High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Issues Rule in Writ Petition Challenging Establishment of Model College at Ghansavangi, Alleging Political Influence and Violation of UGC Guidelines and Maharashtra Universities Act. Court examines whether location selection adheres to perspective plan under Section 82 of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, and UGC guidelines for educationally backward districts.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the decision to establish a Model College at Ghansavangi in Jalna District

Petitioner sought to quash the decision and the establishment of the Model College at Ghansavangi, alleging it was politically influenced, malafide, and in violation of UGC guidelines and the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994

Petitioner, running educational institutions in the same area, alleged that the location was chosen due to political pressure from respondent No. 4, ignoring mandatory guidelines and the university's perspective plan, and aimed at adversely affecting the petitioner's existing college

On 21 November 2011, High Court declined interim relief as admissions were over and directed final hearing; on 16 April 2012, court directed respondent No. 5 to state if permission under Section 82 was obtained and directed State to produce documents; these directions were not complied with; Rule was issued and made returnable forthwith

Whether the decision to establish Model College at Ghansavangi was vitiated by political influence and mala fide Whether the selection of location violated UGC guidelines and the perspective plan under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 Whether the establishment of a constituent Model College is subject to the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, including requirement of permission under Section 82 Whether the failure to comply with the court's directions regarding production of documents warrants adverse inference

Petitioner argued that the Deputy Registrar of the University received a phone call from Respondent No. 4 Minister to process papers for Model College at Ghansavangi; handwritten endorsement was put to approve the location before formal proposal; the Management Council approval was obtained when only ex-officio members were functioning; the selection violated UGC guidelines which prioritize rural, tribal areas without existing colleges within 10 km; Ghansavangi had more than one college and was not a rural area; more remote areas like Bhokardhan or Ambad were not considered; political rivalry between petitioner's chairman and respondent No. 4 motivated the decision; mandatory requirements like project report, affiliation certificate, undertaking, and revenue certificate were not complied with; the perspective plan for 2011-2016 identified other locations but not Ghansavangi; the decision was predetermined and influenced by the Minister. Respondent No. 4 denied the phone call and claimed that a three-member committee (Dr. Dhaigude Committee) was appointed by the Vice Chancellor to find a suitable location; the committee conducted a survey and found Ghansavangi suitable; the document at Ex.F with the petition was alleged to be not genuine. Respondent No. 5 University's Deputy Registrar denied the phone call but accepted the handwritten endorsement, justifying it by stating that Ghansavangi region was included in the perspective plan.

The scheme aims at achieving national average of gross enrollment ratio (GER) and has been prepared by an expert committee constituted by UOI to prepare a project report on modalities of its execution. Adv. Talekar for petitioner states that the Deputy Registrar (Planning & Statistics) of the University Shri G.R. Manza received phonecall from respondent 4 Hon. Minister to process papers to establish Model school at Ghansavangi. The term of the elected representatives on Management Council had already come to end & only exofficio members were functioning. These exofficio members on 16.3.2011 itself claim to have cleared the proposal vide resolution on subject no. 32. This Court opined that those students in Model College could have been adversely affected by interim order. It was felt necessary to decide the petition itself finally at admission stage. Adv. Talekar for petitioner has at the outset pointed out that this order has not been complied with so far by either of the respondents.

Writ petition filed on an unspecified date. On 21 November 2011, the High Court declined to grant interim relief, noting that admissions were complete, and directed that the petition be decided finally at the admission stage. On 16 April 2012, the court directed respondent No. 5 University to state whether permission under Section 82 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, had been obtained for the Model College, and directed the State Government to produce documents in terms of specific clauses of a communication dated 8 August 2011. The respondents did not comply with these directions. Subsequently, the court issued Rule and made it returnable forthwith, hearing the matter finally with consent of the parties. Arguments were heard on 16 August 2012, and judgment was reserved, pronounced on 25 September 2012.

• Constitution of India: Art. 226
• Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994: S. 82, S. 28(b), S. 30(e)
• University Grants Commission Act, 1956: S. 12B
• Right to Information Act, 2005: