Holding

The University’s refusal was arbitrary and unreasonable; the High Court’s order setting aside the refusal stands, and the matter is remitted to the University for fresh consideration.

Summary

Shivaji University refused permission to Bharti Vidyapeeth to start a new morning law college in Sangli, citing that an existing law college already served the town and that the proposed location lay outside the draft Perspective Plan under s.82 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The State of Maharashtra had earlier issued a resolution (13 June 1995) stating that new law colleges would be considered only in districts without any law college, pending a pending Supreme Court decision. The Bar Council of India later granted approval for the college, and the High Court quashed the University’s refusal, deeming the application approved under s.82(4). On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the University’s refusal was arbitrary and unreasonable, that the State resolution did not constitute a binding policy, and that the matter must be remitted to the University for fresh consideration, while allowing the admitted students to complete their courses. The appeal was dismissed and the case remitted.

Issues considered

The legality of Shivaji University's refusal to grant permission for a new law college on the ground that an existing college already exists in the town.
Whether the State Government resolution of 13 June 1995 imposes a policy precluding additional law colleges in districts with an existing college.
Whether the High Court was correct in deeming the application approved under s.82(4) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994s. 82(4), s. 82(5), s. 83

Subjects

law collegeuniversity permissionarbitrary refusalMaharashtra Universities ActSection 82higher educationjudicial reviewpopulation criteriaState resolution

Judgment

A . SHIVAJI UNIVERSITY THROUGH DIRECTOR
v.
·"
BHARTI VIDYAPEETH THROUGH JOINT
SECRETARY AND ORS .

. MARCH 16, 1999
B
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.]
"
U11iversities:

c Maharashtra U11iversities Act, 1994 :

S. 82(4';-Proposal for comme11ci11g 11ew law colleges-Govemme11t
Resolutio11 dated 13.6.1995-U11iversity refusi11g to grallt the pem1issio11 011ly
because a law college already existed i11 the town-Held, the releva11t factors
to be taken illto consideratio11 are the population which the existing law
D college serves and need for an additio11al college-It is a U11iversity which
must decide whether or not it can support the proposal of a 11ew college-If
·-
University declines permissiion arbitrarily or u11reaso11ably, Court should set
aside such refusal a11d re tum the matter to U11iversity for re- considera-
tion--Refusal by U11iversity bei11g arbitrary a11d unreaso11able, matter sellt back
E to it to consider the issue afresh.
Respondent No. 1, an educational institution, was granted permis-
sion by the appellant-University subject to the approval of respondent No.
3, the Bar Council of India, to start a law college to provide only morning
classes for a three years course at Sangli (Maharashtra). On 13.6.1995 the
F State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 2, passed a resolution with regard .,
to permission for new law colleges in Districts of the State where not a
single law college existed. Since the matter in respect of grant-in-aid to
.
private law colleges was pending before this Court*, the resolution stated
that till such time that matter was disposed of, if applications and
proposals were received to open new colleges in Districts where not a single
G law college existed, they would be considered. After the matter was decided
by this Court, respondent No. 1 applied for permission to start the law
college from the academic year 1996-97. The Bar Council of India by its _.. ...,..
letter dated 20.8.1996 communicated to the State Government its permis·
sion to respondent No. 1 to start the law college for teaching morning
H classes only from 1996-97. On 19.10.1996 the appellant University wrote to
1142
SHIVAJIUNIVERSITY v. BHARTIVIDYAPEETH 1143

:>.
the State Government that the approval of the Bar Council of India was A
considered valid for the year 1997-98 and therefore orders he passed to
start the law college from June 1997. However, on 24.12.1996 :he appellant
rejected the application of respondent No. 1 stating that the location of the
proposed law college was outside the draft Perspective Plan prepared under
the provisions of s. 82 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, and one
law college already existed in the town. The appellant also wrote to the State B
).
Government that its letter dated 19.10.1996 be treated as cancelled and that
it had not recommended the proposal of respondent No. 1 to start the law
college for the year 1997-98. Respondent No. 1 then approached the High
Court by filing a writ petition.

