Bombay High Court
Rashtra Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. Principal ... on 3 April, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:4096-DB
1 901-J-4990-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No. 4990 OF 2022
PETITIONERS : 1 Rashtra Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, a
trust duly registered under
Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950
through its President Shri
Damodhar B. Parate, Aged about
75 years, having its office at
Khapa, Tahsil-Saoner, Dist.
Nagpur
2. Nandkrupa Gramain Vikas
Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, a
trust duly registered under
Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950
through its President Shri Vijay
Madhukar Tekade, Aged about 45
years, having its office at Saoner,
Tahsil-Saoner, Dist. Nagpur
3. Swargiya Revanath Choure
Memorial Trust, Nagpur, a trust
duly registered under Maharashtra
Public Trust Act, 1950 through its
President Shri Sanjay Revanath
Choure, Aged about 45 years,
having its office at Nagpur, Dist.
Nagpur
4. Sarswati Bahuddeshiya Shikshan
Sanstha, Patansawangi, a trust
duly registered under Maharashtra
Public Trust Act, 1950 through its
President Dr. Maroti Ramkrushan
Wagh, Aged about 50 years,
having its office at Patansawangi,
Tahsil-Saoner, Dist. Nagpur.
2 901-J-4990-2022.odt
5. Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj
Shikshan Sanstha, Panjra, a trust
duly registered under Maharashtra
Public Trust Act, 1950 through its
President Shri Madhukar Atmaram
Wakde, Aged about 65 years,
having its office at Panjra (Koradi),
Kamptee, Nagpur
Vs.
RESPONDENTS : 1 State of Maharashtra, through
Principal Secretary, Higher &
Technical Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2 Maharashtra State Commission for
Higher Education and
Development, through it
Chairman, Mantralaya, Mumbai-01
3 Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
4 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj,
Nagpur University, through its
Registrar having its office at
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
Administrative Premises,
Ravindranath Tagor Marg,
Nagpur-01
5. Dr. Sanjay Santoshrao Dudhe,
Aged about 60 years, Occu. Pro
Vice-Chancellor, having its office at
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
Administrative Premises,
Ravindranath Tagor Marg, Civil
Lines, Nagpur
3 901-J-4990-2022.odt
6. Pragati Bahuddeshiya Education
Society, a trust duly registered
under the Maharashtra Public Trust
Act, 1950, having its office at
Shinde Classes, in front of
Gandhisagar Lake, Near Shikshak
Sahakari Bank, Beside Tata Parsi
School, Nagpur - 440002
7. Shivtirth Charitable Trust, Umari, a
trust duly registered under
Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950
having its office at Umari, Tahsil
Saoner, District - Nagpur
Mr. R.M.Bhangde, Advocate with Mr. N.S. Lande, Adv.
for the petitioners.
Mr. J.Y.Ghurde, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. N.S.Khubalkar, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr. A.V.Lokhande, Advocate for respondent No.6.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : 3rd APRIL, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard Mr.Bhangde, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr.Ghurde, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent Nos.1 and 3 Mr.Khubalkar, learned counsel for
respondent No.4 and Mr.Lokhande, learned counsel for
respondent No.6, none appears for other respondents though
served.
4 901-J-4990-2022.odt
2) The petition seeks to quash the annual plan
prepared by the respondent No.4 for the academic year
2022-2023, on the ground that it is violative of the provisions
of Section 107 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act,
2016 and also being contrary to the guidelines framed by
Dr.Narendra Jadhav Committee and so also quash the
advertisement dated 22/04/2022 as well as LOI dated
15/07/2022 insofar as the entries No.99 and 100 in relation
to respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein, which permit them to
open a college at Saoner. Mr.Bhangde, learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that the perspective plan for the year
2019 to 2024, prepared in terms of the provisions of Section
107(1) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act (MPU Act,
for short hereinafter) indicated the requirement of opening
one college at Saoner for the courses of B.A., B.Co.m. and
B.Sc. which was to be for women only (page 219). It is
contended that in consonance with the same Sindhutai
Sapkal Mahila Mahavidyala was opened in the year 2021 at
Saoner for imparting education in traditional courses of B.A.,
B.com. and B.Sc. It is contended that contrary thereto the
annual plan for 2022-2023, indicated requirement of two
more co-educational institutions, for the courses of Arts,
Commerce and Science (page 251) which was contrary, to
what was the requirement indicated in the perspective plan.
