The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government must have exceptional circumstances and valid reasons, recorded in writing, to overrule negative recommendations from the University when granting a Letter of Intent to colleges or institutions of higher learning.

JUDGMENT :

S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, petitions are taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are running Arts, Commerce and Science colleges. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9155 of 2020 is running it’s Senior College at Aland. The petitioner is challenging the Letter of Intent issued to the respondents for location at Andhari and Aland. In Writ Petition No. 6936 of 2021 the petitioner is running its senior college at Sillod. It is within the limits of Municipal Council, Sillod. The petitioner is challenging the Letter of Intent issued to the respondents for the locations at Aland, Sillod, Sarola and Andhari. In Writ Petition No. 6942 of 2021 the petitioner is running it’s senior college at Ajintha and challenging the Letter of Intent issued to the respondent to run the senior college at Ajintha.

3. We have heard the respective learned Advocates for the petitioners, learned In-charge Government Pleader for the State and the respective learned Advocates and the Senior Advocate for the respondents-institutions granted Letter of Intent.

4. In all these matters where the Letter of Intent are issued to the respective institutions the University had given negative recommendations. In spite of the negative recommendations of the University the Letter of Intent is issued. The contention of the learned Advocates for the petitioners is that once the proposals are forwarded with the negative recommendations of the University the same has to be respected by the Government and if they want to overrule the negative recommendations they can do so in exceptional circumstances and for the reasons recorded in writing. The reliance is placed upon section 109(3)(d) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Act-2016”). According to the petitioners, there are no reasons recorded in writing by the State Government nor exceptional circumstances existed for grant of Letter of Intent. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the recommendations of Narendra Jadhav’s Committee are accepted by the Government wherein the distance is required to be maintained between the colleges functioning. It is submitted that in rural areas there should be distance of 20 Kms. between two colleges, in hilly and tribal area the distance between two colleges should be 10 Kms. and in District place the distance has to be 4 Kms so also in partly city area distance has to be 5 Kms. The recommendations of the Narendra Jadhav Committee are accepted by the Government. They are bound by the same. It is contended that Andhari and Ajintha are in hilly area. The learned Advocates submit that the requirement of reasons to be recorded cannot be merely illusory but has to be based on reasonable satisfaction. The learned Advocates rely upon the Judgment of the Madras High Court in case of A. Mahalingam vs. A. N. Ray and others dated 4-9-2018. It is submitted that perspective plan is sine qua non for consideration of application for opening new college. The University had prepared the perspective plan however the Government interfered with the same and directed the University to change the locations in the perspective plan the same is not permissible.

5. According to Mr. Kale, learned In-charge Government Pleader the Government considered the need of the college in that particular regions and has issued Letter of Intent though negative recommendations were given by the University. The need for the colleges existed on the said locations as the colleges were to be started in tribal area, hilly area. The need for opening the new college has been considered by the Government before issuing Letter of Intent to those colleges. The Government has exercised it’s powers under section 109(3)(d) of the Act, 2016. The discretion has been exercised in a proper manner. No mala fides can be attributed to the Government in that regard.

6. The learned In-charge Govern