V.C. Daga, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.

2. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner is a Trust and Society registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and under the Societies Registration Act. Respondent No.1 has prepared perspective plan as required by Section 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, wherein it was shown that there was a need to establish two graduate Arts-Social Science, Commerce, Science College with one Home Science College.

3. The petitioner finding it possible to run Arts College, Home Science and Commerce College offering degrees of Bachelor in Arts (B.A.), Bachelor in Fashion Designing (BDF) and Post Graduate Diploma in Commercial Computer Applications (PGDCCA) respectively at Alipur Tahasil : Hinganghat, District Wardha applied to respondent No.2 in the requisite format for permission to start college for the above courses for the Academic Session 2008-09.

4. Respondent No.2 after completing all the formalities vide its covering letter dated 27.1.2008 forwarded application of the petitioner with positive recommendation to respondent No.1. The application of the petitioner was not considered. Consequently, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of Writ Petition No.4215/2008. Since the petitioner was not communicated any reason for rejection of its application, the learned A.G.P. appearing in that petition made a statement that the petitioner shall be communicated with the reasons recorded by the State Government. With the result, on the statement made by the learned A.G.P., Writ Petition No.4215/2008 was disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2008, permitting the State Government to communicate the reasoned order to the petitioner.

5. Despite the aforesaid order and positive direction issued by this Court, the respondent No.1 – State Government failed to comply with the said order. Consequently, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of another writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.5157/2008, which was disposed of by an order dated 8.4.2009 with the following observations.

“In the instant case, the casual attitude shown by the State Government is a matter of concern. Because of the inaction on the part of the State Government to communicate its decision to the petitioner, the petitioner has to approach this Court by filing two petitions and had to incur lot of expenditure, apart from inconvenience suffered by the petitioner. We deprecate the attitude of the State Government and direct the State Government to communicate its decision taken in respect of the proposal of the petitioner as well as reasons given for rejecting the same within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner, in our view, has made a case for imposing exemplary costs on the State Government. Hence, we direct the State Government (Respondent No.1) to deposit the costs of Rs.7,000/- (rupees seven thousand) in this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. On such deposit, it will be open for the petitioner to withdraw the same.” (Emphasis supplied)

6. Needless to mention that considering the attitude of defiance adopted by the State Government and casual approach in dealing with the applications of the citizens or the institutions in a casual manner, this Court was pleased to impose costs of Rs.7,000/- while disposing of the petition with further liberty to the State Government to communicate the reasoned order on the application made by the petitioner.

7. In spite of the above order, the State Government did not take any positive step. With the result, the petitioner was again required to knock the doors of this Court by filing third writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.2472/2009, which again was decided by an order dated 8.3.2010 with the following observations.

“Hence, the