Judgment B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is to decision of the Government and / or of Respondent 5 -Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, to establish the Model College at Ghansavangi in Jalna District at “Exhibit-F” with the petition. Said document is dated 16.3.2011 and a proposal to that effect appears to have been placed before the Management Council of Respondent 5 University through it. Resolution of the Management Council also of same date, forms part of this exhibit. State of Maharashtra is respondent 1 while the Union of India is respondent 2 in petition. University Grants Commission (UGC) is respondent 3 while the Hon. Minister for Higher & Technical Education is joined in his personal capacity as respondent 4. 2. On 21.11.2011, this Court did not grant any interim relief to the Petitioner educational institute as admissions in the subject college were already over in July,2011 & opening of the Model College had no adverse effect on it. This Court opined that those students in Model College could have been adversely affected by interim order. It was felt necessary to decide the petition itself finally at admission stage. Petition has not been amended thereafter. Matter was then taken up on 16.4.2012 and respondent 5 was directed to make statement whether any permission as contemplated by S. 82 of the Maharashtra Universities Act,1994 (1994 Act-hereafter) was granted for setting up the Model College in question. The State Government was directed to furnish information/documents in terms of the clauses (vii),(viii),(x) and (xi) of the communication dated 8th August ,2011. Copies are directed to be supplied in advance. Accordingly, in this background & with consent, we have heard respective Counsel by issuing Rule & making it returnable forthwith. Adv. Talekar for petitioner has at the outset pointed out that this order has not been complied with so far by either of the respondents. These respondents have not prayed for any time & have not shown their inclination to comply with that order. 3. Petitioner is running several educational institutes including a senior college, a D.Ed. College & a junior college at Ghansavangi, another junior college at Shahagad, High Schools at Shahagad, Doregaon & Panegaon, Primary Schools at Ambad & Jalna. These respondents have not prayed for any time & have not shown their inclination to comply with that order. 3. Petitioner is running several educational institutes including a senior college, a D.Ed. College & a junior college at Ghansavangi, another junior college at Shahagad, High Schools at Shahagad, Doregaon & Panegaon, Primary Schools at Ambad & Jalna. It challenges the establishment of Model College at Ghansavangi as politically influenced, malafide, in violation of norms & procedure prescribed and also contrary to basic scheme itself. The scheme is being implemented by the UGC and is to be funded by Central as also State Governments. The scheme aims at achieving national average of gross enrollment ratio (GER) and has been prepared by an expert committee constituted by UOI to prepare a project report on modalities of its execution. UGC approved it and prepared a detailed project report (DPR) for setting up 374 new colleges in educationally backward districts with less GER. Ministry of Human Resources, UOI decided to extend financial assistance through UGC for establishment of such Model College. Petitioner has produced list of educationally backward districts (EBD) which also includes district Jalna. Guide lines for implementing the scheme for providing financial assistance to new Model Colleges in EBD are also being relied upon. UGC then invited proposals from concerned universities with undertaking of State, both in format prescribed by it. The Joint Secretary of State then asked respondent 5 University to submit proposal to UGC for establishment of Model College. 4. Adv. Talekar for petitioner states that the Deputy Registrar (Planning & Statistics) of the University Shri G.R. Manza received phone-call from respondent 4 Hon. Minister to process papers to establish Model school at Ghansavangi. Shri Manza accordingly prepared a note/endorsement in his handwriting that its establishment at Ghansavangi was principally acceptable & same be approved by Management Council of the University and its copy be sent to Secretary, Higher & Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. It was addressed to Shri Bharad, Assistant Secretary. A proposal is then shown to be prepared on 16.3.2011 which is signed by Shri Manza, Shri Bharad, Director of colleges & university and one Kachole, secretary of the University. The term of the elected representatives on Management Council had already come to end & only ex-officio members were functioning. These ex-officio members on 16.3.2011 itself claim to have cleared the proposal vide resolution on subject no. 32. The term of the elected representatives on Management Council had already come to end & only ex-officio members were functioning. These ex-officio members on 16.3.2011 itself claim to have cleared the proposal vide resolution on subject no. 32. It only records that one Committee has been constituted for starting Model College in Jalna district and proposal as mentioned in its report be forwarded to State Government. The affidavit in reply filed by Shri Manza for respondent 5 denies phone call but handwritten endorsement is accepted. Adv. Talekar argues that because proposal for Ghansavangi region was already forwarded, remark was put to get it approved from Management Council & then to process/forward it further. Shri Manza also justified his action by pointing out inclusion of Ghansavangi region in perspective plan of University. 