The High Court quashed the order of the appellant- University
c
. rejecting the proposals of respondent No. 1 and, inter alia, held that in view
of the approval accorded by the Bar Council of India by its letter dated
20.8.1996, and the letter date 19.10.1996 issued by the Board of the College
and University Development, the application of respondent No. 1 for
opening the law college would be deemed to have been approved by the D
appellant-University under sub-section (4) of S. 82 of the Maharashtra
Universities Act, 1994 from the academic year 1997-98 onwards. Aggrieved,
the University filed the present appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court E

HELD : 1.1. The refusal by the appellant-University to grant to
respondent No. 1 permission to start the law college only because a law
college already existed in the town, is ;irbitrary and unreasonable: The
draft Perspective Plan is also to similar effect and the refusal based F
...
thereon is, therefore, arbitrary and unreasonable. [1148-E]
>-

1.2. It cannot be said that the Government Resolution· dated
13.6.1995 lays down, as a matter of policy, that where there is a law college
1
in a district of the State -no other law coll ege therein will be permitted.
Firstly, the resolution was to operate only till sµch time as this Court G
rendered its decision in\Manubhai Pragaji Vashi*, and it provided that in
that interregnum applications and proposals for the commencement oflaw
•;. colleges would be considered if received from Distriet~ where no law college
' . '·
existed. Secondly, and assuming that that the is the policy, this is clearly
arbitrary and unreasonable. Account has not to be taken of whether or not H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.

A a law college exists in a District. What is relevant and what should be taken
into consideration is the population which the existing law college serves
and whether, therefore, there is need for an additional college. [1148-C-D]

*State of Maharashtra v.Manubhai Pragaji Vashi & Ors., [1995) 5 SCC
730, referred to.
B
2. So far as the conclusion of the High Court that the application of
respondent No. 1 would be deemed to have been approved by the appellant ~
University is concerned, it is the University which must decide whether or
not it can support the proposal for the commencement of a new college. If
C in a given case, like the present one, the University has gone wrong in
declining such permission by relying upon a ground which is arbitrary or
unreasonable or otherwise defective, the court should set aside such
refusal and return the matter for reconsideration in the light of its
judgment. The decision of the appellant University is, therefore, set aside
and the matter is remitted to it to consider the issue afresh in the light of
D this judgment. [1148-G-H]

3. In view of the fact that the law college of respondent No. 1 has
admitted students for academic year 1998-99 pursuant to the High Court's
interim order, it is proper to permit the term to be completed and the
E students to take the examinations. For the following acadenic years the
decision to be rendered by the appellant shall govern. [1149-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1571 of
1999.

p From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.98 of the Bombay High
.,.
Court in W.P. No. 2687 of 1997.

U. U. Lalit for the Appellant.

A.M. Khanwilkar, Nikhil Shakardande and V.D. Khanna for the
G Respondents.·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHARUCHA, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

H The order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the
SHIVAJI UNIVERSITY v. BHARTI VIDYAPEETH [BHARUCHA, J.] 1145

• )'.
High Court of Bombay. A

The first respondent educational institution was granted permission
by the appellant university, subject to the approval of the third respondent,
the Medical Council of India, to start a law college at Sangli to provide
only morning classes for a three year course. The permission of the third
respondent not having been received, the college was not comrilenced B
during the academic year 1994-95. The same thing happened in respect of
the academic year 1995-96.

On 13th June, 1995 the second respondent, the State of Maharashtra
passed a resolution on the subject of pemission for new law colleges on c
permanent unaided basis in Districts of the State where not a single law
college existed. It noted that this Court was yet to hear and dispose of an
appeal in respect of grant-in-aid to private law colleges in the State. (That
decision was rendered on 16th August, 1995, in State of Maharashtra v.
Manubhai Pragaii Vashi & Ors., (1995] 5 SCC 730. The resolution stated
_., D
that till such time that appeal was disposed of, if applications and proposals
were received to open law colleges in Districts where not a single law
-,_ college existed, they would be considered. On 25th September, 1995 the
first respondent made an application to the appellant for permission to
start the said law college for the academic year 1996-97. On 28th Septem-
ber, 1995 such permission was declined on the ground that a law college E
already existed at Sangli.

