NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR v. The State of Maharashtra

-VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Higher and Department Technical Mantralaya Mumbai-400 001. Education Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj, Nagpur University, Nagpur through its Registrar, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001. Bharat Sewak Samaj Siddhartha Vastigraha, Paoni, Distt. Bhandara through its Secretary Vikas Mansaramji Rout having Office at Paoni, Tah. Paoni, Distt. Bhandara. WRIT PETITION NO.4857 OF 2008. PETITIONERS:

Kamraj S/o Rambhau Ramteke, age 42 years, Occu. Service,

Shalik S/o Parasram Ukare, aged 40 years, Occu. Service,

3. Naresh S/o Ramji Motghare, aged 30 years, Occu. Service,

Bhaurao S/o Gangaram Panchwate, aged 28 years, Occu. Service, 2

Rajesh S/o Kewalram Moharkar, aged 30 years, Occ. Service,

Ashok S/o Laxmanji Motghare, aged 43 years, Occ. Service,

Milind S/o Shamraoji Motghare, aged 29 years, Occu. Service,

Naresh S/o Pandurang Ukey, aged 31 years, Occ. Service,

Naresh S/o Mahadeo Jambhulkar, aged 29 years, Occu.service, All Petitioners Nos.1 to 9 working at Dr. Arun Motghare Mahavidyalaya, Kondhakosra, Tah. Paoni, Dist. Bhandara. RESPONDENTS:

3. -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Department Mantralaya Mumbai-400 001. Education Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj, Nagpur University, Nagpur through its Registrar, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001.

Bharat Sewak Samaj Siddhartha Vastigruha, Paoni, Distt. Bhandara through its Secretary Shri Vikas Mansaramji Raut having Office at Paoni, Tah. Paoni, Distt. Bhandara. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court(cid:25) s or Judge(cid:25) s appearances, Court's orders or direction Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A. Parchure, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent no.2. Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for R-3. 3 Coram : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 30th AUGUST, 2009. Heard finally with consent of the parties. The writ petition no.4383 of 2008 is by the Management of the Collect while Writ Petition No.4857 of 2008 is by the staff of the said College. The management is attempting to demonstrate that because of illegal permission granted to Respondent no.3 to start Junior College in Arts faculty at village Kondha Kosra, Tah. Pavni, District Bhandara, the strength of the students with the Petitioner College is adversely affected and one section is required to be closed down.

The closure of section has affected the number of sanctioned teaching and non teaching staff. In this background, Advocate Shri Parchure placed reliance upon Section 82(5) of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 to urge that as there was no favourable proposal by 4 the Nagpur University for grant of College to Respondent no.3, the State Government could have in its own powers directly granted such College only in exceptional circumstances, and after recording the reasons therefor. He contends that no such special reasons are recorded by the Respondent no.1 while permitting the opening of College. Advocate Shri Kulkarni for the Respondent no.2 University states that the proposal of Respondent no.3 was received by the University, but it was forwarded to Respondent no.1 in accordance with the law, with negative recommendation. Advocate Shri Jibhkate for the Respondent no.3 and learned AGP for Respondent no.1 states that the proposals received were duly verified by the State Government and after taking into account the report of the Task Force, and the data available in the proposal, submitted by Respondent no.3, the 5 permission has been granted.

According to them, special reasons are also recorded in the order dated 13-06-08 by which the permission was granted to the Respondent no.3. Advocate Shri Parchure contends that the provisions of Maharashtra Universities Act, do not contemplate any task force and recommendation of such task force has got no legal sanctity. Dispute between the parties is whether number of students taking education in petitioner(cid:25) s college has gone down after starting new College by the Respondent no.3. It is apparent that the University had sent negative recommendation and the special reasons recorded by the State Government only mention that the negative recommendation along with the need of local students as special reasons. Facts, if any, emerging from report of task force are not apparent in order. The conflict between stand of University and 6 report of task force is not considered and resolved anywhere.

In view of this record, we find it proper to direct the respondent no.1 to reconsider the issue after hearing the petitioner as also the respondent no.3and after considering the proposal made by the Nagpur University in the matter. The said decision be taken as early as possible and in any case by 31st March 2009. In view of this direction, we find that other contentions & arguments need not be gone into at this stage. Liberty to party against whom the decision of the State Government goes to challenge it further in accordance with law. With this liberty, both the petitions are disposed off. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/