Bombay High Court Allows New Law College and Additional Courses Despite State Government's Inaction — Mandamus Issued for Compliance with Bar Council of India and University Requirements. The court directed the State to decide applications within two weeks, failing which approvals deemed granted.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 55
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Habib Educational & Welfare Society and Aldel Education Trust, filed writ petitions seeking directions to the State of Maharashtra to decide on their applications for starting a new law college and additional degree courses for the academic year 2015-16. The petitioners had applied within the prescribed time, and the University of Mumbai had recommended their cases. However, the State Government did not take any decision on the individual applications. The Bar Council of India had also granted approval for the new law college. The court observed that the State Government's inaction was unjustified and that the petitioners had complied with all necessary requirements. The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to consider and decide the applications within two weeks from the date of the order. If the State failed to do so, the approvals would be deemed granted. The court also directed the University to grant affiliation upon receipt of the State's permission or upon expiry of the two-week period. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justices Anoop V. Mohta and A. A. Sayed on September 8, 2015.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Mandamus - Inaction by State Government - The petitioners applied for starting a new law college and additional degree courses for the academic year 2015-16 within the prescribed time. The University recommended their cases, but the State Government failed to take a decision. The court held that the State Government's inaction was unjustified and issued a mandamus directing the State to consider and decide the applications within a specified period, failing which the approvals would be deemed granted. (Paras 3-5)

B) Education Law - New Law College - Approval Process - The Bar Council of India and the University had granted necessary approvals or recommendations. The State Government's role is to grant 'no objection' or permission. The court noted that the State Government cannot indefinitely delay the decision and must act within a reasonable time. (Paras 3-4)

C) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - The High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to compel a public authority to perform its statutory duty. In this case, the State Government's failure to decide on the applications amounted to a dereliction of duty, warranting judicial intervention. (Para 5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the State Government's failure to decide on applications for starting new law college and additional degree courses within the stipulated time justifies issuance of mandamus to compel the State to grant approval or consider the applications.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petitions and issued a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to consider and decide the applications within two weeks from the date of the order. If the State fails to decide within that period, the approvals shall be deemed granted. The University is directed to grant affiliation upon receipt of the State's permission or upon expiry of the two-week period.

Law Points

  • Mandamus
  • Inaction by State Government
  • University recommendation
  • Bar Council of India approval
  • Academic year 2015-16
  • New Law College
  • Additional Degree Courses
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 38

Writ Petition No. 6002 of 2015 with Writ Petition No. 4841 of 2015 and Writ Petition No. 6018 of 2015

2015-09-08

Anoop V. Mohta, A. A. Sayed

Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr. C.K. Thomas i/by M/s. C.K. Thomas & Associates for the Petitioners; Mr. A. B. Vagyani, Government Pleader with Mr. C. P. Yadav, AGP and Ms. Tina Hazarika for Respondent/State; Mr. R. A. Rodrigues for Respondent No.2/University

Habib Educational & Welfare Society's M.S. College of Law and Aldel Education Trust

State of Maharashtra, University of Mumbai, Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions seeking mandamus to compel the State Government to decide on applications for starting a new law college and additional degree courses.

Remedy Sought

Direction to the State Government to grant approval/permission for starting new law college and additional degree courses for the academic year 2015-16.

Filing Reason

The State Government failed to take decision on the petitioners' applications despite University recommendation and Bar Council approval.

Issues

Whether the State Government's failure to decide on applications for starting new law college and additional courses is arbitrary and violative of the petitioners' rights. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the State Government to perform its duty.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they had applied within time, University recommended, Bar Council approved, but State Government did not decide. State Government did not oppose the petitions but sought time to decide.

Ratio Decidendi

The State Government cannot indefinitely delay the decision on applications for starting educational institutions when the applicants have complied with all requirements and the University and Bar Council have recommended/approved. The High Court can issue mandamus to compel performance of statutory duty.

Judgment Excerpts

The University has recommended their case. The State Government, however, has not taken decision on individual Application filed by the Petitioners. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

Procedural History

The petitions were filed in 2015. The court heard the matter on September 2, 2015, and pronounced judgment on September 8, 2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950:
  • Advocates Act, 1961:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Cancellation of Pattas for Public Utility Land. Land Recorded as Khalihan and Pasture Land Under Section 132 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 Cannot Be Granted Bhumidhari Rights.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Evidence. Business Rivalry and Last Seen Theory Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Section 302 IPC.