SHIVAJI UNIVERSITY THROUGH DIRECTOR versus BHARTI VIDYAPEETH THROUGH JOINT SECRETARY AND ORS

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 1142 · Decided: 16-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
. SHIV AJI UNIVERSITY THROUGH DIRECTOR 
·" 
v. 
BHARTI VIDYAPEETH THROUGH JOINT 
SECRETARY AND ORS . 
B 
. MARCH 16, 1999 
[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 
D 
to be taken illto consideratio11 are the population which the existing law 
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 
G proposals were received to open new colleges in Districts where not a single 
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 B 
law college already existed in the town. The appellant also wrote to the State 
). 
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. 
c 
The High Court quashed the order of the appellant- University 
. 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 D 
opening the law college would be deemed to have been approved by the 
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 
in a district of the State -no other law coll
1ege therein will be permitted. G 
Firstly, the resolution was to operate only till sµch time as this Court 
rendered its decision in\Manubhai Pragaji Vashi*, and it provided that in 
that interregnum applications and proposals for the commencement

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.