5. Adv. Talekar invited our attention to reply affidavit of respondent no. 4 Shri Tope who has pleaded that the Vice-chancellor of the University appointed a three member Committee & informed them about it on 4/5.3.2011. It was the duty of said Committee to find out suitable location in Jalna district for establishing such Model College and to prepare a proposal for its establishment. Said Committee known as Dr. Dhaigude Committee conducted a detailed survey & study of Jalna district & found Ghansavangi village (town as per petitioner) suitable. Dr. Dhaigude Committee communicated its conclusions to respondent 5 University. He also comments upon the material difference between the proposal dated 16.3.2011 at Ex.F with petition & at Ex. R3 with this affidavit. In short, he submits that document at Ex. R3 is not genuine one. He further argues that when under Right to information Act, petitioner sought details like particular location in Jalna looked into by University, about guide lines prescribed by the Ministry for ascertaining such location and copy report of Committee constituted to decide the location , petitioner was told that same can be sought from State Government. Only query on information on question whether University recommended any location to State was answered and it has been disclosed that the University has not recommended any particular place for locating the Model College. High court directions dated 16.4.2012 are pressed into service in this light & it is pointed out that said directions have been flouted & even report of Dr. Dhaigude Committee, if any, has not been made available. High court directions dated 16.4.2012 are pressed into service in this light & it is pointed out that said directions have been flouted & even report of Dr. Dhaigude Committee, if any, has not been made available. He relies upon UGC guidelines & Scheme to contend that location not having college within 10 kilometers as also rural area reasonably well connected by transport facility is to be preferred. Eligibility conditions in guide line no. 3 to show hilly or border areas, areas having concentration of the tribes or officially identified minority are to be accorded priority. Model College is to be a constituent college of & affiliated to University as per S.12B of the UGC Act. All these guidelines which aim to further the object of the scheme are ignored due to political pressure & influence of respondent no. 4 Minister. The Model College scheme is thus defeated by permitting it to come up at Ghansavangi which is not a rural area and has more than one Colleges. More remote or tribal areas like Bhokardhan or Ambad have not even been looked into by University or by State Government in haste to favour respondent 4 Shri Tope. 6. Letter written on 22.3.2011 by the State to University is also pressed into service to urge that obviously till then alleged proposal sent by University was not received by the Government. The compliances mandated thereby are mandatory and respondent 4 & 5 did not submit project report in detail, affiliation certificate, undertaking of the State, certificate from competent revenue authority about location etc. On 23.3.2011, University was informed that share of State Government should not exceed 2/3rd of the project costs i.e. Rs. 5.33 crores. University submitted the proposal on 8.4.2011 for Ghansavangi & Divisional Joint Director (Higher Studies) gave consent to be a member of the Advisory Committee on 2.5.2011. The meeting was held at government guest house at Aurangabad on 13.6.2011 under Chairmanship of the respondent 4 Minister and in it, decision to have Model College at Ghansavangi was reiterated. No Management Council member except the Vice-chancellor attended that meeting. Director of Higher Education convened the meeting of various universities in whose area EBDs were identified on 22.7.2011. According to Adv. Talekar these events show the pre-decision of respondent 4 & his influence. No Management Council member except the Vice-chancellor attended that meeting. Director of Higher Education convened the meeting of various universities in whose area EBDs were identified on 22.7.2011. According to Adv. Talekar these events show the pre-decision of respondent 4 & his influence. The location at Ghansavangi was suggested & forced by him and neither the University nor State Government had occasion to apply mind to it. 5 criteria in paragraph 22 of the petition are urged to be not satisfied as petitioner already has a college at Ghansavangi. The chairman of the petitioner trust was the district chairman of a rival political party for about 27 years, he was elected as MLA from Ambad in 1995 & lost to respondent no. 4 in 1999 & 2004 elections from Ghansavangi. Other relevant developments evidencing political rivalry & events in co-operative & local body sector are also stated. Contention is Ghansavangi has been forced as location only to close down the senior college of petitioner. 