Shri Acharyaratna Deshbooshan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

( Per Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.) :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent taken up for final disposal.

By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside Clause (3) of the communication dated 19^th September 2025 issued by Respondent No.1-State Government of Maharashtra to Respondent No.2, for a direction to the Respondent No. 1 to issue Letter of Intent in terms of the Government Resolution dated 18^th September 2025 and for prohibiting the Respondent No. 1 from re-assigning the roster point.

The Petition pleads that on 27^th December 2024, the petitioner-trust registered its proposal for starting a new law college in the City of Kolhapur with Respondent No.3 -Bar Council of India and accordingly paid the mandatory portal and course registration fees for the year 2025-2026. On 13^th August 2025, the Respondent No. 3 issued a press-release bringing into force the Bar Council of India Moratorium Rules 2025, placing restrictions on opening new law colleges subject to certain exceptions. In the General Council meeting of Respondent No.3 dated 11^th January 2026, the Bar Council of India Moratorium Rules 2025 stood withdrawn. In the interregnum, on 18^th September 2025, Respondent No.1 by issuing Government Resolution set out the procedure for obtaining permission for starting a new law college called “The Online New College Permission System” (for short “NCPS”). On 19^th September 2025, Respondent No.1 issued a communication to Respondent No. 2, directing Respondent No.2 to publish an appropriate advertisement inviting applications for new colleges with open roster points or roster points that are still vacant. However, in Clause (3) of the said communication, Respondent No.1 imposed a condition of obtaining NOC of Bar Council of India (for short “BCI”) for opening a new law college.

On 21^st September 2025, Respondent No.2 published an advertisement inviting applications for establishing a new law college in Karveer Taluka and it was clarified that Taluka of Karveer and Kolhapur City are one and the same. The petitioner filed an application for opening the new law college in the city of Kolhapur. As per the procedure prescribed by Government Resolution dated 18^th September 2025, Respondent No. 2 university scrutinized the application of petitioner and listed two shortcomings: building plan of proposed college was not submitted, and no NOC of the Bar Council of India was obtained. Accordingly, on 25^th November 2025, Respondent No.2 issued communication to the petitioner intimating refusal of permission on those two grounds, against which, on 26^th November 2025, the petitioner preferred an appeal with the Vice-Chancellor of Respondent No.2-university. On 28^th November 2025, the Respondent No. 2 University maintained the objection on the ground of non-submission of NOC of Respondent No.3-BCI. On 5^th December 2025, Respondent No.2 issued NOC at the request of the petitioner subject to the approval of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. After the receipt of approval on 26^th December 2025, the petitioner requested Respondent No.1 to issue the Letter of Intent (for short “LOI”) which was not granted. Hence, the present petition.

In the reply Affidavit of State Government filed through the Joint Director, Higher Education, Kolhapur, it is stated that after the Press-Release dated 13^th August 2025, opinion of Law and Judiciary Department was sought as regards grant of permission under Section 109(3)(g) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 which opined that the permission should be granted exclusively to those institutions that furnish NOC from BCI. Accordingly, instructions were issued by Respondent No.1 by the Government Resolution dated 19^th September 2025, stating that no approval will be granted to establish a new law college without prior permission of BCI.

A clarification was also sought from BCI, which clarified on 9^th December, 2025 that no approval can be granted during the moratorium period and no proposal to be forwarded unless it falls within the exception under Rule 9(e) with full justification. Accordingly, all state public universities were apprised of the same on 8^th January, 2026. It is further stated that subsequently in the resolution dated 11^th January 2026 passed by the General Council of BCI, the period of moratorium was done away with and on 24^th February 2026, BCI displayed a notice on its website regarding applications for new centers of legal education or for additional sections or courses by existing centers for the academic year 2026-27, to be open from 24^th February 2026 till 31^st March 2026.