On 20th August, 1996 the third respondent communicated to. the first
respondent its permission to start the said law college "for teaching three
year course for the three years with morning classes only from 1996-97". F
On 19th October, 1996 the Director of the appellant wrote to the 2nd
._ respondent stating that the first respondent had sent a proposal for starting
the said law college in year 1995-96 and the appellant's Board had recom-
mended the said proposal to the 2nd respondent, but it had not been 'given
provisional sanction. The letter stated that the approval of the third respon-
dent (referred to above) was considered valid for the year 1997-98 and it 0
was. therefore, requested that orders be passed to start the said law college
from June, 1997. On 30th October, 1996 the first respondent applied to the
~ ,,. appellant for permission to start the said law college for the academic year
1997-98. On 22nd November, 1996 a draft Perspective Plan was prepared
by the appellant under the provisions of Section 82 of the Maharashtra H
f

1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A Universities Act 1994. The application of the first respondent dated 30th '(
A

October, 1996. was rejected on 24th December, 1996. The reason for the
rejection was that the location of the said law college was outside the draft
Perspective Plan and one law college already existed in Sangli. On 3rd
February and 1st March, 199'/ the appellant wrote to the 2nd respondent
requesting that its letter dated 19th October, 1995 be treated as cancelled.
B It stated that it had not recommended the proposal of the first respondent
to start the said law college for the year 1997-98.

In April, 1997 the first respondent filed the writ petition upon which
the judgment and order under challenge was passed. By an interim order
c the first respondent was permitted to start the said law college. In the
judgment and order under challenge, the High Court found that the figures
of population and the grant of permission to law colleges at smaller places
in the area of operation of the appellant as also the Perspective Plan
justified the opening of a morning law college at Sangli having regard to
Sangli's population. The appellant had, for the earlier years, recommended
D the proposal to open the said law college. There was a need for opening a \o-

post-graduate Department of Law in the appellant-University, as appeared
from certain guidelines and the Perspective Plan. The reasons given in the )(

letters dates 28th December, 1995 and 24th December, 1996 rejecting the
first respondent's proposal showed non-application of mind and arbitrari-
E ness. The affidavit of the second respondent did not disclose any policy
decision which would go against the grant of the permission. The appellant
was bound by the contents of its letter dated 19th October, 1996, which
had neither been recalled nor cancelled. Assuming that the resolution
· dated 13th June, 1995 was valid, after the decision in Manubhai Pragaji
Vashi's case (ibid) there was nothing to suggest that a policy decision had
F
been taken not to permit an additional college even where there was a need
for it and the appellant and third respondent had approved the law college. ,.(

Upon this b~sis, the High Court passed the following order:

"(i) The rejection of the petitioner's proposal under letter dated
G 28th December, 1995 sent by the Deputy Registrar and its com-
munication dated 15th January, 1996 is hereby quashed and set
aside.
4
,I,

(ii) The rejection of the petitioner's proposal under letter dated
H 24th December, 1996 and its communication on 3rd January, 1997
SHIVAJIUNJVERSITY v. BHARTIVIDYAPEETil(BHARUCHA,J.] 1147

by the Deputy Registrar of the University is hereby quashed and A
"' set aside.

(iii) In view of the approval accorded by the Bar Council of
India under its letter dated 20th August, 1996 and the letter dated
19th October, 1996 issued by the Board of College and University
Development, the petitioner's application for opening of a morning B
Law College, at Sangli shall be deemed to have been approved by
...
the Shivaji University under sub-section(4) of Section 82 of the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 from the academic year 1997-
98 onwards for a Three Year Degree Law Course.