5 901-J-4990-2022.odt
Since the letter of intent has been issued by virtue of GR
dated 15/07/2022 in terms of the annual plan, thereby
granting LOI in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 to opening
co-education colleges in Arts, Commerce and Science at
Saoner, the same, according to him is contrary to the what
has been mandated in the perspective plan and cannot be
sustained. He further submits that the preparation of the
perspective plan, is a multistage process inasmuch as, the
plan has to proceed, from the Board of Deans, to the
management council, to the academic council and then to the
Senate. It is contended that in the present case, none of the
stage through which the annual plan has to pass, has been
complied with, on account of which the preparation of the
annual plan itself stands vitiated. He places reliance upon
Nisargdeep Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad
vs. The State of Maharashtra decided on 26/08/2024 in
support of his contention. He therefore contends that on the
above grounds, the petition needs to be allowed.
3) Mr. Khubalkar, learned counsel for respondent No.4
does not dispute that the annual plan for the year 2022-
2023, did not pass through the stages as contended,
however, he submits that the Vice Chancellor in exercise of
his power under Section 12(7) of the MPU Act, has exercised
emergency power, (page 403), to approve the annual plan
6 901-J-4990-2022.odt
and has sent according intimation to the various bodies of
the University which are concerned with its preparation and
therefore, there cannot be any objection to the academic
plan by the petitioner.
4) He further contends that the expression "in
consonance with" as occurring in Section 107(5) of the MPU
Act would only mean that the annual plan has to be in line
with the perspective plan insofar as the location is concerned
and not the numbers and the University while preparing the
annual plan would have the right to increase the number of
colleges which it feels, are necessary to come up. He further
submits that it was never the intent of the legislature while
preparing the annual plan under Section 107(5) to restrict
the power of the University, so that it could not go beyond
the perspective plan insofar as the numbers are concerned.
It is contended that in relation to the perspective plan only
the location is locked and not the numbers. He further
invites our attention to Section 109(2) of the MPU Act, to
contend that it speaks about the entire Section 107 and not a
particular part of that section and therefore, cannot be
granted a restricted meaning.
5) In order to consider the controversy it is necessary
to reproduce relevant provisions which are as under :-
Sections 12(7), 29(h), 31(y), 33(p) and (q), 37(h) and (i),
7 901-J-4990-2022.odt
107 and 109 (1) and (2)
12. Power and duties of Vice-Chancellor
(7) If there are reasonable grounds for the Vice-
Chancellor to believe that there is an emergency which
requires immediate action to be taken, or if any action is
required to be taken in the interest of the university, he
shall take such action, as he thinks necessary, and shall
at the earliest opportunity, report in writing the grounds
for his belief that there was an emergency, and the
action taken by him, to such authority or body as shall,
in the ordinary course, have dealt with the matter. In
the event of a difference arising between the Vice-
Chancellor and the authority or body whether there was
in fact an emergency, or on the action taken where such
action does not affect any person in the service of the
University, or on both, the matter shall be referred to
the Chancellor whose decision shall be final :
Provided that, where any such action taken by the Vice-
Chancellor affects any person in the service of the
university, such person shall be entitled to prefer, within
thirty days from the date on which he receives notice of
such action, an appeal to the Management Council.
Explanation.- For purposes of this sub-section, action
taken by the Vice Chancellor shall not include
disciplinary action taken against any employee of the
university.
