Bombay High Court
SANKALP PRATISTHAN AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRIN. SEC. HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDU. DEPT. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The State of Maharashtra is required to consider the petitioners' proposal under Section 109(4)(d) and render a reasoned decision by 28 August 2026.
Summary
The petitioners, two law colleges, sought a writ directing the State of Maharashtra to process their proposal for an additional division of their college under the Maharashtra Public University Act, 2016. They had submitted the proposal within the statutory deadlines of Section 109(3)(a) and 109(4)(c), but the university (Respondent No.4) did not recommend it due to a Bar Council of India moratorium, which was later relaxed. The State subsequently invited proposals from only 12 of the 19 colleges, excluding the petitioners, and approved seven colleges. The petitioners argued that the State must consider their timely proposal and that the university’s failure should not prejudice them. The State agreed to consider the proposal under Section 109(4)(d) and to issue a reasoned decision by 28 August 2026, after which the college could obtain affiliation by 31 August 2026. The court disposed of the writ petition without costs, noting the State’s commitment to decide the matter.
Issues considered
- The petitioners' eligibility for an additional division despite the university's non‑recommendation.
- Whether the State must consider the proposal under Section 109(4)(d) of the Maharashtra Public University Act, 2016.
- Whether the petitioners' timely submission obliges the State to grant affiliation before the statutory deadline.
Subjects
- writ petition
- university affiliation
- law college
- additional division
- Bar Council of India
- Maharashtra Public University Act
- section 109
- moratorium
Judgment
sr.912-WP-9595-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANSI
DHANANJAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SHELKE
Digitally signed by
MANSI DHANANJAY
SHELKE
Date: 2026.08.25
20:28:24 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 9595 OF 2026
Sankalp Pratishtan & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Adv. Prathamesh Bhargude a/w Adv. Sumit Sonare for the Petitioners.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP a/w V.G. Badgujar, AGP for the
Respondent - State.
Mr. Omkar Sudhirrao Kandharkar, Assistant Section Officer present in
Court.
Adv. Vaibhavi Shelar i/b Adv. Rajendra Anbhule for Respondent No.4.
Adv. Prasad L. Gajbhiye a/w Adv. Rutuja A. Joshi for Respondent No.5
(BCI).
CORAM: R.I CHAGLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: AUGUST 25, 2026
P. C.
1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has sought consideration
and decision on its proposal for grant of an additional Division by reasoned
Speaking Order to be passed by the Respondent State and to direct the
Page 1 of 5
AUGUST 25, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.912-WP-9595-2026.doc
Respondents to process the proposal and include Petitioner No.2 in the list of
colleges in the admission process 2026-27.
2. On the prior date, viz, 12th August, 2026, we had considered the
urgency for moving the present Writ Petition as well as the relevant
provisions of the Maharashtra Public University Act, 2016 ( ‘the said Act’).
The timelines stipulated under Section 109 (3) (a) and 109 (4)(c) for
submission of proposal by the Petitioner college as well as forwarding by the
university have been clearly set out, viz, before the last day of September of
the year preceding the year in which the letter of intent was sought, and on or
before the first day of April of the year with such recommendation of the
Respondent University duly supported by the relevant reasons as are deemed
appropriate by the Management Council.
3. In the present case, the Petitioner had forwarded its proposal on
30th September, 2025 to the Respondent No.4 University and which was
forwarded to the Respondent State on 1 st April, 2026 along with proposals of
18 other law colleges.
4. Thus, the timelines, as provided under the aforesaid provisions,
had been complied with. It appears that Respondent No.4 University had not
Page 2 of 5
AUGUST 25, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.912-WP-9595-2026.doc
recommended the proposal in view of the moratorium imposed by
Respondent No.5 Bar Council of India (BCI). It appears that the moratorium
was thereafter relaxed by Respondent No.5 (BCI) vide Order dated 23 rd
February, 2026, which is given effect on 5th March, 2026.
5. It appears that, thereafter, the Respondent State had, vide its
communication dated 18th June, 2026, called for proposals of only 12 out of
the 19 Law Colleges and which excluded the Petitioner Law College.
Thereafter, Respondent No.4 University forwarded the proposal of 10
colleges along with their recommendations.
6. By Government Resolution dated 30 th June, 2026, the
Respondent State granted approval in respect of 7 out of the 10 Law Colleges.
7. Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner, has submitted that, the Petitioner’s proposal ought to have been
considered by the Respondent State given that the proposal had been
submitted within given timelines under Section 109 (3) (a) and 109 (4)(c) of
the said Act. It was for Respondent No.4 to have recommended the proposal
of the Petitioner, and their failure to do so cannot visit adverse consequences
on the Petitioner. He submitted that the Petitioner Law College is now left in
Page 3 of 5
AUGUST 25, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.912-WP-9595-2026.doc
a predicament where it has become difficult to meet the timelines for
acceptance of its proposal by the Respondent State and for starting the new
division, which is prior to 31st August, 2026.
8. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondent State, states, on
instructions, that the Petitioner’s proposal, for starting a new division, will be
considered under Section 109 (4)(d) of the said Act by 28th August, 2026 by a
reasoned decision being given. This statement is accepted.
9. In view of the above statement, the Petitioner, in the event the
approval is granted by the Respondent State to its proposal, will obtain the
continuation of Affiliation from Respondent No.4 University by 31 st August,
2026.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 BCI
states, on instructions, that the portal of the BCI is being opened by
tomorrow viz, 26th August, 2026, for uploading of approvals for new divisions
which are to be started by the educational institutions including that of the
Petitioner in the event approval is granted by the Respondent - State. This
statement is accepted.
Page 4 of 5
AUGUST 25, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.912-WP-9595-2026.doc
11. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order
as to costs.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R. I. CHAGLA, J.]
Page 5 of 5
AUGUST 25, 2026
Mansi shelke
Checking your session…