2010 report prepared by the Director of Economics & Statistics for Jalna district is relied upon to show maximum proportion of rural population in Bhokardhan tahsil followed by the Ambad tahsil. Other similar report shows maximum tribal population in Bhokardhan tahsil followed by the Jafrabad tahsil. Adv. Talekar submits that perspective plan of the University for period 2011-2016 shows openings at Ner, Erand Vadgaon, Karla in Jalna tahsil; at Anwa, Walsavangi, Hasanbad in Bhokardhan Tahsil; at Kumbhar zari in Jafrabad Tahsil; Rani Unchegaon in Ghansavangi Tahsil; Jamkhed in Ambad Tahsil; Wakulni, Tupewadi in Badnapur Tahsil & Uswand/Viregaon in Mantha Tahsil Said plan is as per mandate of S. 82 of the 1994 Act & approved by the State Council for Higher Education. 7. Section 28(b) of the 1994 Act obliges Management Council to decide the location of the college and for that recommendations of the Academic Council are only relevant. Academic Council is the principal academic authority responsible to regulate & maintain the standards of teaching as per S. 30(e) of the 1994 Act. Perspective plan of the University is prepared by the Board of College & University Development. It is placed before the Academic Council & the Senate through Management Council, and if necessary, is to be annually updated. S. 82(2) prohibits University from considering any application for opening a new college, if it is not in conformity with such perspective plan. Perspective plan of the University is prepared by the Board of College & University Development. It is placed before the Academic Council & the Senate through Management Council, and if necessary, is to be annually updated. S. 82(2) prohibits University from considering any application for opening a new college, if it is not in conformity with such perspective plan. The Model College in Jalna district has to be on one of the locations in said plan & not at Ghansavangi. The constituent college has to come up as an constituent college within period of five years. The initial finance is by the UGC & State but then recurring annual expenditure is to be borne by the University. Hence, such Model College is subject to 1994 Act. Though the Model College was to come up, there was no building & other infrastructure, an advertisement to admit students came to be published & said college is to be run by Matsyodari Shikshan Sanstha , a public trust controlled by respondent 4. Petitioner submits that as documents or information is not supplied, it is not known exactly who opted for Ghansavangi & when that decision was reached. But it is certainly not UGC or the University. The said choice is arbitrary, discriminatory & and violative of Art. 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 8. Senior Adv. Dixit for the University submits that Jalna itself is recognized as a district with low GER & a EBD by the UGC. Place Ghansavangi is best suited for locating the Model College looking at its location & connectivity. He points out that land now sanctioned for permanently locating the College is at village Rajegaon which is about 5 Kms. from Ghansavangi. The college is a residential college & its syllabus distinguishes the courses being taught therein from any regular college like one run by the petitioner. He invites attention to curriculum prescribed to show how there is fundamental difference in perspective towards education & emphasis is more on all round development. The academic & field activities are more diverse & balanced. Due to these factors, there can not be any competition or comparison between the Model College & a traditional College of the petitioner. He invites attention to curriculum prescribed to show how there is fundamental difference in perspective towards education & emphasis is more on all round development. The academic & field activities are more diverse & balanced. Due to these factors, there can not be any competition or comparison between the Model College & a traditional College of the petitioner. He further invites attention to the scheme to urge that the Model College is to be funded by the Central & State Government and is in fact, a constituent College of the University. Because of this nature of activity, the provisions of S. 82 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, applicable to a traditional college are not relevant & do not apply to University's own College. The participation by Respondent 4 Minister is because of his position as a Minister in-charge of education and not