The Affidavit sets out the regular sequence for grant of approval and that after final approval from the State Government and affiliation from University, the BCI can be approached. It is stated that BCI had stipulated a deadline of 31^st March, 2026 for submitting applications for new law colleges for academic year 2026-2027, however considering the statutory timelines prescribed under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 2016, the final approval for institutions that have submitted proposals for Letter of Intent for academic year 2026-2027 is scheduled to be granted only on 15^th June. It is further stated that prescribed deadline for granting LOI for new colleges for the academic year 2026-27 was 31^st January 2026, however, in the interregnum, the Model Code of Conduct was imposed in view of the general elections to the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis, and consequently an ordinance was promulgated to amend Section 109(3)(d) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act 2016 extending the deadline to 15^th March 2026. Accordingly, the GR for granting Letter of Intent for academic year 2026-2027 was issued on 15^th March, 2026 and the procedure for grant of LOI has been completed strictly within the legally extended and prescribed statutory timeline. The timeline for grant of final approval is fixed on or before 15^th June, 2026, however against the backdrop of the elections, the deadline came to be extended till 30^th June, 2026. It is stated that the process of issuing LOI and granting final approval for academic year 2026-2027 stands fully exhausted and concluded on 30^th June, 2026.

Respondent No.3, BCI, has filed its affidavit-in-reply stating that the Rules of Legal Education 2008 do not contemplate stand-alone prior NOC to be issued by Respondent No.3 merely to enable the State Government to issue LOI, and any requirement created by the State Government for Bar Council of India NOC for issuance of LOI has to be explained by the State Government. It is further stated that during the moratorium period, only the applications pending before BCI after compliance with the preceding approval process would be exempt and eligible for consideration, and that the period of moratorium was done away in view of the General Council decision dated 11^th January 2026. It is further stated that petitioner registered on the legal education portal on 27^th December 2024, which was neither a final application for affiliation nor an approval, as the mandatory NOC and university affiliation fields do not contain necessary statutory documents and the application was materially incomplete. It is stated that the document dated 5^th December 2025 relied upon by the petitioner as NOC is not an affiliation issued by the university.

Mr. Manoj Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Press Release of BCI dated 13^th August 2025 did not apply to the pending applications and the Petitioner had registered a proposal with the BCI and paid requisite fees on 27^th December 2024. He has further taken this Court through the provisions of Section 109 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 ( for short “Universities Act”) and points out that the procedure prescribed commences with the issuance of LOI by the State Government. He submits that in accordance with the prescribed procedure, upon the advertisement being issued by Respondent No.2 University, on 29^th September 2025, before the cut-off date of 30^th September 2025, the Petitioner had applied for opening a new law college. He submits that LOI is required to be issued on or before 31^st January and in the present case, it was only due to inapplicable condition imposed of obtaining NOC of BCI, that the petitioner's application came to be rejected. He submits that, however, on 5^th December 2025, the NOC was issued by Respondent No.2-University and the next step was issuance of LOI by the State Government. He submits that the BCI moratorium rules were withdrawn by resolution of 11^th January 2026 and therefore there was no impediment for the State Government to issue the LOI to the petitioner.

He would point out the State Government's affidavit which itself sets out the sequence of events in paragraph 7 and that only after obtaining the LOI, final letter of approval and temporary affiliations by the university, it is possible for the colleges to apply to the BCI. He submits that according to the affidavit-in-reply of the Respondent No.1-State, the final approval was extended till 30^th June 2026 and therefore the petitioner was entitled particularly considering that the moratorium imposed by BCI was done away with on 11^th January 2026.

Mr. Chetan Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-University would submit that on 21^st September 2025, the University had issued an advertisement inviting applications for new colleges and the petitioner had applied before 30^th September, 2025. He submits that in view of Clause (3) of Government Resolution of 19^th September 2025, which mandated an NOC from the BCI before considering the proposals, that the Respondent No. 2 university held the petitioner ineligible and thereafter granted the NOC on 5^th December 2025. He submits that the only reason why the petitioner was ineligible was for non obtaining the NOC of BCI in view of the moratorium, which was also withdrawn on 11th January 2026.

