1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5332 OF 2009 Amiable Charitable Trust Khalid Tower Katkatgate, Aurangabad Through its Chairman Mr.Mujtaba Farooque s/o. Shaikh Abdul Wahad Age-51 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Aurangabad Times Colony, Katkatgate, Aurangabad. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, University Campus, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad Through its Registrar RESPONDENTS Mr.V.D.Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.H.Dighe, learned AGP for respondent no.1 Mr.S.S.Thombre, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 10/09/2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition was initially filed praying therein for issuance of a writ directing respondent no.1 to grant permission to the petitioner institution for starting Bachelor of Computer Application Course from the academic year 2009-2010. The petitioner then had also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to comply with the directions of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution rendered in case No.1554/2008 dated 23/04/2009. The petition thereafter came to be amended and by virtue of the amended prayer clause, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication of respondent no.1 dated 29/08/2008 which is annexed to the petition as Exh.J. By virtue of the impugned communication, the respondents had informed the University that the proposals which had not been granted were deemed to have been rejected. The petitioner being thus aggrieved by the aforesaid communication dated 29/08/2008 has filed the present petition. 3. We have heard Shri.V.D.Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP Shri.Dighe on behalf of respondent and Shri.S.S.Thombre on behalf of respondent no.2. 4. Pursuant to the declaration in the prospective plan in respect of availability of opening of one College of Computer and Management 3 Science at Aurangabad City (Hudco) the petitioner submitted his application/proposal on 31/10/2007. The petitioner complied with the requisite conditions of depositing of Rs.60,000/- The respondent no.2 University after scrutiny of the aforesaid proposal by its order dated 28/12/2007 re-commended the proposal of the petitioner. Despite the re-commendation of the University, the respondent no.1 did not communicate to the petitioner any decision arrived at in respect of the proposal of the petitioner. The petitioner which is a Minority Institute therefore accordingly submitted its complaint to the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution which came to be registered as 1554/2008. National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions by its order dated 23/04/2009 directed the respondent no.2 to consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner and which was re-commended by the University for establishment of the proposed college at the earliest. Despite the aforesaid directions, according to the petitioner, the proposal of the petitioner has not been considered. During the pendancy of this writ petition, the copy of the communication at Exh.J dated 02/08/2008 was received by the petitioner which impelled the petitioner to challenge the said proposal. 5. Shri.V.D.Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner as have been invited our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ashti, Dist. Beed versus State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2002(1) Mh.L.J. 814. The Division Bench of this Court found that since no reasons had been given for preferring the proposal of the respondent over the petitioner therein, there was a lack of element of fair play in the decision making 4 process. The Division Bench further observed that absolute discretion does not mean absolute arbitrariness and therefore the Division Bench quashed and set aside the order granting permission to start a new college. In the present case also we find that no reasons have been given by the respondents in fact no reasons have been communicated to the petitioner. In a mechanical act, the respondents have informed the University that proposals which had not been granted were deemed to have been rejected. There is nothing on record to indicate that the proposal of the petitioner was considered. Absence of reasons would clearly indicate that the rejection is mechanical. In the present case, the rejection of the proposal of the petitioner is indeed mechanical as it does not appear that the proposal had been considered in accordance with Law. In the light of that therefore we constrained to allow this petition and quash and set aside the rejection of the proposal of the petitioner and remit the matter back to respondent for a decision afresh after considering the proposal of the petitioner afresh. We direct respondent no.1 to pass orders in accordance with Law in respect of consideration of the proposal of petitioner within 4 months from today, and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp5332-09