in his private capacity. The allegations of the malafides against him are only to show some substance in challenge but those allegations are too vague & have not been substantiated. To demonstrate this, he made available the original records of the University. Shri Talekar did not object to this production & as requested, he was given opportunity to inspect the same before the arguments proceeded further with reference to it. Shri Dixit submits that there is enough material on record to show that there was discussion between Shri Manza & other responsible officers of the University and as an outcome thereof, Ghansavangi came to be selected. The decision is collective one & allegations of malafides or abuse of his position by Shri Manza are misconceived. Note dated 16.3 2011 is neither forged nor tampered. The Vice-chancellor appointed a three member committee to guide the University in the matter of best location and report submitted by said committee viz. Dr. Dhaigude Committee has been acted upon by the University. The State Government has approved the location & arrangements made. State government also furnished necessary undertaking to shoulder its financial burden & the annual or day to day expenditure is to be borne by the University as required by the Scheme/UGC. UGC accordingly has released requisite funds and the College has already started functioning since 2011-2012. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Attention is invited to additional affidavit filed by respondent 5 through Dr. Manza to show that amount of Rs. UGC accordingly has released requisite funds and the College has already started functioning since 2011-2012. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Attention is invited to additional affidavit filed by respondent 5 through Dr. Manza to show that amount of Rs. 8,25,634/-was paid as salary to staff of the Model School. Amount of Rs. 11 Lakhs was spent on infrastructure. The Model College started on 18.8.2011 in rented premises of the Zilla Parishad as a temporary arrangement & bachelor of arts & commerce are two courses are being taught. In First year B.A. 43 students & 9 in B,Com. Teaching staff strength is 8 & 3 are nonteaching. Admissions to College of the petitioner closed on 30.7.2011 and 417 students have been admitted. Thus, the College of the petitioner has not suffered any adverse effect. Distance of 10 Kms. prescribed by UGC is directory. There are 6 Colleges in Bhokardhan Tahsil & 3 in Ambad Tahsil as against only one in Ghansavangi. Affidavit filed by Mr. Manza states that considering all these facts & convenience of students due to accessibility, Ghansavangi, it was selected as location & informed to UGC. The perspective plan included Ghansavangi. It is stated that respondent 5 University received 1 crore 33 lakhs for Model College and it is conducting that College accordingly. 9. Adv. Salunkhe for Respondent 4 states that the Vice-chancellor, by letter dated 4/5.3.2011, appointed a three member committee to guide the University in the matter of best location and report submitted by said committee viz. Dr. Dhaigude Committee has been acted upon by the University. Said Committee studied the matter & it gave a letter dated 15.3.2011 and recommended Ghansavangi as location. University on 8.4.2011 in its Management Council meeting accepted it. A Advisory Committee, Action Committee & Local Help Group was also formed before 13.6.2011 meeting. Said meeting was attended by Respondent 4 as Minister of the department concerned officially. The location of existing colleges in Jalna district is pressed into service to submit that choosing Ghansavangi as a place to have Model College is neither malafide or arbitrary nor perverse. Father of Respondent 4 is associated with educational institutes in Jalna district & at Ghansavangi also. Thus, in a hypothetical situation, his father would be equally affected if an adverse impact of Model College on conventional colleges is to be presumed. Father of Respondent 4 is associated with educational institutes in Jalna district & at Ghansavangi also. Thus, in a hypothetical situation, his father would be equally affected if an adverse impact of Model College on conventional colleges is to be presumed. He contends that in fact there has been no such impact and the College of Petitioner is continuing smoothly. As ultimately the College is to come up at Rajegaon where the State Government has on 1.6.2012 made the land available, the very base of the petition is shaken and lost. The unfounded & vague allegations of mala fides must be disregarded & petition should be dismissed. 