AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for respondent - State Government and Ms. T. Khan, learned Counsel for respondent University in Writ Petition No. 6307/2011. In other matters, none has appeared for Respondent University. Considering the controversy involved, and with consent of the respective counsel appearing in the matter and since the controversy involved in all the Writ Petitions is common, all are being disposed of by this common judgment. Rule is accordingly issued in all the matter, and the same is made returnable forthwith. Respondents do not dispute that the matters are covered by judgment of this Court which is affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.
This is fourth round of litigation in so far as petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3581/2012 is concerned. Challenge in all these Writ Petitions is to rejection by the State Government of permission to start college on permanent no grant basis under Section 82[5] of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 as in force in 2010. It is not in dispute that in terms of said Section 82, and within stipulated time, all petitioners moved their applications and Nagpur University favourably recommended those proposals and sent it to the State Government. The details in this respect can be seen in chart below:
By orders dated 13.12.2010, the State Government has refused permission to petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3581/2012. By similar order passed on different dates, assigning some what same reason, permission has been denied to other petitioners. It is not necessary for this Court to go into individual matters, as Division Bench of this Court in judgment reported at Social Society Vs. The Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, State of Maharashtra and University of Mumbai, (2011) 4 ALLMR 40 : (2011) 3 BomCR 550 : (2011) 113 BOMLR 2249 : (2011) 4 MhLj 316 , found that when college is being set up on permanent no grant basis and Government is not expected to release any aid to it, previous permission of State Government under Section 82[5] of the Universities Act, is not necessary. This judgment was questioned before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 15963/2011 and that Special Leave Petition has been dismissed on 02.05.2013 with following order:
"Heard Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
We are in agreement with the view of the High Court that Section 82[5] of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 has no application if a minority institution intends to start a new college on permanent no grant-in-aid basis and without taking any financial assistance or aid from the Government.
Special Leave Petition has no merit and it is dismissed.
I.A. No. 7 of 2012 for intervention stands disposed of."
Thus, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has agreed with the said judgment. Respondents before us do not dispute that this law squarely clinches the controversy before us in relation to petitioners'' minority institutes.
Respective learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing on behalf of the State Government, however, rely upon reply-affidavit. They submit that because of Government Resolution dated 30.10.2010, the proposals received by the State Government were verified and as the same were found lacking in material particulars, came to be rejected.
We find that said circular of State Government cannot be inconsistent with Section 82 and the Division Bench of this Court has on 04.05.2011 found such permission under Section 82[5], not necessary for minority institutions. Thus, reliance upon the above mentioned Government Resolution dated 30.10.2010 is, misconceived.
As the previous permission of State Government is not required, it is apparent that the impugned orders assailed before us, are without jurisdiction and un-sustainable. However, our attention has been drawn to the other requirements which are endorsed by the Division Bench judgment in paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 of the reported judgment (supra). Petitioners also do not dispute the said requirement.
It is, therefore, obvious that Academic Council of University has to examine whether opening of proposed college is under perspective plan prepared by it under Section 82 and college complies with other eligibility norms. We may note here that Nagpur University has prepared perspective plan for 5 years i.e. 2008-09 to 2013-14. According to the petitioners, places at which they have sought college, have been mentioned therein. However, it is open to the University to consider this aspect.
As the college cannot admit students without such scrutiny by the University, we direct the University to complete said exercise by 31.05.2015. If after said exercise University grants necessary permission and affiliation, then only petitioners shall be free to admit students and not otherwise.
Writ Petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.