2511wp4765.09.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4765 of 2009 (Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal .vs. State and anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D.D.Sinha and F. M. Reis, JJ. Date : 25/11/2009. . . . , . , Heard Mr N R Saboo Adv for petitioner . . . , Mrs B H Dangre Additional Government Pleader for respondent 1 . . . , . .2. no and Mr B G Kulkarni Adv for respondent no Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has applied for grant of permission to start a Junior , , . College of Arts Commerce and Science at village Rui Tq and 2009-2010 District Yavatmal for the Academic Session vide . 30.10.2008. application dt The Counsel further submitted that the University considered the said application and recommended the same favourably to the State Government / . 82 ; , u s of the Maharashtra University Act however the State . , Government till this date did not communicate whether the . , application of petitioner was rejected or not Hence the 2511wp4765.09.odt 2 . petitioner has filed present petition seeking direction to the State Government to consider the same for the Academic 2009-10. Session . . . , Mrs B H Dangre Additional Government Pleader has submitted that proposals were received by the State Government from the University for the Academic Session 2009-2010 ; and were considered by the State Government , however the proposals which were accepted by the State Government and in whose favour the permission was granted to start colleges were published in the Government Resolution and the colleges which were not mentioned in the , Government Resolution their proposals were deemed to have been rejected and the University was already directed by the / State Government to inform the concerned Society Mandals . accordingly . . . , Mr B G Kulkarni learned counsel for respondent .2 , no – University has submitted that the University has already communicated the decision of the State Government . to the petitioner in respect of its proposal This fact has been . disputed by the learned counsel for petitioner 2511wp4765.09.odt 3 . We have considered the contentions canvassed by . the respective parties , This is really unfortunate that time and gain the people have to approach this Court seeking direction to the , State Government to communicate the reasons orders passed by State Government on the proposals forwarded by the , University in regard to the opening of colleges in spite of decision of this Court in case of Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak , , / . Mandal Ashti District Beed V s State of Maharashtra and 2002 (1) . . . 814 other reported in Mh L J and in view of the specific 31 32 - observations in paragraphs and which reads thus 31. “ In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State , Government it is stated that the State Government has absolute discretion in the . matter of grant of approval In order to magnify , this proposition a reference is made to the - (5) 82 provisions of sub section of section of the , 1994 Maharashtra Universities Act in the affidavit . , of Dr Pandurang Keche who is the Joint Director , . , of Higher Education Aurangabad No doubt the power of absolute discretion is given to the State . , Government However this discretionary power is . required to be exercised in a reasonable manner Absolute discretion does not mean absolute . - (5) arbitrariness The very sub section of section 82 , 1994 of the Maharashtra Universities Act makes it clear that the absolute discretion is to be exercised in the light of what is right and . what is proper Even in case of extreme 2511wp4765.09.odt 4 . , categories of discretion the idea of fair play is . inherent in the power of absolute discretion The concept of absolute discretion does not absolve the State Government in each and every case from not giving reasons for its administrative . actions Having of one is necessarily exclusion of , , another and therefore fair play demands some . kind of reasons for giving preference to someone The external actions sometime show internal . secrets In spite of directions of this court given , in earlier writ petitions the State Government . , has not passed reasoned order Therefore we are inclined to quash and set aside the impugned 30-4-2001. order dated It is to be remembered that weak foundation destroys the . superstructure The State Government has not laid a foundation in the form of valid reasons to . , support the impugned order Therefore our . interference is justified Law ought not to fail in . doing justice to those with serious grievance All the petitioners have demonstrated the serious , , grievance and therefore the impugned order 30-4-2001 . dated is liable to be nullified 32. , . In the result all the petitions succeed 30-4-2001 The impugned order dated passed by the State of Maharashtra granting permission to start a new college at Shirur Kasar to Saint , Bhagwan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Pangari is . hereby quashed and set aside We direct the State Government to transmit back all the proposals to the University forthwith for its fresh . , consideration The University after having made scrutiny of the proposals strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and in full compliance of the observations made by this Court in earlier , writ petitions should submit its recommendations on inter se merits to the State Government 31-12-2001. before The State Government is directed to reconsider the recommendations to be submitted by the Universities afresh and pass appropriate and reasoned order before 31-1-2002.” 2511wp4765.09.odt 5 . The State Government has neither given any , reasons for rejecting the proposal of petitioner which was recommended by the University nor has communicated the . order of rejection to the petitioner The Division Bench has rightly observed that the reason is soul of administrative . action without which the order would a dead letter Mere communication of the order which does not contain reasons is also inconsistent with the concept of fair play and rationality and would attract arbitrariness and such order would not be . / sustainable in law When the application proposal for opening new college forwarded by University is rejected by the State , Government the order must be reasoned order and the said . order must be communicated to the applicant We direct the , Principal Secretary State of Maharashtra to ensure that this . procedure shall be followed in future , In the instant case for the reasons stated , hereinabove and in the interest of justice we direct .2 respondent no – University to reconsider the / 30 application proposal of petitioner dated th 2008 October for 2511wp4765.09.odt 6 . 2009-2010 the Academic Session in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard and if the petitioner fulfills , the eligibility criteria then forward it to the State Government . accordingly for necessary orders The State Government shall pass an order in accordance with law and communicate the . same to the petitioner It is made clear that this order is passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore the order is strictly restricted . to the present case , With these observations and directions the petition . is disposed of Registrar (Judicial) is directed to communicate our order to the Chief/Principal Secretary State of Maharashtra, Mumbai forthwith. JUDGE JUDGE jais