and importance.
24. No provision is pointed out by the learned advocate
particularly the learned AGP and the learned advocate representing
the University to demonstrate as to if such a perspective plan
prepared by the University is susceptible to any concession/leeway
either in respect of the institutes/new Colleges to be opened, new
courses to be started or for changing the location. Even Sub-
Section 4 of Section 107 requires preferences to be given to the
districts where gross enrollment ratio is less than the national
average and also to the tribal, hilly and inaccessible areas besides
quality bench mark, inclusive growth, social relevance and value
education. This is clearly demonstrative of the fact that several
16
factors are to be taken into consideration before finalizing a
perspective plan. Every consideration would have its own sanctity
and importance. Consequently in our considered view, it is
necessary that any such perspective plan is followed strictly by all
the stake holders else the purpose and object of preparing a
perspective plan would be lost.
25. Having borne in mind, the sanctity and importance of the
perspective plan it is imperative that any annual plan which is
published every year is strictly in accordance with and should be
compatible with the perspective plan. Looked at from this angle, as
is pointed out by Mr. Nagargoje the perspective plan that was
published by the respondent No.3 - University, by Government
Resolution dated 15.09.2017 which was for a period of five years,
did not indicate any plan for starting a new law College in entire
Newasa Taluka. We, therefore, have no manner of doubt that the
annual plan pursuant to which both these institutes had applied in
response to the notification issued by the respondent No.3 -
University, is clearly in violation of the perspective plan and for
this reason alone the entire process of issuing notification dated
10.01.2023 inviting application for the location 'Kharde Newasa
Phata', which is not at all traceable to the perspective plan,
becomes illegal.
26. We cannot approve of rather would deprecate the practise of
the respondent No.3- University in not being consistent in
upholding the sanctity of a perspective plan and rather indulging
in illegalities by coming out with an annual plan inconsistent with
the perspective plan to the extent of the location in dispute and
starting of a new law College which is not traceable to the
perspective plan. In our considered view, this in itself is sufficient
to quash the permission granted to respondent No.4 - Institute
under the impugned GR. Obviously, this will obviate any
consideration of any other objection being raised in both these
petitions questioning sustainability and legality of the permission
granted to respondent No.4. However, by way of precaution, we
would examine even that aspect."
24. We propose to examine the present matter in the
context of the principle laid down in paragraph no. 26 quoted
above. The petitioner has vehemently submitted that Chitte-
Pimpalgaon is not included in the perspective plan for 2024 to
17
2029. There is no reply to this factual aspect which goes to the
root of the matter. Surprisingly, respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 have
made attempt to submit that Chitte-Pimpalgaon was added in
perspective plan of 2024-2025. Being highly placed public officers
they should have been candid to disclose as to whether location in
question is included in perspective plan of 2024-2029 or not.
There is every reason to draw adverse inference against them.
25. By letter dated 29.07.2024 issued by respondent no. 5
- Commissioner Chitte-Pimpalgaon is included in the perspective
plan. In pursuance of it, impugned letter dated 22.09.2023 was
addressed by respondent no. 1 to the University disclosing
addition of new locations for opening of the new Colleges. Further
correspondence dated 03.11.2023, candidly discloses addition of
Chitte-Pimpalgaon. We find that relevant extract of perspective
plan 2024-2029 is on record disclosing that Chitte-Pimpalgaon
was not included in it. Thus the location in question is for the first
time added on or from 29.07.2024, in the annual plan.
26. If this is the situation, then by following our decision
rendered in Trimurti Pawan Pratishthan (supra), we have no
option but to hold that annual plan of 2024-2025 with added
18
location in question is inconsistent with the perspective plan and
impugned LOI and final approvals are liable to be quashed.
27. It has been argued by learned counsel for respondent
nos. 1 and 2 that it is permissible to add new location in the
annual plan. We have gone through the provision of Section 77
(1) which stipulates function of the Commission. We do not find
any such power with the Commission. Similarly no provision is
pointed out from Section 107 or 109, empowering the
respondents/authorities to incorporate new location once
perspective plan for five years has been brought into force.
Incorporation of Chitte-Pimpalgaon for allotting Colleges in the
academic year 2024-2025 is illegal and strategic.
Point no. III :
28. Respondent no. 3 did not submit the proposal initially.
There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent no. 2 -
University considered its proposal either way and it was
forwarded to respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 3 tendered
proposal in pursuance of direction issued by letter dated
25.01.2024. Till then, there was no scrutiny of the proposal of the
respondent no. 3 nor forwarding of proposal to respondent no. 1.
19
29. The scheme of Section 109 of the Act, does not
stipulate any procedure for forwarding the proposal to respondent
no. 1 without there-being any scrutiny with positive or negative
recommendation of the University. The proviso to Section 109 (3)
(d) empowers the State Government to grant LOI notwithstanding
negative recommendation. But it does not empower it to grant LOI
in the absence of any recommendation from the University.
