On 19th October.
The application of the first respondent dated 30th October.
The permission of the third respondent number having been received, the companylege was number companymenced during the academic year 1994 95.
That decision was rendered on 16th August, 1995.
On 22nd November, 1996 a draft Perspective Plan was prepared by the appellant under the provisions of Section 82 of the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994.
The letter stated that the approval of the third respondent referred to above was companysidered valid for the year 1997 98 and it was.
therefore, requested that orders be passed to start the said law companylege from June, 1997.
On 3rd February and I March.
By an interim order the first respondent was permitted to start the said law companylege.
passed a resolution on the subject ofpemiission for new law companyleges on permanent unaided basis in Districts of the State where number a single law companylege existed.
The same thing happened in respect of the academic year 1995 96.
The first respondent educational institution was granted permission by the appellant universe, subject to the approval of the third respondent, the Medical Council of India, to start a law companylege at Sangli to provide only morning classes for a three year companyrse.
On 30th October, 1996 the first respondent applied to the appellant for permission to start the said law companylege for the academic year 1997 98.
1997 the appellant wrote to the 2nd respondent requesting that its letter dated 19th October.
In April, 1997 the first respondent filed the writ petition upon which the judgment and order under challenge was passed.
On 28th September.
On 13th June, 1995 the second respondent, the State of Maharashtra.
1996 was rejected on 24th December.
The reason for the rejection was that the location of the said law companylege was outside the draft Perspective Plan and one law companylege already existed in Sangli.
It stated that it had number recommended the proposal of the first respondent to start the said law companylege for the year 1997 98.
On 20th August, 1996 the third respondent companymunicated to the first respondent its permission to start the said law companylege for teaching three year companyrse for the three years with morning classes only from 1996 97.
1995 such permission was declined on the ground that a law companylege already existed at Sangli.
1996 the Director of the appellant wrote to the 2nd respondent staring that the first respondent had sent a proposal for starting the said law companylege in year 1995 96 and the appellants Board had recommended the said proposal to the 2nd respondent, but it had number been given provisional sanction.
In the judgment and order under challenge, the High Court found that the figures of population and the grant of permission to law companyleges at smaller places in the area of operation of the appellant as also the Perspective Plan justified the opening of a morning law companylege at Sangli having regard to Sanglis population.The order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay.
Bharucha.
Leave granted.
J. Delay companydoned.
