The High Court examined the legality of a government resolution dated 15.02.2024, which issued Letters of Intent (LOI) to two new colleges at Chitte-Pimpalgaon, Taluka, and District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The petitioner, whose affiliation had previously been withdrawn, challenged the decision, arguing that the new locations were not included in the officially sanctioned perspective plan for 2024-2029.

The Court evaluated whether the addition of Chitte-Pimpalgaon in the annual plan for 2024-2025 was legal, whether the petitioner had the standing to challenge the resolutions, and the validity of the LOIs and final approvals given to the respondent colleges. The Court underscored the importance of following statutory procedures and maintaining the integrity of the perspective plan, ultimately casting doubt on the legality of the government’s actions.

1. Introduction

The petition invoked Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to challenge a series of governmental actions related to the opening of new colleges in Chitte-Pimpalgaon, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The petitioner sought to invalidate Letters of Intent (LOI) and final approvals granted to respondent colleges, arguing procedural violations.

2. Background of the Case

The petitioner, a registered public trust, had its affiliation withdrawn due to serious lapses and criminal cases against its office bearers. Despite this, the petitioner sought to regain affiliation and challenged the issuance of LOIs to new colleges in its previous location.

3. Issues for Consideration

The Court formulated key issues:

• The petitioner’s locus standi to challenge the government resolutions.
• The legality of adding Chitte-Pimpalgaon to the annual plan for 2024-2025.
• The validity of the LOIs and final approvals granted to the respondent colleges.

4. Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that Chitte-Pimpalgaon was not included in the perspective plan for 2024-2029, making the addition of new colleges illegal. They further contended that the resolutions violated the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, and were influenced by political considerations.

5. Respondents’ Defense

The respondents, including the State and the University, defended the resolutions by asserting that the location was added to the perspective plan and that the petitioner lacked the standing to challenge the decisions. They emphasized that due process was followed in granting the LOIs.

6. Court’s Analysis

The Court examined the statutory framework, highlighting the distinction between perspective and annual plans under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. It criticized the respondents for not candidly addressing whether Chitte-Pimpalgaon was included in the perspective plan and noted that this omission undermined the legality of the resolutions.

7. Conclusion

The Court expressed concerns about the legality of adding Chitte-Pimpalgaon to the annual plan and the subsequent granting of LOIs and final approvals. It emphasized the need for strict adherence to statutory procedures to avoid unhealthy competition and maintain educational standards.