High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1) RA-185-2018.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADREVIEW APPLICATION NO.185 OF 2018INWRIT PETITION NO.5883 OF 2017Walmiki Sevabhavi Trust, Bhokar,Through its Secretary,Nagnathrao s/o Laxmanrao Ghisewad,Age: 52 years, Occu: Agri./Social Work,R/o. Bhokar, Taluka Bhokar,District Nanded...ApplicantVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Higher and Technical Education Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.Director of Higher and Technical Education,Aurangabad Divisions, Aurangabad.3.Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada,University, Nanded,Through its Registrar.4.The Director,Board of College and University Development,Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University,Nanded...Respondents …Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by. Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar,Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.Mr. U. S. Malte, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 26th FEBRUARY, 2024.ORDER (Per: S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.):-
Decision
(2) RA-185-2018.odt1.The applicant seeks review of the judgment and order dated15.03.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5883/2017 by whichthe respondents-Authorities were directed to consider the proposal ofthe applicant-Trust for grant of permission to run Arts and ScienceCollege from the Academic Year 2018-2019, if as per perspective planthe Arts and Science College is permissible at Bhokar, District Nandedfor the said Academic Year.2.The applicant contends that initially the applicant hadapproached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.5883/2017 therebyraising challenge to the order dated 13.02.2017 passed by therespondent no.1-State of Maharashtra by which proposal of theapplicant-Trust for starting new college at Bhokar, from Academic Year2016-2017 was rejected. The Writ Petition was contested by therespondent-State by filing affidavit-in-reply. This Court took the note ofcontentions of applicant that he has removed all deficiencies in theproposal including objections as regards to land and building and raisedconstruction of 17,500 square feet to meet norms. Accordingly this courtdirected the respondent-State to reconsider applicant’s proposal forensuing Academic Year i.e. 2018-2019, although, same wasrecommended by the University for the year 2015. However, this courtclarified that the proposal shall be considered as per perspective planfor the Academic Year 2018-2019. The Writ Petition No.5883/2017 wasaccordingly disposed of vide order dated 15.03.2018.3.It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid order theapplicant’s proposal could not be favorably considered, since Universitycommunicated to the State Government that for the Academic Year2018-2019 the Arts and Science Womens College is not included in theperspective plan. (3) RA-185-2018.odt4.Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate appearing for theapplicant would submit that this Court after considering thesubmissions and material on record directed the respondent-Authoritiesto reconsider the proposal that was positively recommended by theUniversity for opening of new college at Bhokar. The certaindeficiencies were pointed out in the proposal. The applicant hasscrupulously complied with those requirements. The huge amount isinvested in complying the deficiencies. The petitioner-Institution madeready the necessary infrastructure in tune with the UGC guidelines andUniversity requirements. However, by giving technical reasons that theWomens College is not proposed at Bhokar as per perspective plan forthe Academic Year 2018-2019, the petitioner is refused permission toopen college.5.Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate relies upon theobservations of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of ShivajiUniversity Through Director Vs. Bharti Vidyapeeth ThroughJoint Secretary1 and submits that in the year 2015 the perspectiveplan shows requirement of Womens College at Bhokar. However, whenin pursuance of order passed by this Court, the petitioner complied withall the deficiencies, respondent refused consideration of proposal givingreason that as per perspective plan for the Academic Year 2018-2019no college is proposed at Bhokar. He would submit that in fact proposalought to have been considered in light of the perspective plan aspublished in the year 2015, in response to which the applicant hadapplied for permission. He submits that University felt need ofwomen’s College at Bhokar in the year 2015, accordingly point wasincluded in perspective plan. Till this date no College is granted at thatplace, therefore, now, respondents-Authorities cannot be allowed tocontend that perspective plan for Academic Year 2018-2019 does notinclude proposed location for new college and deny permission to the11999 AIR (SC) 1762. (4) RA-185-2018.odtpetitioner. He would submit that the respondents are takingdisadvantage of directions of this Court by which the consideration ofthe proposal of the applicant was conditioned subject to availability oflocation in the perspective plan for the Academic Year 2018-2019. Mr.Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the observations of thisCourt in case of Namita Education and Welfare Society Vs. Stateof Maharashtra and Anr., (Writ Petition No.1959/2017) dated17.11.2017 and Bhartiya Vaidyak Samanvaya Samiti Vs. State ofMaharashtra and Others2. He would, therefore, submit that reviewapplication needs to be allowed and direction needs to be givenreconsider the applicants proposal as per perspective plan of 2015,existing at the time of submission of the proposal, instead as perperspective plan for 2018-2019, as directed by order under review.6.Having heard Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate for theapplicant, Mr. Tekale, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2, so alsoMr. Malte, learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4. wefind that, the applicant had responded to the Notification issued by theUniversity in the Month of October 2015 thereby calling upon theinterested Educational Institutions to submit the proposal for openingof new Colleges at identified locations as per perspective plan for theAcademic Year 2016-2017. Since, women’s College was proposed atBhokar, applicant had submitted a proposal showing its interest to startnew College. It appears that, the applicant’s proposal was turned downmainly on the ground that the constructed area was bereft of norms andthe land under construction received belated N.A. permission underSection 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Further, therequisite bank balance of Rs.5,00,000/- was not certified. Whileimpugning rejection of proposal, submission was made on behalf theapplicant that he is ready to remove all deficiencies. Even it wasrepresented to this court that current perspective plan for the Academic22007 (3) Mh.L.J. 507. (5) RA-185-2018.odtYear 2018-2019 also depicts availability of location for Arts and ScienceCollege at Bhokar. 7.This Court on the basis of submissions and representationmade on behalf the applicant, passed the order as under:“The respondents shall consider the proposal submitted by thepetitioner and recommended by the university in 2015, for theacademic year 2018-2019 afresh. The respondents may carry outthe measurement through its competent person in the presence ofthe petitioner. The petitioner may produce the N.A. certificateissued to it by the Collector with the respondent authority within aperiod of three weeks from today. The petitioner may also producefresh certificate of the financial institution showing the minimumbalance required as per the condition. The respondentauthority shall consider the said proposal of the petitionerafresh for academic year 2018-2019, if as per theperspective plan the Arts and Science college is permissibleat Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded for academic year2018-2019. The same shall be considered expeditiously andpreferably by the end of May 2018. The writ petition is accordinglydisposed of. No costs.”8.It appears that consequent upon the aforesaid order, theUniversity made the communication dated 18.05.2018 to the StateGovernment, specifically indicating that, perspective plan for theAcademic Year 2018-2019 do not include location at Bhokar for thegrant of new College.9.At this stage, reference can be given to certain observationsof the Supreme Court of India in the matter of review jurisdictionavailable to the court. In paragraph no.56 in case of Lily Thomas andOthers Vs. Union Of India and Others3 the Supreme Court of Indiaobserved thus:“It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised forcorrection of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powerscan be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with theexercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in3(2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 224. (6) RA-185-2018.odtdisguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not aground for review.”10.Similarly taking into account the purport and limit of theprovision contained under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of CivilProcedure the jurisdiction to review of order can be exercised by theCourt when error apparent on the face of record has been surfaced, butnot because some different view is possible.11.Apparently, this Court acceded to representation made bythe petitioner regarding availability of location in current perspectiveplan for 2018-2019 and passed the order, hence, applicant cannot nowturn around and seek modification of such direction to consider hisproposal as per original perspective plan for 2015. Present review isopted when applicant realized that his statement was not wellinformed.12.Chapter X of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016provides for the procedure for permission, affiliation and recognition ofthe new college and institution. Section 107 (1) of the Act, 2016provides that the university shall prepare comprehensive perspectiveplan for every five years and get the same approved by Commission.Such plan shall be prepared for the location of colleges and institutionsof higher learning in a manner ensuring comprehensive equitabledistribution of facilities for higher education keeping regards to theneeds of particular areas within the jurisdiction of the university.Section 109 of the Act, 2016 provides that the university to call forproposal for opening new colleges or institutions of higher learning.The Sub-Clause (2) specifies that no application for opening new collegeor institution of higher learning, which is not in conformity with theperspective plan shall be considered by the university. If the saidprovisions are considered in light of the contention of the petitioner, the (7) RA-185-2018.odtmodification sought by way of review is inconsistent with the scheme ofthe Act. Once it is confirmed by the University that for the AcademicYear 2018-2019 the place of the petitioner’s interest is not included inthe perspective plan, it would be impermissible for this Court to issueany direction inconsistent with the statutory scheme and for thatpurpose review own order passed earlier. 13.It is trite law that prayer for review of order can beentertained by Writ Court on limited grounds as indicated under Order47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Apparently, none of such ground isavailable in the present case. The judgments relied upon on behalf ofthe applicant are not applicable in the facts of the present case. In ourconsidered view, there is no substance in Application. Consequently,Review Application stands rejected.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE JUDGEDevendra/February-2024