29. Functions and duties of Senate.
(h) to approve comprehensive perspective plan and
annual plan for the location of colleges and institutions
of higher learning, as recommended by the Academic
Council;
31. Powers and duties of Management Council
(y) to recommend to the Academic Council the
comprehensive perspective plan and annual plan for the
location of colleges and institutions of higher learning,
as prepared by the Board of Deans;
33. Powers and duties of Academic Council
(p) to recommend to the senate the comprehensive
perspective plan as prepared by the Board of Deans and
recommended by the Management Council;
(q) to approve annual plan for the location of colleges
and institutions of higher learning, as prepared by the
8 901-J-4990-2022.odt
Board of Deans and recommended by the Management
Council;
37.Powers and Duties of Board of Deans.
(h) to prepare a comprehensive perspective plan of five
years for integrating therein the plan of Development in
a manner ensuring equitable distribution of facilities for
higher education, as per the guidelines framed by the
Commission;
(i) to prepare the annual plan for the location of
colleges and institutions of higher learning, in
consonance with the perspective plan;
107. Perspective Plan
(1) The university shall prepare a comprehensive
perspective plan for every five years and get the same
approved by Commission. Such plan shall be prepared
for the location of colleges and institutions of higher
learning in a manner ensuring comprehensive equitable
distribution of facilities for higher education having due
regard, in particular, to the needs of unserved and
under-developed areas within the jurisdiction of the
university. Such plan shall be prepared by the Board of
Deans and shall be placed before the Academic Council
and the Senate through the Management Council.
(2) The perspective plan shall include the new courses
and faculties to be permitted which shall be determined
by studying the social and economic needs of the
region, job opportunities available and requirements of
the industry and should be as per policies of and in
conformity with the plans of the State Government and
the National Policy for Higher Education for achieving
National and State objectives of higher access, equity,
excellence, research, relevance and quality.
(3) The perspective plan shall make provision for the
subjects, number of new divisions and satellite centres
to be permitted to the colleges and institutions of higher
learning in different regions after factoring in the
demand for the same and shall be in conformity with the
plans of and after the approval of Commission under
section 76.
(4) While preparing the perspective plan preference
shall be given to the districts where Gross Enrolment
Ratio is less than the national average and also to the
tribal, hilly and inaccessible areas besides quality
benchmarks, inclusive growth, social relevance and
value education.
9 901-J-4990-2022.odt
(5) The university shall initiate a time bound
programme to prepare an annual plan every year for the
location of colleges and institutions of higher learning, in
consonance with the perspective plan and shall publish it
before the end of academic year preceding the year in
which the proposals for the opening of new colleges or
institutions of higher learning are to be invited.
(6) The University shall undertake the systematic field
survey within the geographical jurisdiction of the
University every five years regarding the requirements
of the facilities of Higher Education, types of skills
needed for the local industries, trade and commerce,
aspirations of youth of the region, needs of socially and
economically deprived youth like female students,
backward and tribal communities and such other related
factors. The university shall use the findings of such field
survey and develop the scientific database while
preparing the perspective plan of the university.
109. Procedure for permission for opening new
college or new course, subject, faculty, division.
(1) The proposal for opening of new colleges or
institutions of higher learning or for starting new courses
of study, subjects, faculties, additional divisions or
satellite centers, shall be invited and considered by the
university.
(2) No application for opening a new college or
institution of higher learning, which is not in conformity
with the perspective plan prepared under section 107
shall be considered by the university.
6) The above provisions would indicate, that the basic
responsibility of preparing of perspective plan is by the Board
of Deans under Section 37(h) of the MPU Act. The propose of
preparing such a perspective plan, is to ensure the equitable
distribution of facilities for higher education, in the areas,
where they are not available, considering the various factors
as mentioned in Section 107(1) of the MPU Act. The process
for approval of the perspective plan, thereafter, unfolds by
the same being sent to the Management Council of the
10 901-J-4990-2022.odt
University, who in terms of Section 31(y) of the MPU Act
recommends it to the Academic Council. It thereafter, goes
to the Academic Council of the University, which in exercise
of the powers under Section 33(p) of the MPU Act, further
recommends it to the Senate, who in turn after considering
the same in exercise of the powers under Section 29(h)
approves the same. The same is thereafter sent to the
Commission as constituted under Section 76 of the MPU Act,
who in exercise of powers under Section 77(b) R/w 107(1)
approves the same. It would, therefore, be apparent that the
preparation of the perspective plan, is something which is
based upon deliberation by as many as four different bodies
of the University, who consider and reconsider, the factors,
as contemplated by Section 107(1) and (2), in the
preparation of the perspective plan.
