Two writ petitions challenging a Government Resolution dated 15.06.2023, which granted permission to respondent No.4 to open a new law college, based on recommendations from the respondent No.3 - University, under Section 109 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. The petitioners raised issues regarding procedural improprieties, alleged collusion, and the compatibility of the new college's location with the perspective plan. The court found the process flawed and declared the permission granted to respondent No.4 illegal.

1. Introduction

   • Multiple writ petitions challenge the Government Resolution allowing a new law college.
   • Petitioners claim relief based on Section 109 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.

2. Consent and Admission

   • Both petitions heard together with consent of the parties.
   • Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Factual Matrix

   • Perspective plan under Section 107 prepared by the University for 2023-24.
   • Applications submitted by the petitioner and respondent No.4.
   • State Government granted permission to respondent No.4.

4. Petitioner's Arguments in WP No.4282/2023

   • Application of respondent No.4 not compatible with the notified location.
   • Alleged non-compliance with eligibility norms and lack of comparative merit evaluation.

5. Petitioner's Arguments in WP No.6991/2023

   • Challenge based on the location not being in the perspective plan.
   • Claims of procedural lapses and insufficient application time.

6. Court's Observations

   • Noted the inconsistency in petitioners' arguments.
   • Petitioners not allowed to maintain incompatible stands simultaneously.

7. Submissions by Respondent No.4 and AGP

   • Allegations of collusion between the petitioners.
   • Respondent No.4 claims compliance with norms and eligibility.

8. Collusion Between Petitioners

   • Evidence of petitioner in WP No.6991/2023 acting on behalf of WP No.4282/2023.
   • Collusive nature of the petitions identified.

9. Importance of Perspective Plan

   • Detailed process for preparing and approving the perspective plan.
   • Emphasizes the sanctity and adherence to the perspective plan.

10. Annual Plan Compatibility

    • Annual plan for 2023-24 found inconsistent with the perspective plan.
    • Declared the process and notification illegal.

11. Evaluation of Location and Land Compliance

    • Location 'Khadke Newasa Phata' not correctly adhered to.
    • Deficiencies in the land offered by respondent No.4 identified.

12. Discretion of State Government

    • State's discretion under Section 109 examined.
    • Discretion must be judicious and not arbitrary.

13. Conclusion

    • Permission granted to respondent No.4 deemed illegal.
    • Court emphasizes need for compliance with statutory provisions and procedural fairness.

14. Reference to Previous Decisions

    • Cited relevant paragraphs from previous decisions under similar statutory provisions.
    • Highlighted the need for the State Government's discretion to be exercised judiciously and not capriciously.

15. Final Judgments

    • WP No.4282/2023 allowed partly.
    • WP No.6991/2023 allowed.
    • Impugned Government Resolution dated 15.06.2023 quashed and set aside.
    • WP No.4282/2023 seeking direction for letter of intent and final permission to the petitioner dismissed.
    • Rule made absolute in the above terms.

16. Post-Judgment Proceedings

    • Request for staying operation of the judgment for a reasonable time to approach the Supreme Court.
    • Court granted a stay for three weeks, with respondent No.4 maintaining the status quo regarding student admissions.