Manav Vikas Bhau Sevabhavi Sanstha Nandura through Its Secretary vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Manav Vikas Bhau Sevabhavi Sanstha Nandura through Its Secretary vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of without any direction to consider the pending proposal; petitioner given liberty to apply afresh for the same college for academic year 2026-2027 if a location is prescribed and time remains, with respondent No.2 to take up the matter with respondent No.1 as expeditiously as possible.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider/take a decision on the petitioner's pending proposal dated 13.11.2023 (forwarded for final approval on 02.01.2024) for permission to start the Bachelor of Design Women's College at Handarguli, Taluka Udgir, District Latur, notwithstanding that the Perspective Plan–Location for academic year 2024-2025 under which it was made has since lapsed.

Court's answer

Since the Perspective Plan–Location 2024-2025 had a life of one academic year only, it is not appropriate, once that year has passed and the plan would have been changed, to ask respondent No.1 to consider the proposal forwarded by respondent No.2.

Ratio / Principle

Although the petitioner was definitely not at fault, no direction was given because the plan under which the proposal was submitted was for the year 2024-2025 only.

Key takeaways

Liberty was granted to the petitioner to apply afresh for the same college if a location is prescribed for academic year 2026-2027 and the time for submission of proposals is still available; in that event, respondent No.2 may take up the matter with respondent No.1 as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench, 17.04.2026): Petitioner sanstha sought directions to the State to decide its pending proposal dated 13.11.2023 for starting a Bachelor of Design Women's College at Handarguli, Taluka Udgir, District Latur; the proposal had been forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 on 02.01.2024 for final approval under S. 109(1)(2)(3), Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, read with Government Resolution dated 15.09.2017, with Rs.1,07,100/- deposited pursuant to the advertisement. The Court noted Handarguli figured at Serial Nos.32 and 33 of the Perspective Plan–Location 2024-2025 (application window extended till 15.11.2023) and held that, the plan having a life of one academic year only, it was not appropriate to require consideration of the proposal once that year had passed; the petitioner was not at fault, yet no direction was issued. Writ petition disposed of with liberty to apply afresh if the same college's location is prescribed for academic year 2026-2027 while time remains.

2026:BHC-AUG:16401-DB

910-wp-1353-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

910 WRIT PETITION NO.1353 OF 2026

Manav Vikas Bhau Sevabhavi Sanstha Nandura Through Its Secretary VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Another

Mr. D. B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents/State.

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

DATE : 17 APRIL 2026

ORDER :

. Present petition has been filed for directions to the respondents to consider the pending proposal dated 13.11.2023 submitted by the petitioner for granting permission to start new college, namely, Bachelor of Design Women’s College at Handarguli, Taluka Udgir, District Latur.

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. He submits that respondent No.2 had published advertisement regarding Non Agricultural University Academic year 2024-2025 for Master Plan correction/changes, specific point or location point. As per the said advertisement, the proposal for starting new colleges for the courses was given. The petitioner had submitted the proposal to respondent No.2, however, there

[1]

910-wp-1353-2026.odt

is no response from respondent No.2. The amount was also deposited as per the advertisement to the tune of Rs.1,07,100/- through R.T.G.S. to respondent No.2. The petitioner submits that the said proposal was forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, after scrutiny, for final approval of the State Government i.e. respondent No.1, on 02.01.2024 as per Section 109(1)(2)(3) of Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 and as per the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2017, however, respondent No.1 has not responded to the same. Hence, the present petition.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not at fault. The proposal was submitted within time, however, the Government has not taken any decision. The petition is restricted to giving the directions.

Learned AGP objects and submits that by the said advertisement, invitations were given to various institutions for sending their proposals for starting new colleges as per the Perspective Plan – Locations for 20242025. The said academic year is over and there would be new Perspective Plan.

Certainly, the Government and the Universities would advertise the Perspective Plans of each year. It appears from the communication dated

[2]

910-wp-1353-2026.odt

03.11.2023 by the Desk Officer of respondent No.1 that after the Maharashtra State, Higher Education and Development Commission (for short ‘Commission’) had sanctioned the Perspective Plan on 22.09.2023 and after taking into consideration the time which was left, the time to file applications/proposals was extended till 15.11.2023 and after the changes, the Perspective Plan – Location for 2024-2025 was published. At Serial Nos.32 and 33, the location of Handarguli, Taluka Udgir was considered for Women’s Arts, Commerce and Science College i.e. B.A., B.Com., B.Sc. and B.Des. When the said plan’s life was for one year only, then it will not be appropriate, now when the plan would have been changed, to ask respondent No.1 to consider the proposal forwarded by respondent No.2. The petitioner definitely is not at fault, but since the said plan was for the year 2024-2025 only, we are not giving any direction. We dispose of the writ petition, however, we grant liberty to the petitioner to apply if, for the same college, a location is prescribed for the academic year 2026-2027 and the time for submission of the proposal is still available. In such event, respondent No.2 may take up the matter with respondent No.1 as expeditiously as possible.

[ NEERAJ P. DHOTE ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

scm

[3]