(iv) In view of the aforesaid the petitioner's application for
c
permission to open a morning Law College at Sangli shall be
deemed to have been granted by the State Government and per-
mission shall be deemed to have been granted to open the said
Law College under sub-section (5) of Section 82 of the
.., Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 from the academic year 1997- D
98 onwards for a Three Year Degree Law Course.

" (v) in view of the ad intelim order passed by this Court on 19th
June, 1997 and the order dated 17th July, 1998 passed in C.A. No.
5647 of 1998, we hereby direct that provisional affiliation be
E
deemed to have been granted to the petitioner's college for the
Ac11demic Year 1997-98 and 1998-99 in accordance with the
provision of Section 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.

(vi) We, however, direct that for obtaining affiliation for the F
academic year 1999-2000 the petitioner will be required to make
).
the requisite application and follow the procedure laid down under
the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.

(vii) With a view to obviating any hardships to the students who
have been admitted during the Academic Year 1997-98 and 1998- G
99 under the orders passed by this Court on the 19th June, 1997
and 17th July, 1998 we direct the second respondent University to
;., permit such students to appear for the requisite examinations and
further to declare the results of the students who so appear. It is
our unfortunate experience that despite the orders of this Court H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A stµdents or their parents are required to approach the court for -<
(a) permission to appear in the examination, (b) for direction to
declare their results and (c) permission to admit them in the next
year. We wish to obviate such injustice to the students in par-
ticular."

B It is difficult to hold that the Government Resolution dated 13th
June, 1995 lays down, as a matter of policy, that where there is a single law
college in a District of the State no other law college therein will be
permitted. In the first place the resolution was to operate only till such time
as this Court rendered its decision in Manubhai Pragaji Vashi' s case (ibid)
c and it provided that in that interregnum applications and proposals for the
commencement of law colleges would be considered if received from
Districts where no law college existed. In the second place, and assuming
that that is the policy, this is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. Account
has not to be taken of whether or not a law college exists in a District.
What is relevant and what should be taken into consideration is the
D population which the existing law college serves and whether, therefore, "-

there is need for an additional college.
;(
-
The refusal by the appellant to grant to the first respondent permis-
sion to start the said college based upon the same reason is, therefore, also
E arbitrary and unreasonable. The draft Perspective Plan is also to, more or
less, the effect and the refusal based thereon is, therefore, also arbitrary
and unreasonable.

To this extent, we are in agreement with the High Court and need
not dilate further.
F
Where we differ is with the order that the High Court has passed,
particularly in clause (iii) thereof, quoted above. In our view, it is a
University which must decide whether or not it can support the proposal
for the commencement of a new college. If in a given case the University
G has gone wrong in declining such permission by relying upon ground which
is arbitrary or unreasonable or otherwise defective, the court should set
aside such refusal and return the matter to the University for re- considera-
tion in the light of its judgment.

In the instant case. we are in no doubt that the appellant was in error
H in refusing to accord permission to the first respondent to start the said
SHIVAJI UNIVERSITY v. BHARTI VIDYAPEE1H (BHARUCHA, J.] 1149

~ )
law college only because a law coll.::ge already existed at Sangli. That A
decision must, therefore, be set aside and the matter must go back to the
appellant to consider the issue afresh. In doing so it must take into
consideration what the population of Sangli District is, what population the
existing law college serves and whether the said law college is, in this light,
required. Having regard to the lapse of time, the appellant must do so
within eight weeks.
B
~
Having regard to the fact that the said law college has admitted
students for the academic year 1998-99 pursuant to the High Courts interim
order, whether that term comes to an end in the summer of 1999 or the
winter of 1999, it is proper to permit the term to be completed and the c
students to take the examinations. For the purposes of following academic
years, the decision to be rendered by the appellant as aforestated shall
govern.

We do not consider it necessary to go into any other aspect for the
.., purposes of this appeal. D
Order on the appeal accordingly. No order as to costs.
>'.

R.P. Appeal disposed of.

)