1 2) WP 1837-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1837 OF 2025 UJJWAL BAHUUDDESHIYA SANSTHA, ROHINI, TQ. DEOLI, DIST. WARDHA THR. SECY., PRITAM B. KHADSE VS STATE OF MAHA., THR. SECY., DEPT. OF HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION, MUMBAI AND ANR. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 782 OF 2025 UJJWAL BAHUUDDESHIYA SANSTHA, ROHINI, TQ. DEOLI, DIST. WARDHA THR. SECY., PRITAM B. KHADSE VS STATE OF MAHA., THR. SECY., DEPT. OF HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION, MUMBAI AND ANR. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri A.I.Sheikh, Advocate for petitioner(s). Smt. Kalpana Pathak, Advocate for respondent no. 2 in WP 782/2025. Shri D.P.Thakare, Addl.G.P. for respondent/State. CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATED : 22/09/2026 The petitioner - Education Society, in pursuance of the applications called by the respondent no. 2 – University as per Perspective Plan, applied for permission to start a Social Work College at Kalamb, District Yavatmal (as per Writ Petition No. 1837 of 2025) and a Social Work College at Ghatanji, District Yavatmal (as per Writ Petition No. 782 of 2025), both of which were recommended by the University in favour of the petitioner. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, despite the positive recommendation made by the University, till date, the Letter of Intent (LoI) has not been issued under Section 109(3)(d) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (for short, “Act of 2016”). 2026:BHC-NAG:12584-DB 2 2) WP 1837-2025.odt 3. It is submitted that this is a second round of litigation. In an earlier round i.e. in Writ Petition No. 7480/2022 with Writ Petition No. 7481/2022, this Court, vide order dated 07/07/2023 directed the respondent no. 1/State to take an appropriate decision on the proposal dated 30/04/2022, if necessary, after hearing the petitioner, and in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of said order. 4. It is further submitted that, despite the aforesaid direction, no decision was taken by the respondent no. 1, therefore, the Contempt Petition(s) came to be filed. Thereupon, the impugned communication dated 07/10/2024 was issued, whereby final approval was denied to the petitioner, whereas the petitioner had sought issuance of the LoI. 5. In the above referred backdrop, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the criteria for grant of LoI and for final approval are distinct and different, as provided under the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 15/09/2017. It is further submitted that the Appendix-B to the G.R. dated 15/09/2017 is in respect of LoI, and it can be seen from the Appendix-B that certain points are required to be considered while granting the LoI. It is further submitted that similarly, in Appendix-C, the requirements are in respect of final approval. 6. Shri Thakare, learned Additional Government Pleader, however, submits that since sufficient infrastructure 3 2) WP 1837-2025.odt was not available and certain deficiencies were noticed, which are enumerated in the impugned decision dated 07/10/2024, the final approval was not granted to the petitioner. 7. Having heard the rival contentions and gone through the record, it is evident that, till date, no LoI is issued to the petitioner under Section 109(3)(d) of the Act of 2016, despite the fact that, there is a positive recommendation of the University in favour of the petitioner. 8. The impugned order shows that, for the reason of having certain deficiencies relating to the infrastructure, the final approval was rejected. Thus, from the impugned decision dated 07/10/2024, it is clear that the case of the petitioner for issuance of LoI was not considered. 9. Unless the LoI is issued after considering the points mentioned in Appendix-B to G.R. dated 15/09/2017, there is no question of considering the availability of infrastructure and other factors which are required to be considered while granting the final approval. 10. Thus, it is evident that the respondent no. 1 has committed error in considering the case of the petitioner for final approval despite there is no LoI issued to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we pass the following order:- i) The Writ Petitions are allowed. 4 2) WP 1837-2025.odt ii) The order dated 07/10/2024 issued by the Desk Officer, State of Maharashtra, is hereby quashed and set aside. iii) The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 1/State of Maharashtra to consider the case of the petitioner for issuance of LoI on the basis of the recommendation made by the respondent no. 2 – University and after considering the criteria as prescribed in Appendix- B to the G.R. dated 15/09/2017 for grant of LoI. iv) Such exercise shall be completed by the respondent no. 1/State of Maharashtra, within a period of eight weeks from the date of furnishing a copy of this order to the respondent no. 1. If necessary, the respondent no. 1/State of Maharashtra may grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking a final decision in respect of the LoI. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of in the above referred terms. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) B.T.K. Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/09/2026 15:35:17