Important Point
Refusal to grant permission by the Shivaji University Bombay, to open law college is a District solely on the ground that there already existed a law college is unreasonable and arbitrary, for what is relevant and what should be taken into consideration is relevant and what should be taken into consideration is the population which the existing law college serves and whether there is need for as additional college.

Headnote:Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994-Section 82-Permission to open law College-University refusing permission to open law college on ground that location of college was outside its draft perspective and already there existed a law college in same District-Not tenable-What is relevant and what should be taken into consideration is population which the existing college serves and whether there is need for an additional College-There is no policy decision of Government not to permit opening a new law college in a district where already there existed a college-Such policy, if taken, is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable-Refusal by university to grant permission to start law college arbitrary and unreasonable orfer of university setaside-Court cannot, however say that permission must be deemed to have been granted-University was directed reconsider its decision.
Held : It is difficult to hold that the Government Resolution dated 13th June, 1995 lays down, as a matter of policy, that where there is a single law college in a District of the State no other law college therein will be permitted. In the first place, the resolution was to operate only till such time as this Court rendered its decision in Manubhai Pragaji Vashi’s case (ibid) and it provided that in that interregnum applications and proposals for the commencement of law colleges would be considered if received from Districts where no law college existed. In the second place, and assuming that is the policy, this is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. Accound has not to be taken of whether or not a law college exists in a District. What is relevant and what should be taken into consideration is the population which the existing law college serves and whether, therefore, ther eis need for an additional college. The refusal by the appellant to grant to the first respondent permission to start the said college based upon the same reason is, therefore, also arbitrary and unreasonable. The draft Perspective Plan is also to, more or less, the effect and the refusal based thereon is, therefore, also arbitrary and unreasonable. To this extent, we are in agreement with the High Court and need not dilate further. Where we differ is with the order that the High Court has passed, particularly in clause (iii) thereof, quoted above. In our view, it is a University which must decide whether or not it can support the proposal for the commencement of a new college. If in a given case the University has gone wrong in declining such permission by relying upon ground which is arbitrary or unreasonable or otherwise defective, the court should set aside such refusal and return the matter to the University for re-consideration in the light of its judgment. In the instant case, we are in no doubt that the appellant was in error in refusing to accord permission to the first respondent to start the said law college only because a law college already existed at Sangli. That decision must, therefore, be set aside and the matter must go back to the appellant to consider the issue afresh. In doing so it must take into consideration what the population of Sangli District is, what population the existing law college serves and whether the said law college is, in this light, required. Having regard to the lapse of time, the appellant must do so within eight weeks. (Paras 8 to 12)

Judgment

Bharucha, J.-Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay.

4. The first respondent educational institution was granted permission by the appellant university, subject to the approval of the third respondent, the Bar Council of India, to start a law college at Sangli to provide only morning classes for a three year course. The permission of the third respondent not having been received, the college was not commenced during the academic year 1994-95. The same thing happened in respect of the academic year 1995-96.

5. On 13th June, 1995 the second respondent, the State of Maharashtra, passed a resolution on the subject of permission for new colleges on permanent unaided basis in Districts of the State where not a single law college existed. It noted that this Court was yet to hear and dispose of an appeal in respect of grant-in-aid to private law colleges in the State (That decision was rendered on 16th August, 1995, in State of Maharastra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi & Ors.1. The resolution stated that till such time that appeal was disposed of, if applications and proposals were received to open law colleges in Districts where not a single law college existed, they would be considered. On 25th September, 1995 the first respondent made an application to the appellant for permission to start the said law college for the academic year 1996-97. On 28th September, 1995 such permission was declined on the ground that a law college already existed at Sangli.

6. On 20th August, 1996 the third respondent communicated to the first respondents its permission to start the said law college “for teaching three year course of the three years with morning classes only from 1996-97”. On 19th October, 1996 the Director of the appellant wrote to the 2nd respondent stating that the first respondent had sent a proposal for starting the said law college in year 1995-96 and the appellant’s Board had recommended the said proposal to the 2nd respondent, but it had not been given provisional sanction. The letter stated that the approval of the third respondent (referred to above) was considered valid for the year 1997-98 and it was, therefore, requested that orders be passed to start the said law college from June, 1997. On 30th October, 1996 the first respondent applied to the appellant for permission to start the said law college for the academic year 1997-98. On 22nd November, 1996 a draft Perspective Plan was prepared by the appellant under the provisions of Section 82 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The application of the first respondent dated 30th October, 1996 was rejected on 24th December, 1996. The reason for the rejection was that the location of the said law college was outside the draft Perspective Plan and one law college already existed in Sangli. On 3rd February and 1st March, 1997 the appellant wrote to the 2nd respondent requesting that its letter dated 19th October, 1996 be treated as cancelled. It stated that it had not recommend the proposal of the first respondent to start the said law college for the year 1997-98.

7. In April, 1997 the first respondent filed the writ petition upon which the judgment and order under challenge was passed. By an interim order the first respondent was permitted to start the said law college. In the judgment and order under challenge, the High Court found that the figures of population and the grant of permission to law colleges at smaller places in the area of operation of the appellant as also the Perspective Plan justified the opening of a morning law college at Sangli having regard to Sangli’s population. The appellant had, for the earlier years, recommended the proposal to open the said law college. There was a need for opening a post-graduate Department of Law in the appellant-University, as appeared from certain guidelines and the Perspective Plan. The reasons given in the letters dates 28th December, 1995

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 317

Cases Referred (1)