Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an appeal for setting asid1e the order of the Division Bench of
Bombay High Court whereby permission granted by the State Government to the
appellant for starting new college at Ghugus, District Chandrapur was declared
illegal and quashed.
The appellant submitted an application dated 21.10.1998 to Nagpur
University, Nagpur [for short “the University”] for grant of permission to start an
Arts and Commerce College at Ghugus. Respondent no.3 also made similar
application on 29.10.1998. The University forwarded both the applications to the
State Government though recommendation was made only in favour of respondent
no.3. In July 1999, a Committee comprising of the then Chief Minister, Deputy Chief
Minister and Education Minister considered various applications filed for grant of
permission to set up colleges at various places in the State. For Ghugus, the
Committee decided to grant permission to the appellant for starting the college from
academic year 1999-2000. Thereafter, the appellant established the college and
admitted students for the academic year 1999-2000.
Respondent no.3 filed Writ Petition No. 4420/1999 for quashing the
decision of the State Government. He pleaded that there did not exist any extraordinary reason which could justify the State Government’s action to allow the
appellant herein to establish college ignoring the fact that the University had not
recommended its case. In the counter-affidavit it was claimed that the provisions of
Section 82 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 [in short, “the Act”] are not
attracted in the case because the University had not prepared perspective plan as per
the requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 82. It was then pleaded that the State
Government could, in exercise of its discretionary power under the proviso to sub-
section (5) of Section 82, grant permission to the appellant.
The High Court, after noticing the factual matrix of the case, held that
without recording specific reasons for doing so, the State Government could not have
granted permission to respondent no.1 (appellant herein) by exercising its
discretionary power under proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 82 of the Act despite
the fact that its case had not been recommended by the University.
While issuing notice of the special leave petition filed by the appellant,
which was, later on converted into this appeal, the Court directed that there shall be
stay in the meantime and by virtue of that order, the college established by the
appellant has been functioning for last almost ten years.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the appellant brought to the Court’s
notice that in terms of Section 82(1) of the Act, the University has prepared
perspective plan which envisages establishment of six colleges in Chandrapur
District for the academic years 2008-2009 to 2013-2014 and Ghugus is one of the
locations where college is to be established. Learned counsel for the University stated
that he is not in a position to controvert the assertions of the appellant’s counsel.
In view of the afore-mentioned development, we do not consider it
necessary to go into the merits of the impugned order, but, at the same time, we are
satisfied that it would be just and expedient to set aside the impugned order so that
functioning of the college established by the appellant may not be adversely affected.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the
writ petition filed by respondent no. 3 is dismissed leaving the question of law open to
be decided in an appropriate case. No costs.
New Delhi, March 26, 2009.