Ms. Kapre, learned AGP would take this court through the contents of affidavit-in-reply and would submit that the State Government has adhered to the statutory time limits described in Section 109 of the Universities Act and has accordingly issued the LOI and also granted final approval to eligible colleges. Drawing attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 109 of the Universities Act, she would submit that proposals for establishment of new law colleges are recommended to the State Government through the concerned universities. She submits that the applications are required to be submitted before the last day of the month of September and eligible proposals are required to be recommended by the university on or before 30th November and the LOI is granted on or before 31^st January. She submits that Respondent No.2-University did not recommend the proposal of Petitioner before 30^th November 2025 and in fact the NOC was granted on 5^th December 2025. She would further submit that eligible proposals were required to be recommended through the University and no individual representations can be entertained by the State Government. She submits that there was no recommendation forwarded by the University to the State Government and therefore the petitioner's proposal cannot be considered as the statutorily prescribed time limits have not been met. She would submit that the procedure for grant of LOI and final approval has been exhausted as per prescribed statutory time limits and no interference is warranted in refusal by the State Government for considering the proposals of petitioner.

We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

The Petitioner intends to open a new centre for legal education in the city of Kolhapur. Section 107 of the Universities Act mandates the preparation of a comprehensive perspective plan for every 5 years by the university, to be approved by the Maharashtra State Commission for Higher Education and Development. Such plan is prepared for the location of colleges and institutions of higher learning in a manner ensuring comprehensive, equitable distribution of facilities for higher education, having due regard to the needs of unserved and underdeveloped areas within the jurisdiction of university. Sub-Section 4 of Section 107 of the Universities Act provides that while preparing the perspective plan, preference shall be given to the districts where gross enrollment ratio is less than the national average, and also to the tribal, hilly, and inaccessible areas, besides quality benchmarks, inclusive growth, social relevance, and value education. Sub-Section (5) of Section 107 of the Universities Act provides that the university shall initiate a time bound programme to prepare an annual plan every year for the location of colleges and institutions of higher learning, in consonance with the perspective plan and shall publish it before the end of academic year preceding the year in which the proposals for the opening of new colleges or institutions of higher learning are to be invited.

Accordingly, the perspective plan was prepared, identifying locations for establishment of various colleges, including new center for legal education commonly known as law colleges. For the academic year 2026–2027, three colleges were proposed for the LLB 3-year course, one in Kolhapur district, one in Sangli district, and one in Satara district. There was press release by BCI on 13^th August, 2025 announcing the framing and approval of Rules of Legal Education, Moratorium (Three Year Moratorium) with respect to Centers of Legal Education, 2025 imposing moratorium and paragraph 2 of the said press release reads as under:

The State Government vide communication dated 19^th September, 2025 addressed to all non agricultural universities informed the perspective plan and the introduction of New College Permission System for submission of proposals online to the State Government. The universities were also informed about the moratorium imposed by BCI and that proposals for starting new courses/additional divisions/subjects should be submitted with the NOC of BCI. By another communication dated 19^th September, 2025, addressed to Respondent No 2- Shivaji University, the State Government informed Respondent No 2 about the perspective plan and Clause (3) of the said communication mentions about the moratorium and directs Respondent No 2 to accept proposals from applicants intending to start new law colleges alongwith NOC of BCI. It further directs Respondent No.2 to include the condition of obtaining NOC from BCI in the advertisement.

Paragraph 2 of the Press Release re-produced hereinabove is clear and specific imposing moratorium of three years on establishing new Center of Legal Education anywhere in India and the prior approval of BCI was mandated for introducing new section/ course or batch in the existing Center for Legal Education. Despite no such requirement of obtaining NOC from BCI in the moratorium rules for establishing new Center for Legal Education, the State Government imposed a condition in the communication of 19^th September, 2025 of processing only those applicants who have obtained BCI NOC. Paragraph 5 of the first communication of 19^th September, 2025 addressed by the State Government to all non agricultural universities rightly set out the content of press release and called upon the universities to accept proposal for introduction new section/course/batch in existing law colleges with NOC of BCI.

The State Government sought opinion of law and judiciary department, which opined in favour of obtaining the NOC from BCI before grant of approval for new law colleges. In view thereof, the State Government directed the Respondent No 2 to issue advertisement and invite applications specifying the condition of obtaining NOC of BCI for starting new law colleges. Accordingly advertisement was issued by Respondent No 2 inviting applications for starting new center for legal education on 21^st September 2025 as per the new college permission system, i.e., NCPS containing the condition of obtaining NOC from BCI.