10. We find it appropriate to first consider the submission of petitioner that there is no permission with Respondent 5 to establish College i.e. Model College at Ghansavangi. Respondent No. 5 University is incorporated under S. 3(1) of the 1994 Act and its subsection (4) enables it to acquire & hold or dispose of the property. Section 24 points out various authorities under the University and the Management Council is one of them. Section 27 makes it the principal executive authority to formulate statute & forward the same to Senate for approval & make Ordinances for administer the affairs of the university and perform such other duties not assigned to any other authority. It consists of quite a large number of representatives. Section 28 (b) gives the duties & functions of the Management Council. Its clause “b” empowers it to establish departments, colleges, schools, institutions of higher learning, research & specialized studies, hostels & provide housing for staff, on the recommendation of the Academic Council. Contention of Respondent 5 is that S. 82 of the 1994 Act is not applicable as it is its own college i.e. College of University itself. As per S. 82 (1) the university like Respondent 5 has to prepare a perspective plan for educational development for the location of 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 underdeveloped areas within the jurisdiction of the university. Such plan is to be prepared by the Academic Council and placed before the Senate through the Management Council and to be updated every 5 years. Such plan is to be prepared by the Academic Council and placed before the Senate through the Management Council and to be updated every 5 years. Its sub-section (2) mandates that 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. The managements seeking permission to open a new college or institution of higher learning have to apply in the prescribed form to the Registrar of the university before the last day of October of the year preceding the year from which the permission is sought. All such applications received within the aforesaid prescribed time-limit, need to be scrutinized by the Board of College and University Development and then 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 supported by relevant reasons, as are deemed appropriate by the Management Council. Thus the role of Management Council in preparation of plan, its revision and power to recommend changes even in proposals received, all show importance given to a larger body like Management Council in the matter by the legislature. Sub-section (5) confers absolute discretion on State to grant permission to such institutions taking into account the 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. In exceptional cases and for the reasons to be recorded in writing any application not recommended by the university may also be approved by the State Government for starting a new college or institution of higher learning. 11. Model College is a Constituent College of the Respondent 5 University itself. Section 2 (10) of the 1994 Act defines College to mean a college situated in university area & either conducted by the university or affiliated to it. Section 2 (11) defines Conducted College to mean a college maintained & managed by the university. Though the concept of a Constituent College is not explained in 1994 Act, it can not be alien to or inconsistent with the scheme of 1994 Act. Section 2 (20) defines “Management” and the definition is wide enough to cover the Management Council of Universities within its sweep. Chapter III of 1994 Act deals with officers of the University. Though the concept of a Constituent College is not explained in 1994 Act, it can not be alien to or inconsistent with the scheme of 1994 Act. Section 2 (20) defines “Management” and the definition is wide enough to cover the Management Council of Universities within its sweep. Chapter III of 1994 Act deals with officers of the University. Its part “A” consists of S. 9 which stipulates Governor of State as the Chancellor of University & his powers also. Its Part “B” begins with S. 10 and it prescribes other officers of the university. Those include the vice-chancellor, the pro-vice-chancellor, the dean of faculties, the registrar, the controller of examinations, the director of sub-campuses of the university, director-board of college & university development, librarian of university library, the finance & accounts officer, the director of students welfare and such other officer in services of university as may be prescribed by the Statutes framed by Senate of university. Under S. 11 & 14, the vice-chancellor is the principal executive & academic officer of university. Amongst other positions, he is also ex-officio chairman of the Management Council. Section 14(6) enables him to defer implementation of any decision taken or the resolution passed by any authority if he is of opinion that the same is not consistent with the Act, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations. In present matter, it is not necessary to note the further modalities regulating said exercise or this provision. Under S. 17 (5) the registrar acts as secretary of the Management council, under s/s(6) he is appointing & disciplinary authority of university employees. S/s (7), he has power to enter into agreements, sign documents & authenticate records on behalf of the University. Under S/s (8), he is the custodian of records, the common seal & properties of the university. Section 23 of 1994 Act constitutes all salaried officers, members of authorities, committees or bodies, teachers & other employees of University deemed public servants under S. 21 of the IPC. 12. In this background Section 27 providing the formation of Management Council should be looked into. It provides for different personnel who constitute the Management Council. The Management Council consists of eminent persons and educationists. This section is placed in Chapter IV dealing with the authorities of the University. 