7) What is also further necessary to note, is that the
academic plan for each year also goes through the same
procedure, inasmuch as the Board of Deans in exercise of
powers under Section 37(1)(i) of the Act prepares it for the
location of colleges in consonance with the perspective plan
which is then sent to the Management Council, who in
exercise of the powers under Section 31(y) of the Act
recommends it to the Academic Council, which in turn in
exercise of powers under Section 33(q) of the MPU Act
11 901-J-4990-2022.odt
approves it, which is then sent to the Senate for its approval
by exercise of the powers under Section 29(h) of the Act.
8) What is also necessary to note, is that Sections
31(y), 33(q) and 29(h) of the MPU Act, all indicate, that the
approval and recommendation of the academic plan, has to
be in respect of the locations which are in the perspective
plan. This is fortified by language of Section 37(i) of the MPU
Act, which requires the preparation of the annual plan for the
locations of the Colleges and Institutions in consonance with
the perspective plan. The same expression is also found in
Section 107(5) of the MPU Act, which would necessarily
indicate, that the academic plan, cannot be considered for a
location, which is not contemplated by the perspective plan.
9) Though Mr. Khubalkar, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 4 contends, that the restriction as
contemplated by the expression "in consonance with" has to
be read in the context of location only and not in respect of
number of colleges, we are unable to agree with this
contention for the reason, that if the locations are locked
then any increase, has to be for another location and cannot
be restricted to the locations already existing in the
perspective plan. It would, therefore, apparent that it would
not be permissible for the academic council, to bypass the
locations and numbers of the Colleges and Institutions
12 901-J-4990-2022.odt
permitted to be opened, beyond that what is contemplated
and provided by the perspective plan. This is moreso, for the
reason that holding so, would indicate, that the various
bodies of the Universities entrusted with the job of preparing
annual plan while granting approval to the annual plan could
be permitted to travel beyond the perspective plan, which
has already been approved by the Commission, which cannot
be the position.
10) The further contention of Mr. Khubalkar, learned
counsel for the respondent No.4 based upon of Section
109(2) of the MPU Act that it only speaks about Section 107
of the Act and, therefore, it will have to be considered in its
totality, also does not appeal to us, for the reason that Sub-
Section 2 of Section 109 of the MPU Act itself indicates, that
no application for opening a new College or Institution, which
is not in conformity with the perspective plan, shall be
considered by the University. Use of the expression
"perspective plan" in Section 109(2) of the MPU Act would
relate to the perspective plan under Section 107(1) to (4)
and not Section 107(5) of the MPU Act which relates to the
annual plan.
11) That brings us to the contention of Mr. Bhangde,
learned counsel for the petitioners, that the annual plan for
the year 2022-23, did not pass through the procedure as
13 901-J-4990-2022.odt
indicated above, but was prepared by the Vice-Chancellor
under Section 12(7) of the Act. Since this is a situation, not
disputed by Mr. Khubalkar, learned counsel for the
respondent No.4, it would be necessary to consider the
powers of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 12(7) of the
MPU Act. Section 12(7) of the MPU Act is the emergency
power of the Vice-Chancellor, to be exercised only in a
contingency where there are reasonable grounds for the
Vice-Chancellor to believe that there is an emergency which
requires immediate action to be taken, or if any action is
required to be taken in the interest of the University, in which
case, in exercise of its powers, he can take such action and
report in writing the grounds for his belief that there was an
emergency and so also the action taken by him to such
authority or body, which in the ordinary course, would have
dealt with the matter.