On 29^th September 2025, the Petitioner applied through NCPS for opening a new centre for legal education. As the Petitioner did not comply with the requirement of NOC of BCI, the Petitioner was held to be ineligible by Respondent No.2-university and communicated as such on 25^th November, 2025. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against its ineligibility and on 28^th November 2025, the said appeal came to be partly allowed, as one of the deficiencies, namely non-submission of building plan was complied with. The Petitioner was still held ineligible and surprisingly an NOC was issued on 5^th December, 2025 by Respondent No 2 giving NOC for starting new law college subject to grant of approval by BCI.

The Petitioner would claim a right to issuance of LOI by the State Government in view of the NOC dated 5^th December, 2025 issued by Respondent No 2 University. The Petitioner’s claim is also premised on the ground that BCI NOC was not a valid requirement at the stage of grant of LOI and that the Petitioner was covered by the exception as per the press release of 13^th August, 2025. Dealing first with the contention that the Petitioner was exempted from the moratorium as it had already applied on 27^th December, 2024. The sequence in which the application is processed is that the University scrutinizes the application and forwards the same to the State Government alongwith its recommendations. The State Government thereafter issues the LOI and after compliance of the conditions, the final approval is granted. Thereafter the University grants temporary affiliation and the applicant can then proceed to seek approval of BCI. The expression “pending application” used in the press release of 13^th August, 2025 has to be understood in the context of the statutory scheme. The registration of Petitioner on BCI portal does not trigger the process of seeking approval for opening of new law college and resultantly does not constitute pending application. BCI in its reply affidavit has stated that pending applications would mean applications pending before the BCI after compliance with the preceding approval process.

BCI has stated that the portal records shows that the Petitioner registered on the legal education portal of BCI and paid registration fees, which is neither a final application for approval of affiliation nor an NOC or recognition by BCI. It is stated that the Petitioner initiated a fresh course application for academic year 2025-2026, which was never completed or finally submitted and blank PDF documents were uploaded and the application was incapable of being processed for statutory scrutiny, inspection or approval. The stand of BCI has not been rebutted and it cannot be accepted that the Petitioner’s mere registration on the portal on 27^th December, 2024 constitutes pending application for carving out an exception under paragraph 2 of the press release of 13^th August, 2025.

As regards the contention about the validity of condition of obtaining NOC Of BCI, at the time when the advertisement was issued inviting applications for opening new centers for legal education, the condition was specifically imposed. The Petitioner responded to the advertisement participating in the process and accepting the said condition. The relief sought in prayer clause (a) of the petition seeking quashing of the said condition was not sought by the Petitioner at the appropriate stage, when the advertisement was issued. Accepting the condition in advertisement, the Petitioner applied to the University on 29^th September, 2025.

The present Petition has been filed in March, 2026 and whether the validity of the said condition should now be considered and the Petitioner should be granted LOI is the issue. For considering the said issue, it would be apposite to have a look at the statutory timelines provided in Section 109 of Universities Act against the factual matrix herein.

Section 109 of the Universities Act prescribes the procedure for seeking permission for opening new colleges, and provides that proposal shall be invited and considered by the university. Sub-Section (2) of Section 109 of the Universities Act provides that no application shall be considered for opening a new college which is not in conformity with the perspective plan. Sub-Section (3)(a) of Section 109 of the Universities Act provides that management seeking a letter of intent for opening a new college shall apply in the prescribed form to the Registrar of University before the last day of September of the year preceding the year in which the LOI is sought. In the present case, the Petitioner intends to open a new centre for legal education for the academic year 2026–2027, and therefore under Section 109(3)(a), the application was required to be made before the last day of September 2025. In this case, the petitioner applied on 29^th September 2025.

Section 109(3)(c) of the Universities Act provides that the applications received within the prescribed time limit shall be scrutinized by the Board of Deans and forwarded to the State Government with the approval of Management Council on or before 30th November of the year in which such application is received by the university. It further provides for the university to submit, along with the application, its recommendation, duly supported by the relevant reasons as deemed appropriate by the management council. The applications with the recommendations of the Respondent No 2 was required to be forwarded to the State Government on or before 30^th November, 2025.

