Judgment : S.A. Bobde, J. – 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the grant of permission to respondent no.4 to start a college at Hinganghat. The permission has been granted by respondent no.1. From the record, it is clear that in spite of the fact that the University did not recommend to the State Government that the permission may be granted to respondent no.4, the said permission has been granted. On the contrary, it appears from the recommendation of the University that respondent no.4 did not have basic facilities for starting College and, therefore, recommendation was refused. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the circumstances, the permission granted to respondent no. 4 is illegal. 3. Mr. Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for respondent no.4-College, submitted that the Government is entitled to grant permission even in the absence of recommendation by the University, by virtue of proviso to Section 82 (5) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Section 82 of the Act provides procedure for permission for starting a new college. Section 82 of the Act as follows :- “82.Procedure for permission:- (1) The university shall prepare a perspective plan and get the same approved by the State Council for Higher Education for educational development for the location of colleges and institutions of higher learning in a manner ensuring equitable distribution of facilities for Higher Education having due regard, in particular, to the needs of unserved and under-developed areas within the jurisdiction of the university. Such plan shall be prepared by the Board of College and University Development, and shall be placed before the Academic Council and the Senate through the Management Council and shall, if necessary, be updated every year. (2) No application for opening a new college or institution of higher learning, which is not in conformity with such plan, shall be considered by the university. (3) The managements seeking permission to open a new college or institution of higher learning shall apply in the prescribed form to the Registrar of the University before the last day of October of the year, proceeding the year from which the permission is sought. (3) The managements seeking permission to open a new college or institution of higher learning shall apply in the prescribed form to the Registrar of the University before the last day of October of the year, proceeding the year from which the permission is sought. (4) All such applications received within the aforesaid prescribed time-limit, shall be scrutinised by the Board of College and University Development and be forwarded to the State Government with the approval of the Management Council on or before the last day of December of the year, with such recommendations (duly supported by relevant reasons) are as deemed appropriate by the Management Council. (5) Out of the application recommended by the university, the State Government may grant permission to such institutions as it may consider right and proper in its absolute discretion, taking into account the State Government’s budgetary resources the suitability of the managements seeking permission to open new institutions and the State level priorities with regard to location of institutions of higher learning; Provided, however that, in exceptional cases and for the reasons to be recorded in writing any application not recommended by the university may be approved by the State Government for starting a new college or institution of higher learning. Provided further that, from the academic year 2001-2002, such permission from the State Government shall be communicated to the university on or before 15th July of the year, in which the new college is proposed to be started. Permissions received thereafter shall be given effect by the university only in the subsequent academic year.” On a plain reading of the Section above, it is clear that the Government is entitled to grant permission to such an institution as it may consider right and proper in its absolute discretion, only out of the applications recommended by the University under Section 82 (5) of the Act. Proviso to Section 82 (5) provides for “in exceptional cases and for the reasons recorded in writing” any application not recommended by the University may also be approved. 4. From the order granting permission, we find that the Government has not recorded specific reasons in writing to the effect that this is an exceptional case, where permission should be granted even though there is no recommendation by the University for starting a new college or a institution of higher learning. 4. From the order granting permission, we find that the Government has not recorded specific reasons in writing to the effect that this is an exceptional case, where permission should be granted even though there is no recommendation by the University for starting a new college or a institution of higher learning. The grant of permission was sought to be justified by the Government authorities by filing an affidavit of one Mr. Ravinda Vinayak Chopde, who is working as Superintendent. In the affidavit, there are reasons given for granting permission, which are reproduced as under:- “A. The respondent no.4 Institute possesses experience of running a senior college. B. Hinganghat is a Rural Area and demand for traditional courses Marathi Medium College was taken into consideration. C. The respondent No.4 Institute owns 14,000 Sq. Ft. Space. D. The respondent No.4 Institute owns a building Admeasuring 6,000 Sq. ft.” Ex facie, the reasons do not disclose any exceptional circumstance as contemplated by sub Section (5) of section 82 of the Act. The term “exceptional cases” occurring in Section 82 must be construed from the context in which it appears. An exceptional case would be the one where no provision for such college is made in the perspective plan made by the University and approved by the State Council for Higher Education, which is prepared to ensure equitable distribution of facilities for Higher Education, having regard to unserved and under developed areas. In the first place, it is reasonable to assume that a plan, which is required by the Act to be prepared by the Board of College and University Development and placed before the Academic Council and the Senate through the Management Council and also updated every year, would take care of the need for appropriate location of a new college imparting education in particular subjects. The Legislature has, though the Act, conferred primacy of opinion on these specialized and expert bodies about the need for opening a new college. It has then conferred power on the State Government to grant approval only to such proposals, which are considered right and proper in its discretion having regard to the budgetary measures, the suitability of the management and the State level priorities. It has then conferred power on the State Government to grant approval only to such proposals, which are considered right and proper in its discretion having regard to the budgetary measures, the suitability of the management and the State level priorities. It is, thereafter, that a power is conferred by the provisions on the Government to grant approval to an application, which is not recommended by expert bodies meant to be exercised in exceptional cases. From the tenor of Sub section (5) there is no doubt that whether in the matter of accepting recommendations of the University or in granting approval though not recommended by University, the State Government cannot act arbitrarily and without demonstrating the consideration that weighed with it for either refusing to accept recommendations or approving an application, which is not recommended. Since the power to approve an application not recommended by the University is conferred by the State Government, it must be exercised having regard to State level priorities. It is conceivable for instance that the State Government feels the need to grant a permission to open a State level or a national level institute at a particular location though it is not recommended by the University, which would normally act on relatively local perspective. This example is certainly not exhaustive and there could be other exceptional cases arising out of a higher priority than the one envisaged by University in its perspective plan. We are of the view that the Legislature intended such cases to be the exceptional cases contemplated by the proviso. The word “Exceptional” in this sub section would suggest a strong or unusual case, which would normally be outside the purview of the University to take account of. 6. We find that the aforesaid reasons given in the present case are mundane, occurring in almost all cases involving the proposals to start a new college and do not constitute an exceptional case. We, therefore, reject the reasons as constituting any exceptional circumstances. In any event, we are of the view that the exceptional circumstances should be recorded in the order granting permission or any appendix thereto and ought not to be put forth in affidavits filed subsequently. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay ..vs.. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR (39) 1952 SC 16 and Mohinder Singh Gill and Another..vs..Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and ors. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay ..vs.. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR (39) 1952 SC 16 and Mohinder Singh Gill and Another..vs..Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and ors. (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 405; that if the reasons are not given in the original order, they cannot be allowed to be supplemented later. In Mohinder Singh (supra) in para 8 the Supreme Court observed as under:- “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 7. In view of this position of law, the impugned order is hereby set aside in relation to grant of permission to respondent no.4. We are informed by Mr. Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for respondent no.4, that the students have been admitted believing that the permission is valid and setting aside of the order may adversely affect their studies. In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to direct that the students shall be permitted to appear for the B.A. (I), B.A. (II) and B.Sc. (I) in Summer-2011 examination as an exceptional case. Since some doubt has been expressed at the Bar, we make it clear that the respondent-State Government will be entitled to consider both, the petitioner and respondent no.4, and any other eligible party, who applies for permission to be given in the area in question, in accordance with law. (I) in Summer-2011 examination as an exceptional case. Since some doubt has been expressed at the Bar, we make it clear that the respondent-State Government will be entitled to consider both, the petitioner and respondent no.4, and any other eligible party, who applies for permission to be given in the area in question, in accordance with law. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.