12) In this context, Mr. Khubalkar, learned counsel for
the respondent No.4 has relied upon the communication
dated 19.7.2021 issued by the Under Secretary to the State
to the Vice-Chancellor (page 397), calling upon the Vice-
Chancellor, to submit, in any case, the annual plan for the
academic year 2022-23. It is submitted, that in such a
situation, where an outer limit of 31.07.2021, was given for
the submission of the academic plan, that a Committee
14 901-J-4990-2022.odt
comprising of three persons, (1) Dr. Sanjay Kavishwar, (2)
Dr. Mrs. Rajashree Vaishanv and (3) Dr. Nirmal Singh, was
constituted in terms of the provisions of the MPU Act and the
Government Resolution dated 15.09.2017 by the Board of
Deans, which Committee prepared the annual plan and
resolved to send it to the Commission for its approval (page
399). The Vice-Chancellor has, thereafter, in excise of his
powers under Section 12(7) of the MPU Act sent it to the
Commission for it approval.
13) Mr. Khubalkar, learned counsel for the respondent
No. 4, however, fairly concedes, that there is no provision
under the MPU Act and specifically in Section 107 of the MPU
Act, which requires the approval of the Commission for
approval of the annual plan, he, however submits, that such
a requirement would have to be read into the said provisions.
In this context, the scheme for preparation of the perspective
and annual plan as indicated above, would indicate, that the
locations at which the permission to open new Colleges and
educational Institutions is to be granted has already been
locked in view of the approval of the perspective plan. The
annual plan, therefore, has to restrict itself, to the locations
already approved by the perspective plan and not otherwise.
Since this is the position, Section 107(5) of the MPU Act,
insofar as the annual plan is concerned, grants powers to the
15 901-J-4990-2022.odt
University to approve the same. A perusal of the language of
Section 107(1) R/w Section 77(1)(b) of the MPU Act, would
further indicate, that it restricts the power of Commission,
regarding approval of the perspective plan and does not
empower the Commission to consider the academic plan,
which is basically for the reason that the academic plan, in
terms of the language of the aforesaid provisions has to
operate within the four corners of the perspective plan. It is,
therefore, apparent, that none of the provision of the MPU
Act require the academic plan, to be sent to the Commission
for its approval and the approval by the University in exercise
of powers under Section 107(5) of MPU Act is all that is
required. It would, therefore, be apparent that reliance
placed on the communication dated 19.7.2021 (page 397), is
clearly misplaced, as there was no reason or cause for the
Vice-Chancellor, to send the academic plan to the
Commission, for its approval in the statutory scheme of the
MPU Act. Thus there was no emergency in existence at all as
is sought to be indicated in terms of communication dated
19.7.2021. That apart, what is also necessary to note, in
view of what we have held above, that the annual plan,
cannot traverse beyond the perspective plan, is that the
Committee constituted and which in its meeting dated
27.7.2021 (page 399), granted approval to the academic
16 901-J-4990-2022.odt
plan which was then sent by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise
of its powers under Section under Section 12(7) of the MPU
Act to the Commission has acted contrary to the perspective
plan by proposing two additional colleges at Saoner, which
were not contemplated by the perspective plan. Such an
action, on the part of the Committee also cannot be
countenanced, the same being contrary to the mandate of
Section 107(1) R/w 77(b) of the MPU Act and the procedure
as indicated above for preparation and approval of the
perspective plan.
14) We, therefore, quash and set aside the annual plan
for the academic year 2022-23 insofar as it is contrary to the
perspective plan, the same being without any jurisdiction
and authority in the Committee, which had prepared it and
absence of any emergency, as contemplated by Section
12(7) of the MPU Act. As a result of the above, the petition
is allowed, in terms of clause (b) and (c) to the extent they
are in violations of the perspective plan. In the
circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Rule accordingly.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Kolhe / Deshpande
Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/04/2025 17:31:05