Section 109(3)(d) of the Universities Act provides that out of the applications recommended by the university, the State Government may grant LOI on or before 31^st January of the immediately following year after the recommendation of university under Clause (c), which LOI shall be valid up to 31^st January of the next following year. The relevant date would be 31^st January, 2026.

Section 109(3)(g) of the Universities Act provides for grant of final approval to the management, which is to be granted on or before 15^th June of the year in which such new college or institution is proposed to be established, which in this case would be 15^th June, 2026. It further provides that such proposals from the State Government shall be communicated to the universities, and approvals granted thereafter shall be given effect by the university only in the subsequent academic year.

The timelines prescribed under Section 109 of the Universities Act mandate the forwarding of applications on or before 30^th November by the university along with its recommendation. In the present case, application of the Petitioner was therefore required to be scrutinized and forwarded on or before 30^th November 2025 by the university along with its recommendation. Respondent No.2-university held the petitioner ineligible on 25^th November 2025, and on 28^th November 2025, the appeal came to be partly allowed, but the university did not recommend the proposal to the State Government as the NOC of BCI was not obtained. The requirement of obtaining NOC from the Bar Council of India was imposed in the communication dated 19^th September 2025 by Respondent No.1 in view of the moratorium imposed by BCI on 13^th August 2025. The same condition was also part of the advertisement issued by the university inviting applications for seeking permission for starting new colleges. The said condition was, therefore, to the knowledge of petitioner, and the petitioner submitted application in pursuance of the said advertisement, being fully conscious of the condition of obtaining NOC from the BCI. The petitioner did not challenge the condition imposed by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 while inviting applications and applied for permission. The petitioner was held ineligible as it did not satisfy the condition of obtaining NOC from the Bar Council of India. The NOC, which was subsequently granted by the Respondent No.2, was subject to the grant of approval by BCI and the State Government. There is no clarity as to under which provision such NOC was issued to the Petitioner, whereas Section 109 (2)(c) of Universities Act mandates all applications to be scrutinised by Board of Deans and forwarded to the State Government with approval of management council on or before 30^th November. There was no such proposal alongwith recommendation forwarded by University to the State Government and the NOC is meaningless. The obtaining of mere NOC without compliance of Section 109(3)(c) does not assist the case of the Petitioner. There is no material to demonstrate that university had forwarded the application along with its recommendation to the State Government even belatedly. Pertinently, Section 109(5) of the Universities Act provides that no application shall be entertained directly by the State Government for grant of LOI, which indicates that the proposals were required to be routed through Respondent No.2-University.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 799 of 2025 by its order dated 23^rd February, 2026 has taken note of the resolution dated 11^th January, 2026 passed by General Council of Bar Council of India. The order of Hon’ble Apex Court permits the Petitioner therein to approach the BCI either through physical application or through online portal. Considering the statutory framework prescribed for obtaining sanctions and permissions, the approval of BCI is required after LOI and grant of temporary affiliation by University. It appears that the Petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex Court had reached the stage of obtaining approval from BCI and therefore were permitted to approach BCI.

The Petitioner herein is still at the stage of seeking issuance of LOI. The timelines described under Section 109 of the Universities Act are statutory and there is no discretion vested either with the university or the State Government to entertain applications beyond the prescribed timeline. It is only in exceptional cases where the university does not recommend an application that the State Government may approve such application for grant of LOI. The petitioner ought to have immediately taken appropriate steps after the rejection of its application by the university, seeking approval of the State Government, though not recommended by the university. Instead, the petitioner waited till the NOC was issued on 5^th December 2025 and thereafter addressed a communication after a delay of 21 days, that is, on 25^th December 2025, seeking grant of LOI. The timeline of proposal to be forwarded to State Government by 30^th November, 2025 was not met and in fact till date, there is no such proposal forwarded by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner remained satisfied with the NOC dated 5^th December, 2025 which was not helpful in view of statutory provisions.

The statutory timelines to be followed in present case is that the application for seeking LOI for opening new college had to be filed on or before the 30^th September, 2025 to the University. The application alongwith the recommendation of University had to be forwarded to the State Government on or before 30^th November, 2025. The LOI was to be granted by the State Government on or before 31^st January, 2026. After complying with conditions of LOI, the compliance report to the submitted to the University which is to be forwarded to the State Government by the University on or before 1^st May, 2026. The final approval to be granted on or before 15^th June, 2026. It is only after the approvals are obtained and temporary affiliation is obtained from the University, that the applicant can approach the BCI.

