VARVAND GRAM SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27 6 2001 passed by the respondent No.1 State allowing the respondent No.4 institution to start Commerce faculty in their college at village Kedgaon , Tal . Daund , Dist. Pune and for directions to the respondents 1 & 2 i.e. State Government and the Director of Education to grant permission in favour of the petitioner to open Commerce faculty in their college run at Varvand , Tal . Daund , Dist. Pune .

(2.) THE petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 are the educational Trusts running colleges for Arts and Science faculties and also desired to start Commerce faculties in their respective colleges, which aspect is the centre of the dispute. The petitioner Trust has set up amongst others Gopinath Arts and Science College at Village Varvand , Tal . Daund , Dist. Pune with the permission of respondents 1 to 3 i.e. Pune University . The college is functioning from the year 1993 which was allowed in Varvand with Arts as well as Science faculties. The petitioner has junior college where nearly 100 students are Commerce students and after completion of 12th Std. they faced difficulty of getting admission at other colleges as there was no facility available for petitioners' college for Commerce faculty. Therefore the petitioner had approached respondents 1 & 2 and represented that the necessary provision be made in the master plan to have Commerce faculty in the said vicinity. Accordingly such provision was made in the master plan. In pursuance of the said provision made in the master plan, the petitioner submitted its proposal as required under Sec. 83 (3) of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) to the respondent No.3 who examined the proposal and recommended the respondent No.1 to grant permission in favour of the petitioner, however, the recommendation did not find favour with the respondent No.1 and such permission was rejected by order dated 27 6 2001. It appears from the record that the respondent No.4 also made an application under the relevant provisions for starting of Commerce faculty in their college run at village Kedgaon at Daund Taluka and respondent No.1 granted permission under its order dated 27 6 2001 in favour of the respondent No.4 which aspect, according to the petitioner, is illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary in nature. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27th June, 2001 and for not getting the permission to start Commerce faculty in their college, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 29 8 2001 to respondents 1 to 3 requesting them to reconsider the same order and consider to give permission to them to open Commerce faculty. Said representation was not acted upon and hence the petition.

(3.) THE respondent No.1 in its affidavit in reply has taken up a stand that they have relied upon the proviso of sub section (5) of Sec. 82 of the said Act and has treated the case of the respondent No.4 as an exceptional case and have issued permission to them to start Commerce faculty, though respondent No.3 University did not recommend the case of the respondent No.4. In his affidavit in reply, respondent No.4 has tried to illustrate as to how its college is equally or better qualified to obtain such permission from the respondent No.1 and has submitted that the permission granted by the respondent No.1 to run Commerce faculty to them is quite legal and proper taking into account the facts and circumstances involved in the case as well as geographical situation of their college. In support of the said affidavit, respondent No.4 has produced various affidavits of several students and has also given data as to how location of their Commerce college would be more convenient than the Commerce college at Village Varvand sought to be run by the petitioner. The affidavits show the distance of residences of students to the college of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 respectively so as to give us a detailed idea as to how the case of the respondent No.4 is more justified than that of the petitioner.