JUDGMENT - S.K. DESAI, J.:---We are inclined to dispose of this matter at the stage of admission. Hence Rule is issued. 2. Shri C.J. Sawant for respondent No. 1 waives service. Shri Shah for respondent No. 3 waives service. Service on respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. By consent matter is taken up. 3. The principal dispute is between the petitioner-Society and the 3rd respondent. We have already indicated in our previous order made on August 23, 1989, the prima facie incorrect manner in which a decision has been taken by the Honble Minister over-ruling the preference of the University. However, it must be accepted, as has been submitted by Shri Shah, that even the University gave an unreasoned preference by just designating Nos. 1 and 2 against the names of the two applicants without indicating why it was preferring one to the other. To recapitulate, the University had given first preference to the petitioner and relegated the 3rd respondent to position No. 2. This has been reversed by the Minister. In our opinion, both the decisions are not at all satisfactory. It would be appropriate to devise a procedure when there are more than one applicants for opening an educational institution at a place. In such a case, where permission is to be given to only one the University in a covering letter must give a short justification for its preference. That will constitute the basic material for the Minister or the education Department to consider. If the approach of the University is found incorrect or there are some reasons whereby the preference order of the University is to be altered, then some hearing, not necessarily a personal hearing should take place so that the concerned institution who has been preferred by the University but who in the prima facie opinion of the Government does not deserve that preference should know what allegations are made against it or against the University's order of preference. The decision taken thereafter will have to be by a speaking order particularly when the University's preference is directed to be reversed. A speaking order is not necessarily a lengthy one. 4. We have given some indications of the correct procedure to be followed and it is essential to follow that procedure particularly when the preferential order of the University is to be reversed. A speaking order is not necessarily a lengthy one. 4. We have given some indications of the correct procedure to be followed and it is essential to follow that procedure particularly when the preferential order of the University is to be reversed. Although the matter does not arise in the instant case and our observations may be obiter, when the Government is inclined to respect the University's preferential order and the institution given the first preference by the University is to be allowed to open the institution by the Education Department, then the scrutiny need not be as detailed as we have indicated but this can only be so provided the University has given some reasons for its preference. When that order is confirmed it will mean that the Education Department or the concerned Minister has approved of the reasons given by the University. 5. In view of this, the decisions taken and conveyed on 8th June, 1989 to the Vice-Chancellor Shivaji University, is hereby quashed. However, we direct that the University will permit the college (of the 3rd respondent ) to continue until a fresh decision is taken by the Hon'ble Minister as expeditiously as possible and preferably the hearing should be completed by 22nd September, 1989 and the decision should be convexed to the University and the two parties within one week thereafter. If necessary at that stage appropriate further directions can be given regarding the college which has commenced working provisionally. 6. We were taken through the sections pertaining to Affiliation and Recognition of the Shivaji University Act. There is some lack of clarity in these sections and it will be appropriate if the Education Department will apply its mind to devise a proper procedure. Further clarification is required as to how initial inquiry (as distinguished from further local inquiry) is to be made. It would be desirable, particulary when there is more than one institution which has applied, that some initial scrutiny will be made by the University and a report given thereafter to the Education Department justifying the preferential order recommended by the University. It would be desirable, particulary when there is more than one institution which has applied, that some initial scrutiny will be made by the University and a report given thereafter to the Education Department justifying the preferential order recommended by the University. In our opinion, when more than one institution has applied and their cases are represented to the education Department, then before any decision is taken confirming or reversing the recommendation of the University some intimation should be given to the institutions concerned so that they may be in a position to present their case properly. However, this need not be taken to imply that they are entitled to any personal hearing. 7. To the limited extent above Rule is made absolute. Parties to bear their own costs. Rule made absolute. -----