gopi 1 wp-6245-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6245 OF 2011 Navneet Education Society ....Petitioner Vs. The University of Mumbai & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. A.L. Gore i/b. C.J. Abhyankar for the petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, A.G.P., for respondent State. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. 22 August 2011 PC: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nargolkar, learned A.G.P., for the State. It is brought to our notice that the Mumbai University was served on 17 August 2011. Affidavit of service be filed by 24 August 2011. 2. The petitioner Trust which runs a Science College in Mumbai has challenged the Government Resolution dated 30 October 2010 (Exhibit “H”) laying down various conditions for starting new College/new courses. The challenge is levelled in the context of the decision as communicated through letter dated 4 June 2011 (Exhibit “N”) from the Registrar of Mumbai University, informing the petitioner that the proposal of the petitioner college for starting new courses of B.M.S. and B.Com., from the academic year 2011-2012 has been rejected. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Trust gopi 2 wp-6245-11.sxw had submitted a proposal on 18 October 2010 for starting the aforesaid two courses, but the University has rejected the proposal by the impugned communication dated 4 June 2011 without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and also by applying the norms prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 30 October, 2010. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner had submitted the application on 18 October 2010 only the norms applicable on that day should have been taken into consideration by the University and not the norms subsequently framed. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader submits that it is the norms which are applicable on the date of taking decision which must give a decision making process. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties we find substantial substance in the submission of Mr. Nargolkar, Additional Government Pleader that the norms applicable on the date of taking the decision would apply and not the date on which the proposal is submitted by the institution. Even so when the State Government or the University introduced the new norms, the fairness requires that the institution must be given an opportunity to fulfill those norms. For this purpose it would be necessary for the Government/University to inform the concerned institution about the new norms and also to give them an opportunity to satisfy the Government/University that all the applicable norms including the new norms have been complied with. 7. Since such an opportunity does not appear to have been given to the petitioner institution, without expressing any opinion on the merits of gopi 3 wp-6245-11.sxw the petitioner’s proposal we direct that respondent No.1-University fo Mumbai shall given the petitioner an opportunity of complying with all the applicable norms including the new norms and also to give the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing before taking any final decision on the proposal to start the new courses. 8. Since the norms are already on record as communicated in the letter dated 8 April 2011, it will be open to the petitioner to submit a compliance report to the University by 30 September 2011 and thereafter the University will take decision in the matter within two months. 9. All contentions are kept open except the question about applicability of the Government Resolution dated 30 October, 2010 which is already held to be applicable to the petitioner’s application made prior thereto. 10. Liberty to the University to move this Court for modification/clarification if required. Petition accordingly disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.