Kambli 1 wp7886.10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7886 OF 2010 Bhausaheb Shivajirao Bendre ...Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents --- Mr.Venkatesh Shastry, for Petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent No. 1. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. Dated: 6th October, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. Kambli 2 wp7886.10 2. The Petitioner by this petition challenges the validity of the provisions of Section 24A of the Maharashtra Universities Act, which has been introduced in the Maharashtra Universities Act by Maharashtra Ordinance No.6 of 2009. The challenge is that, that provision confers drastic powers on the State Government to provide eligibility for election or nomination of the member of any authority of the University. It is also submitted that the consultation which is provided with the Chancellor before prescribing the qualification is also a meaningless requirement. If one reads the provisions of Section 24A, it prima facie appears that there are no guidelines laid down in that provision itself for the State Government to exercise that power. The consultation which is provided is also with the Chancellor, who is the Governor of the Kambli 3 wp7886.10 State. Therefore, an argument is available that the Governor as per the Constitution has to act on the advice of the Counsel of Minister and therefore the requirement of consultation with the Chancellor is not a effective restriction on the power of the State Government. In our opinion, however, the provision of law cannot be struck down merely because it confers very wide powers on the State Government, if the court finds that what is done by the State Government in exercise of that wide power cannot be termed as unresonable. It is not always necessary that guidelines for exercise of the power have to be laid down in the same provision which confers power. The guidelines can be found in the scheme of the enactment. Conferral of power on the highest authority in the State is also a relevant consideration. We have already held by our Kambli 4 wp7886.10 order passed in Writ Petition No.7574 of 2010 dated 23rd September, 2010 that the qualification prescribed by the State Government in exercise of it power under Section 24A for being a member of Senate from the Teachers Constituency i.e. possessing Ph.D. Degree and working at least for 5 years as a paper setter etc. is resonable and has direct nexus with the function of the Senate and we found that the action of the State Government taken under Section 24A is resonable and has nexus with the provisions of the Universities Act. In our opinion, merely because Section 24A vests wide terms, it cannot be struck down. Petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)