Case Note & Summary
The matter pertained to the establishment of a new college in Taluka-Haveli, Pune, under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 1960. The petitioner, M/s. Jagruti Foundation, a charitable trust with experience in educational training, applied for a Letter of Intent to start a college in Arts, Commerce, and Science. The Savitribai Phule Pune University had prepared a five-year plan (2018-2023) and issued a call for applications. The petitioner submitted its proposal in December 2017 and was found eligible by the University, which ranked it at preference number two. However, the State Government, by Government Resolution dated 28 February 2018, granted Letters of Intent to three other institutions and rejected the petitioner’s application without explicit reasons. Challenging this, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4805 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, by order dated 2 December 2021, set aside the refusal and the Letters of Intent granted to the other institutions, observing that the State’s discretion could not be absolute arbitrariness and that reasons must be supplied in the order itself, not in subsequent affidavits. The matter was remitted to the State for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Pursuant to the remand, the State issued a fresh Government Resolution on 20 April 2022, again granting Letters of Intent to the same three institutions (Respondent Nos. 6 to 8) and rejecting the petitioner’s proposal. The reasons disclosed in a tabular statement indicated that the petitioner was a relatively new institution (established 2005), had lower financial capacity, ran no existing schools or colleges, and had fewer movable and immovable properties compared to the older institutions (established 1991-1998) which had accreditation, multiple schools, and better financials. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226, contending that the refusal was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, as the State considered extraneous factors not mentioned in Section 109(3)(d) of the MPU Act or any Government Resolution. The petitioner emphasized that the University’s report had recommended it as eligible and even better placed, and singling it out on irrelevant grounds was unconstitutional. The High Court, after hearing parties, quashed the Government Resolution dated 20 April 2022 and the communication refusing the Letter of Intent, holding that the State had again exercised its discretion on extraneous considerations, thereby vitiating the decision. The Court directed fresh consideration strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and the earlier High Court order, reiterating the principle that administrative decisions must be reasoned and free from arbitrariness.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Arbitrariness in State Action - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The State’s refusal to grant Letter of Intent based on extraneous considerations (such as age of institution, number of existing schools, financial capacity) not found in the governing statute or rules, amounted to arbitrary exercise of power violating equality clause. Held that State must decide based on relevant factors and cannot rely on extraneous grounds. (Paras 6-8) B) Education Law - Grant of Letter of Intent for New Colleges - Statutory Discretion under Maharashtra Public Universities Act - Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 1960, Section 109(3)(d) - The power to grant Letter of Intent is a statutory discretion that must be exercised on criteria laid down by law; considerations like age of institution, number of existing schools are not prescribed in the Act or GR, hence irrelevant. Court set aside the Government Resolution and remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (Paras 6-7) C) Administrative Law - Duty to Give Reasons - Natural Justice - Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 1960, Section 109(3)(d) - An administrative order affecting rights must be supported by reasons in the order itself; reasons cannot be supplemented by subsequent affidavits. The High Court in the earlier round quashed the order because no reasons were communicated in the initial refusal, and the reasons given later were impermissible extraneous factors. (Paras 8) D) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Remand - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Where the State failed to exercise discretion properly, the High Court under Article 226 can set aside the decision and direct fresh consideration after following proper procedure and law. (Paras 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the refusal to grant Letter of Intent to the Petitioner for starting a new college was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and whether the State's discretion under Section 109(3)(d) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 1960 was exercised on extraneous considerations.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Discretion vested in State under Section 109(3)(d) of MPU Act must be exercised non-arbitrarily
- reasons for decision must be explicit in order and not supplemented by affidavits
- Article 14 of Constitution prohibits extraneous considerations
- preference of older institutions is not a valid statutory criterion
