27 March 2009
Supreme Court
Download

CHINTAMANI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .

Case number: C.A. No.-003346-003346 / 2002
Diary number: 10241 / 2001


1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3346 OF 2002

Chintamani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal      ...Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Ors.      ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

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.

....2/-

- 2 -

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 extra-

2

ordinary  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

....3/-

3

- 3 -

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.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, March 26, 2009.