The State has discretion to reject educational institution proposals despite positive recommendations from universities, based on compliance with statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :-

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties heard both sides finally at the admission stage.

2. Petitioner is a minority educational institution aspiring to open a new college, has approached this Court seeking direction for grant of permission to open a new college at village Babargaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad from the academic year 2019-2020 and seeking quashment of action refusing to grant permission to open the college.

3. The petition is filed on 12.02.2019. By order dated 06.03.2019 notices were issued for final disposal, returnable on 03.04.2019. The respondent No. 2 – university did not file reply despite opportunities were given to it. The respondent No. 1 also sought many adjournments for filing reply. Ultimately, on 09.02.2021 reply was filed. At the outset, it is necessary to disclose that we are considering the prayer of the petitioner to open a new college which was made for academic year 2019-2020, when academic year 2024-2025 is in progress.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a minority institution. In annual plan of 2019-2020 the location of Babargaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad was incorporated for allotting the proposed new college as per the approval of Management Council dated 07.08.2018. The respondent No. 1 issued Government Resolution dated 15.09.2017 calling upon the proposals for opening the new colleges. Petitioner submitted proposal on 29.09.2018 along with necessary documents by paying requisite fees. It was scrutinized by the respondent No. 2 – university. The deficiencies were reported, which were cured by the petitioner. Ultimately vide letter dated 29.11.2018, the respondent No. 2 – university recommended the proposal of the petitioner for issuing Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred as to the “L.O.I.”).

5. Despite positive recommendation from the university, the petitioner was not issued with L.O.I. The respondent No. 1 issued Government Resolution dated 31.01.2019 granting L.O.I. to various institutions. The petitioner was not included in it. The petitioner was not informed the reasons for rejection of the proposal by either of the respondents. Hence petitioner is before us.

6. Learned counsel Mr. V. D. Salunke, appearing for the petitioner submits that despite positive recommendation, the respondent No. 1 did not issue L.O.I. The petitioner was the only claimant for the location in question and proposal was complete in all respects. Hence denial of L.O.I. by the respondent No. 1 is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is submitted that impugned action is against the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2017 especially Clause Nos. 3.11 to 3.14. The petitioner had removed all the deficiencies and thereafter respondent No. 2 – university had recommended the proposal. Hence, there was no reason for the respondent No. 1 to deny L. O. I.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled to get L.O.I. before 15.06.2019. In the absence of any fault on the part of the petitioner, impugned action is perverse and arbitrary. It is vehemently submitted that the proposal of the petitioner for 2019-2020 is not enervated by efflux of time and still L.O.I. can be granted in the present academic year. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner paid huge fees. The respondents intentionally delayed filing of affidavit in reply for three years and came up with after thought theory of rejection of the proposal citing grounds first time in the reply, which amounts to fraud.

8. Learned counsel submits that the plea of the respondent No. 1 that the proposal was rejected and communicated to the univ