Interestingly, the University is not candid enough in its affidavit-
in-reply to disclose that the proposal of respondent no. 3 was not
scrutinized by it and was not forwarded to respondent no. 1 with
recommendations, either way.
30. Respondent no. 3 had not submitted any application to
the University and had submitted it directly to the State
Government. Section 109 (5) of the Act reads as follows :
"109. Procedure for permission for opening new college or new
course, subject, faculty, division.-
(1) .....
(2) .....
(5) No application shall be entertained directly by the State
Government for grant of Letter of Intent, under sub-section (3) or
final approval under sub-section (4), as the case may be."
20
The decision making process in respect of respondent
no. 3 is, thus, de hors the statutory norms and liable to be
quashed in view of Section 109 (2) and (5) of the Act.
31. If the submissions of respondent nos. 1 and 2 that
respondent no. 1 has extra ordinatry powers to grant LOI even if
the location is not part of perspective plan and even if there is no
recommendation either favourable or negative by the university
are accepted then there would be no reason to create statutory
channel for submission of the proposals and the recommendations
of the University. The whole object for prescribing procedure
under Section 109 for granting permission to open new colleges,
is to ensure uniformity, transparency and to streamline the
opening of new colleges. Plain reading of Section 109 (2) of the
Act shows strict compliance of due procedure is contemplated. It
seeks to avoid arbitrariness and high handedness. The respondent
no. 1 has no unbridled powers to entertain any proposal which is
not in consonance with the perspective plan, policy of education
and due procedure.
32. Learned AGP would advert our attention to paragraph
no. 8 of reply dated 29.07.2024. For the reasons stated therein,
21
the respondent no. 1 - State issued LOI by invoking special
powers under Section 109 (3) (d) of the Act. As we have
concluded that the respondent no. 1 - State has no such power to
add any new location which is not part of the perspective plan, it
would be futile to assign reasons as attempted in paragraph no. 8.
33. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent no. 2
refers to judgment rendered in the matter of Gurukul
Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Pratishthan, Waghalgaon, Aurangabad
(supra). The facts and situation in that matter was totally
different. High Court was dealing with power of the State to grant
LOI despite negative recommendation of the University. It is held
that as per Section 109 (3) (d) of the Act, under exceptional
circumstances and for the reasons to be recorded the State has
such power. The case in hand is about addition of location which
is not part of the perspective plan. The ratio is of no avail to the
respondents.
Point no. IV :
34. Respondent no. 4 had submitted the proposal to the
University for the location, Chitte-Pimpalgaon. We have already
recorded that Chitte-Pimpalgaon was added for the first time in
22
annual plan of 2024-2025. It was not included in the perspective
plan of 2024-2029. It is usurpation of power to issue LOI for
newly added location under garb of Section 109 (3) (d) of the Act.
The reasons mentioned in paragraph no. 8 of reply of respondent
no. 1 / State would be of no help. We are inclined to quash LOI by
following ratio of Trimurti Pawan Pratishthan (supra).
35. Respondent no. 2 - University has not disclosed
relevant facts which are within its special knowledge, to assist the
court. Being independent educational authority, it was expected of
it to disclose as to whether Chitte-Pimpalgaon is included in the
perspective plan or not and as to whether there was any
recommendation either positive or negative to the proposals of
respondent nos. 3 and 4. The location in question is incorporated
in defiance with the perspective plan. The respondent no. 3 was
specially called upon to submit the proposal. This type of red
carpet treatment to respondent no. 3 is astonishing. There is every
reason to infer that respondent nos. 3 and 4 are run by influential
persons and therefore, they were being treated specially, by-
passing the procedure. Granting permission to open new colleges
23
simultaneously to respondent nos. 3 and 4 at the same village is
highly objectionable, totally unwarranted and grossly illegal.
36. Learned counsel Mr. S.S. Tope for respondent no. 2 -
University would submit that Act 2016 is beneficial legislation. It
is permissible to grant LOI to respondent nos. 3 and 4 being
deserving institutes. We have reservations about sustainability of
this submission. No provision is pointed out to show that there is
trapping of beneficial legislation or meant for weaker section or
downtrodden section or unequally placed persons. There is no
question of upliftment of any Section of the society or safeguard
the rights of vulnerable element of the Society. Rather, it is a
matter of regulating the procedure for opening of the Colleges
keeping in view the educational standards, infrastructure and
welfare of the students. Just because students are the beneficiaries
would not render the Act 2016 as a beneficial legislation. We find
the submission of the learned counsel is preposterous.
37. The analysis of our reasoning is that the impugned
government resolutions and letter dated 22.09.2023 are liable to
be quashed. We, therefore, pass following order :
24
ORDER
I. Writ Petition is allowed.
II. The communication dated 22.09.2023 issued by
respondent no. 1 is quashed and set aside.
III. Government resolution dated 15.02.2024 issuing
LOI to respondent nos. 3 and 4 as well as government
resolution of 15.07.2024 granting final approval to
respondent nos. 3 and 4 are quashed and set aside.
IV. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
Thakur-Chauhan/-
