IMPORTANT POINT
[The court established that the Maharashtra Public Universities Act mandates strict adherence to the perspective plan when granting permissions for new colleges, and any deviation from this requirement renders the permission invalid.]

JUDGMENT :

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

1. In these separate writ petitions, may be for different reasons, same relief is being claimed, putting up challenge to the Government Resolution dated 15.06.2023 whereby, the respondent No.1 - State Government, on a recommendation of the respondent No.3 - University granted permission to the respondent No.4 to open a new law college in the light of provision of Section 109 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (the Universities Act). The petitioner from writ petition No. 4282/2023 in whose favour also there was a favourable recommendation of the respondent No.3 - University has been praying additionally a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to issue letter of intent in its favour, and then the final permission.

2. In order to avoid repetition, with the consent of both the sides, both these matters are heard finally at the stage of admission and are being taken up together for decision.

3. Rule. It is made returnable forthwith.

Factual Matrix :

i. The respondent No.3 - University by the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2017 prepared a perspective plan under Section 107 of the Universities Act for a period of five years and published an annual plan for academic year 2023-24, for specific location 'Khadke Newasa Phata', by issuing a public notification dated 10.01.2023 for starting a new law college.

ii. Pursuant to such notification, both these institutes that is the petitioner in writ petition No. 4282/2023 and the respondent No.4 submitted their applications. The respondent No.3 - University forwarded positive recommendations under Section 109 (1). By the impugned Government Resolution the State Government granted permission to the respondent No.4. Hence, aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner from writ petition No. 4282/2023 - Institute is challenging the permission granted to the respondent No.4 on various counts.

iii. It is the stand of this petitioner that the application submitted by the respondent No.4 was not compatible with the location that was notified and ignoring that the permission has been granted. The application of the respondent No.4 was non-compliant with the eligibility norms notified in the annual plan. The University had forwarded a positive proposal of both these institutes. The State Government granted permission to the respondent No.4 without even indulging in considering the comparative merits of both these proposals.

iv. In Writ Petition No. 6991/2023 the petitioner is challenging the impugned permission granted to respondent No.4 on the ground that the location notified by the University was not compatible with the perspective plan. It is his stand that location 'Khadke Newasa Phata' rather the entire Newasa Taluka was not indicated to have any law college during the entire five year tenure of the perspective plan and still the permission was granted which is not permissible under Section 107 read with Section 109 of the Act.

Submissions :

4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhandari for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4282/2023 would take us through the papers and particularly the notification of the annual plan inviting the applications from the prospective colleges. He would point out that the location notified was 'Khadke Newasa Phata', whereas, the application of the respondent No.4 though mentioned the same location, by practising fraud and mischievously a land from revenue village Mukindpur was offered as a place for the proposed college. Even the requisites regarding the extent of the area and the built up area was lacking. When the property was expected to be either owned or taken on lease, the respondent No.4 had offered land which was taken on leave and license basis. All these facts were ignored by the University while recommending the proposal and by the State Government while granting permission. If the land that was offered by the respondent No.4 was not compatible with the location that was notified, it would go to the root of the permiss