Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging a Government Resolution dated 15.06.2023 granting permission to respondent No.4 to open a new law college at Khadke Newasa Phata under Section 109 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. The first petitioner (Writ Petition No.4282/2023) had also applied for the same location and received a positive recommendation from the University but was denied permission. It argued that respondent No.4's application was non-compliant with location and eligibility norms, and that the State Government failed to compare merits. The second petitioner (Writ Petition No.6991/2023) argued that the annual plan location was not in the perspective plan prepared under Section 107, rendering the permission ultra vires. The court found that the perspective plan is a broad five-year plan, and the annual plan can specify locations not explicitly mentioned. Under Section 109(3)(d), the State Government has absolute discretion to grant permission without comparing applicants. The second petitioner's inconsistent pleadings (challenging location compatibility while also complaining about insufficient time for applications) were held to be untenable. The court also noted allegations of fraud but did not find sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) University Law - Permission to Open New College - Sections 107, 109 Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 - Perspective Plan and Annual Plan - The court held that the annual plan can notify a location not specifically mentioned in the perspective plan, as the perspective plan is a broad framework and the annual plan is a specific implementation. The State Government's discretion under Section 109(3)(d) is absolute and not required to consider comparative merits of multiple applicants. (Paras 16-20) B) Practice and Procedure - Inconsistent Pleadings - Locus Standi - A petitioner cannot maintain inconsistent stands; if he challenges the permission on the ground that the annual plan location is incompatible with the perspective plan, he cannot also argue that the time for applications was insufficient. Such inconsistency leads to dismissal. (Paras 8-9) C) Fraud on Court - Abuse of Process - Section 340 CrPC - The court noted allegations of fraud but did not initiate proceedings, observing that the conduct of the petitioner in filing a second petition through a former secretary raised suspicion but was not conclusively fraudulent. (Paras 12, 21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government's permission to open a new law college at a location not specifically mentioned in the perspective plan but notified in the annual plan is valid under Sections 107 and 109 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, and whether the permission is vitiated by non-consideration of comparative merits of two applicants.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 109(3)(d) of Maharashtra Public Universities Act
- 2016 confers absolute discretion on State Government to grant permission for new colleges
- Section 107 requires perspective plan but annual plan can be for locations not in perspective plan
- locus standi of petitioner with inconsistent pleadings
- fraud on court
