2021 Supreme(Bom) 1551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, Abhay Ahuja, JJ.
Jagruti Foundation, Pune Shivganga College Of Science Commerce And Arts & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4059, 4805 of 2018
Decided On : 02-12-2021

The exercise of discretion by the State Government under Section 109(3)(d) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 must be judicious and reasons must be recorded for granting or refusing Letter of Intent to educational institutions.

Headnote:

Letter of Intent - Educational Institutions - Section 109(3)(d) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 - The court quashed and set aside the impugned order refusing to grant Letter of Intent in favor of the petitioners and granting it to the respondent nos. 5 to 7. The applications of the petitioners and respondent nos. 5 to 7 were restored to file before the State Government for reconsideration in accordance with the law and after following the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. The State Government was directed to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of communication of the court's order, recording reasons. The interim relief granted by the court was to continue until a fresh order was passed by the State Government and for a period of three weeks from the date of communication of the order, if the said order was adverse against the petitioners or the respondent nos. 5 to 7.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to challenge the communication refusing to grant Letter of Intent for starting new colleges and sought writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication and Government Resolution. The petitioners argued that the State Government's decision to grant Letter of Intent to the respondent no. 5 was contrary to the provisions of Section 109(3)(d) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. The court heard both the petitions together and found that the impugned order was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the proviso to Section 109(3)(d).

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned order was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the proviso to Section 109(3)(d) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order and directed the State Government to reconsider the applications of the petitioners and respondent nos. 5 to 7 afresh in accordance with the law and after following the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, and to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of communication of the court's order, recording reasons.

Issues: The issues involved in the case included the refusal to grant Letter of Intent to the petitioners for starting new colleges, the validity of the impugned communication and Government Resolution, and the compliance with the provisions of Section 109(3)(d) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the proviso to Section 109(3)(d) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. The court directed the State Government to reconsider the applications of the petitioners and respondent nos. 5 to 7 afresh in accordance with the law and after following the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, and to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of communication of the court's order, recording reasons.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order, and directed the State Government to reconsider the applications of the petitioners and respondent nos. 5 to 7 afresh in accordance with the law and after following the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, and to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of communication of the court's order, recording reasons. The interim relief granted by the court was to continue until a fresh order was passed by the State Government and for a period of three weeks from the date of communication of the order, if the said order was adverse against the petitioners or the respondent nos. 5 to 7.