-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.8706 OF 2007 NO.8706 OF 2007 NO.8706 OF 2007 Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha, District Kolhapur and anr. ...Petitioners v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr A.V. Anturkar i/b Mr S. Deshmukh for Petitioners. Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.Y. GANOO JJ. DATE : 9TH JUNE 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. The petitioners, by this petition, challenge the Government Resolution dated 22nd February 2007 providing for imposition of fine on educational institutions who admit students before they secure permission from the Government to start a new course and the order actually imposing fine on the petitioners. 2. Admitted position is that the petitioners had applied to the University to which its college is affiliated for starting a new course i.e. B.Sc. (Biotechnology) (Entire). It appears that Academic Council of the University recommended the application of the petitioners. The proposal was then sent to the State Government. The Government was taking time to make any order on that proposal. Therefore, it appears that in this Court writ petition No.8366 of 2006, was filed. In the order disposing of the writ petition, the Court observed that the Government could not make order on the proposal submitted by the University because of the Municipal elections. The Court also noted that 37 students have been admitted by the petitioners for the academic year 2006-2007 and to safeguard the interest of those students, the University had made arrangement for -3- those students to appear for examination through some other institutions. It appears that the Government granted required permission by order dated 2nd February 2007 permitting the institution to admit 30 students from the academic year 2006-2007. It appears that the petitioners, without waiting for the State Government to grant the permission, had already admitted students for the academic year 2006-2007. The Government had taken a policy decision which is expressed by its Resolution dated 22nd January 2007 laying it down that on those institutions which start the course and admit the students without necessary permission from the Government, fine would be imposed. As the petitioners had admitted 37 students for the academic year 2006-2007 admittedly before the State Government granted permission, fine was imposed on the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners stated that the amount of fine has already been paid, but the learned counsel submits that there is no prohibition contained in the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 on the institutions admitting students before grant of permission for opening new course. He submits that sub-section (6) of section 83 imposes such a prohibition in relation to the permission for affiliation to University. He therefore submitted that the petitioner - College could have admitted the students in anticipation of the permission. Perusal of section -4- 82(5) shows that the Legislature treats an application for permission for opening a new course and an application seeking affiliation of an institute to a University on par. In our opinion, when the legislation in terms lays down that no student should be given admission before grant of affiliation, then the same condition will apply when an institution which is already affiliated applies for starting a new course. 3. Perusal of provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 relating to grant of permission to start a new course shows that when a College seeks permission, it has to move the Government in prescribed form for permission within prescribed time limit and after securing permission, it can start new courses that are permitted to be taught. In our opinion, therefore, the procedure in relation an application for opening of a new College i.e. seeking affiliation to a new College will wholly apply when an institution, which is already recognised, seeks permission to start a new course. The enquiry to be made will be the same and therefore all restrictions and conditions will apply in relation to an application seeking permission to start a new course. In our opinion, the purpose of including prohibition is that when an application is made either for opening a new institution or for opening a new course, the Government may either grant it or may not grant it. If -5- students are permitted to be admitted in anticipation of either affiliation or in anticipation of permission to open a new course and if ultimately the Government does not grant permission, the interest of students will be adversely affected. The purpose for laying down the provision is to protect the interest of students. If that is the purpose, in our opinion, the prohibition will apply with full force in relation to opening a new course also. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the fine was imposed without granting the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. According to him, had such a notice being given, it was possible for him to point out the circumstances. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded. Perusal of the Government Resolution shows that the amount of fine is not in the discretion of the authority. If students are admitted without obtaining prior permission, then what fine is to be imposed is laid down by the Government Resolution. In this case, the fact that the students have been admitted without State Government’s permission is not disputed. The permission granted by the State Government in the month of February 2007 will invalidate the admissions which were given by the petitioners without prior approval. The purpose of imposing fine is to curb tendency of educational institutions admitting -6- students without waiting for permission which is a ’prior permission’ contemplated. The learned counsel also further submits that there is a permission granted to admit 30 students for the academic year 2006-2007. According to him, there was no justification also for granting permission only for 30 students. It is an admitted position that the recommendation of the Academic Council of the University was only for 30 students and therefore, in our opinion, no exception can be taken to the decision of the State Government in that regard. 5. The learned counsel also submits that in any case, fine could have been imposed for admitting seven students in addition to the sanctioned strength and not for admitting 37 students in all. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded because permission was granted to admit 30 students and actually 37 students were admitted when there was no permission. Therefore, as per the Government Resolution dated 21st January 2006, fine was rightly imposed. We see no reason to interfere with the petition. Petition is rejected. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. -7- . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( R.Y. GANOO J.)