In view of the enforcing code of conduct, an ordinance was promulgated by which the deadline for issuance of LOI was extended till 15^th March, 2026. In view of the extension of deadline till 15^th March, 2026, the Petitioner was expected to institute necessary proceedings so that appropriate relief could have been sought. The Petitioner did not approach the Court within time and delayed the filing of the Petition, which came to be filed on 24^th March, 2026 after expiry of the extended timelines for issuance of LOI.

BCI stipulated deadline of 31^st March, 2026 for submitting applications for new Law Colleges, however the statutory deadline for issuance of final approval is 15^th June, 2026, which came to be extended till 30^th June, 2026. No assistance can be derived by the Petitioners on the extension till 30^th June, 2026, which is in respect of final approval as the Petitioner has not yet obtained the LOI.

In Trimurti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another vs Savitribai Phule Pune University And Others^{11.2026:BHC-AS:35204-DB}, the Petitioner sought approval for starting new courses. The application was filed on 30^th September, 2025 with the University, which did not forward the same to State Government. By communication dated 18^th June, 2026, State Government directed University to forward the proposal of Petitioner therein. Accordingly, on same date, University forwarded the proposal of Petitioner, which mentioned proposal of new additional division and not of starting new courses. On 30^th June, 2026, the State Government approved new division but not new courses as the proposal was not forwarded. The new courses proposal was forwarded on 30^th June, 2026 and received by the State Government on 1^st July, 2026 beyond the cut off date of 1^st April, 2026. The State Government made a statement that the proposal will be considered , BCI made a statement that the portal of BCI for uploading of approvals of State for new divisions/new courses will be opened for period of 15 days and University was directed that in event State Government grants approval, to approve the same. The communication by State Government to the University to forward the proposal to State Government appears to be exercise of powers under proviso to Section 109(4)(d). The factual scenario is distinguishable as the proposal was for approval of new courses and additional divisions of existing college and the University had omitted the new courses and had mentioned only new additional divisions.

The Petitioner is deemed to be aware of the statutory provisions and the timelines to be adhered. Section 109(5) of Universities Act provides that no application shall be entertained directly by the State Government and therefore it was evident that the proposal had to be routed through State Government. There was no proposal before the State Government for it to consider issuance of LOI. The statutory provisions require the LOI to be issued on or before 31^st January, 2026. The said deadline was extended till 15^th March, 2026 due to elections. The Petitioner still did not approach the Court seeking directions to the University to forward the proposal to the State Government and for State Government to issue LOI.

The Petitioner has missed the statutory timelines and the Petitioner’s proposal was not forwarded by the University to the State Government. We find that the Petition suffers from delay and no timely steps were taken to approach this Court. There is no explanation for the inaction on part of the Petitioner from 5^th December, 2025 till filing of Petition on 24^th March, 2026 especially when the moratorium stood withdrawn on 11^th January, 2026. Even after filing of the Petition on 24^th March, 2026, no steps were taken to seek interim relief. The reply Affidavit of State Government states that following the timelines, the State Government has evaluated the cases of the prospective colleges which had secured valid LOI and stood fully compliant and final approvals were accorded vide Government Resolution dated 30^th June, 2026. The withdrawal of moratorium on 11^th January, 2026 will not assist the Petitioner as the Petitioner failed to approach the Court immediately. As the proposal was not forwarded by Respondent No. 2 University to State Government, the Petitioner’s application is still at stage of recommendation of Respondent No. 2 University even after all final approvals have already been granted to eligible colleges.

In facts of this case, as final approvals are granted, the consideration of validity of Clause (3) in the communication of 19^th September, 2025 is rendered academic as the entire process has been exhausted. The grant of final approvals indicates that perspective plan has been complied and stands exhausted.

Resultantly, we are not inclined at this stage to entertain the present Petition. Petition fails and stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

Needless to clarify that the dismissal of the present Petition will not come in the way of the Petitioner, in the event, the Petitioner applies for opening of new center for legal education for the academic year 2027-2028, which application, if made, to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.