wp2873.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2873 OF 2011 Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Bahhuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Navandi, Through its Secretary, Ashok S/o Bhimrao Birajdar, R/o-Nalegaon, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Deputy Director, Higher and Technical Education, Latur Region, Latur. 3) The Director, Board of College and University Development, Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded, 4) Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Vishnupuri, Nanded, Through its Registrar. ...RESPONDENTS. wp2873.11 2 ... Shri.H.V. Patil Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 8TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner filed proposal for starting Arts College, for the academic year 2009-2010. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that master plan was prepared for a period of five years and as the Petitioner did not receive any reply from the Respondents, the Petitioner filed present Writ Petition. 3. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed affidavit in reply. In para 5 and 6 of the reply, wp2873.11 3 the deponent contends that: "5. I respectfully say and submit that, the proposal of the petitioner for grant of permission to start new college for the academic year 2009-10 was received by the Government through the Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded. The same was forwarded to the Task Force Committee. Task Force Committee has considered relevant factors such as gross enrollment ratio, infrastructure, number of students passing from different faculties etc. and then the Task Force Committee negatively recommended the proposal. The copy of report is annexed herewith and marked as Exh.R-1." "6. It is submitted that, the various proposals received by the government for the academic wp2873.11 4 year 2009-10 have been scrutinized as per Sec. 82(5) of the Mah. Universities Act, 1994 and the government has accorded sanction to some institutes after taking into consideration the criteria mentioned in the said Act. Orders of these colleges have been issued and sent to all the concerned Universities and also displayed on this department Web Site. The letter to this effect issued by the government on 1.9.2009 by the Director of Higher Education, Pune on 16.9.2009 and concerned University also on 4.3.2010." 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that reasoned order has not been communicated to the Petitioner. The counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the reported Judgment in the case of Digitek Krida Vikas Sanshodhan Va Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, wp2873.11 5 Sindi (Railway) vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2011 (1) Mh. L.J. Page 793. 5. We have perused the Judgment cited before us and considered the submissions advanced. We direct the State Government to communicate the Petitioner the decision taken by the State Government, with reasons, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the Petitioner is aggrieved with the decision of the State Government, the Petitioner is at liberty to resort to appropriate remedies as permissible in law. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/NOV11