AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the admission stage.
The petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (A), (A-1) and (B), which read as follows :-
“A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or directions to respondent no.1 to forthwith grant approval/sanction to the proposal submitted by the petitioners for commencement of M.Sc. (Computer Science) course and one additional division of M.Sc. Organic Chemistry in petitioner no.2 college.
A-1) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 15.07.2026 rejecting the petitioners proposal and further direct the respondents to reconsider the petitioners proposal after granting reasonable opportunity to remove the alleged curable deficiencies.”
B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or directions to respondents to include the petitioners' college in the ongoing Centralized Admission Process (CAP) for the academic year 2026-27 and permitting admissions to the aforesaid courses.
Petitioner No.1 is running petitioner No.2/College with necessary infrastructure. Respondent No.2/University issued a public notice on 20/09/2025 inviting proposals for commencing new courses and additional divisions for academic year 2026-2027. The petitioners submitted proposal on 29/09/2025 for starting M.Sc.(Computer Science) course and one additional division of M.Sc. (Organic Chemistry). According to the petitioners, their proposal was complete in all respect and was filed alongwith necessary documents. The University directed the petitioners to remove certain deficiencies. Those were removed. The Inspection Committee of the University visited the petitioner/College and upon inspection found the necessary infrastructure and facilities available, hence favourably recommended the case of the petitioners to respondent No.1.
On 30/06/2026, the Government issued Resolution declaring the list of the approved Colleges, new courses and additional divisions, however, name of the petitioners is not mentioned in the said list. The petitioners, therefore, have approached this Court.
Heard learned Advocate for petitioners, learned AGP for respondent No.1/State and learned Advocate for respondent No.2/University.
The case of the petitioners is governed by the Government Resolution dated 18/09/2025 which lays down the guidelines and criteria for starting new curriculum, subject, faculty/course and additional divisions and granting recognition under the New College Permission System (NCPS). Learned AGP submits that the petitioners have failed to fulfill the criteria mentioned in Clauses 12 and 13 of the said Government Resolution. As per Clause 12, the relevant documents showing that College possesses requisite land and building to commence new course should be submitted alogwith the proposal.
Clause 13(1) stipulates that College is required to submit the building completion certificate issued by the local self-government institution or concerned authority, and if the building is on rental basis, then registered rent agreement of the next five years.
Learned AGP further places reliance on Section 109(4)(d) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, which reads thus:-
“109(4) (a) ----------------------------
(b)----------------------------------
(c)----------------------------------
(d)out of the applications recommended by the university, the State Government may grant permission on or before 15th June of the year to such institutions as it may consider fit and proper in its absolute discretion, taking into account other relevant factors, the budgetary resources of the State Government and other relevant factors, the suitability of the management seeking permission, etc. The permission shall be communicated by the State Government to the university, on or before the date specified in this clause:
Provided however that, in exceptional cases and for the reasons to be recorded in writing any application not recommended by the university may be approved by the State Government.”
Admittedly, respondent No.2/University, by sending Expert Committee to the College of the petitioner No.1, inspected the infrastructure, building, etc. of the petitioners and on their positive report, the proposal of the petitioners is favourably recommended by respondent No.2/University. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, on the basis of certificate annexed by the petitioners to the said proposal, dated 04/04/2000, the initial permission to start the College was granted by respondent No.1 to the petitioners. He further submits that the notarized rent agreement was placed on record and that is not accepted by respondent No.1, However, subsequently, on 17/07/2026, rent agreement is registered, copy of which is placed on record and the same is marked as ‘X’ for identification purpose.
Record further indicates that since the year 2002, petitioner No.1 was running petitioner No.2/College. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1, in our opinion, has committed an error in rejecting proposal of the petitioners on hyper technical ground, particularly in the light of favourable recommendation issued by respondent No.2.
Though sub-clause 4(d) of Section 109 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 gives absolute discretion to respondent No.1, but the said discretion is qualified by using the words “taking into account other relevant factors”. In the case in hand, in our view, respondent No.1 has failed to take into consideration the relevant factors and has erroneously rejected the deserving proposal of the petitioners. The impugned order, therefore, can not be sustained.
The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 15/07/2026 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners shall be granted recognition in terms of the proposal submitted by them. Petitioners are permitted to admit the students at the institutional level from X to XIV within the time extended by respondent No.2/University vide Circular No.50/2026 dated 31/07/2026.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.
No order as to costs.