12. In this background Section 27 providing the formation of Management Council should be looked into. It provides for different personnel who constitute the Management Council. The Management Council consists of eminent persons and educationists. This section is placed in Chapter IV dealing with the authorities of the University. Section 24 prescribes 11 such authorities as the Senate, the Management Council, the Academic Council, the Faculty, the Board of College & University development, the Board of University teaching & research, the Board of studies, the Board of inter-disciplinary studies, the Board of Examinations, the Board of adult & continuing education & extension services, the Students council and such other bodies as are designated by the Statute. Section 27 makes the Management Council principal executive authority to formulate Statutes & forward the same to the Senate for approval & to make ordinances, to administer the affairs of the University and to carry out all such other duties as are not specifically assigned to any other authority. Section 28 deals with its power & duties. We notice few of the important once as Clause “b” enabling it to establish departments, colleges, schools, institutions of higher learning, research & specialized studies, hostels & provide housing for staff, on the recommendation of the Academic Council. Next clause permits it make, amend or repeal Ordinances and prepare draft Statutes & make recommendation thereon to Senate. Its clause “d” empowers it to hold, control & arrange for administration of assets & properties of University. It lays down policy for administration of funds at disposal of university, enter in to contracts on behalf of university, provide buildings, furniture, premises, apparatus & other means needed to carry work of the university. It can institute & confer such degrees, diplomas etc. as recommended by Academic Council, create posts of university teachers & non-vacation staff upon recommendation of Academic Council, lay down their workload, service conditions, manner of appointment, prescribe fees & other charges, prepare academic calender of the university, confer autonomous status on university departments, affiliated colleges, consider perspective plan for academic development and cause an enquiry to be made into matter concerning proper conduct, working & finance of college or department of university. Consideration of a proposal to start new college anywhere in university area by it is therefore significant in the light of these duties. Consideration of a proposal to start new college anywhere in university area by it is therefore significant in the light of these duties. Section 30(1) makes the Academic Council the principal academic authority to regulate & maintain the standards of teaching, research & examinations while its sub-section 2(e) enables it to make a proposal for establishment of conducted college etc. Here, there is no such proposal even by the Academic Council of respondent 5. 13. The composition of this body prescribed in S. 27 which has been given a pivotal role in Respondent 5 also assumes importance. The Vice-chancellor is its chairman, pro-vice chancellor, one Dean elected by Senate, one person appointed by Chancellor, Secretary higher education or his nominee, Director of Technical education or his nominee, Director of higher education or his nominee, one head or director nominated by Senate, Director-board of college & university development, two principals elected by Senate, one teacher from university department or institute, two teachers from amongst the teachers in affiliated colleges, one person not holding any of the above posts elected by Senate from its members, three persons elected by Academic Council from its members, two representatives of the management elected by Senate. The law also provides reservation for backward classes & woman in above categories. Finance & Accounts officer and Controller of examinations are the permanent invitees with no right to vote. When the composition as also its powers & duties are compared with any other authorities in Chapter IV, the Management Council appears to be the soul of any University in matters like present one in the scheme of the 1994 Act. 14. The prospectus of Model College published by the respondent 5 University itself describes it as a “conducted college” of University. When definition of College in 1994 Act itself takes the conducted college within its sweep, the provisions of S. 82(1) therein also extend to conducted college. Factors having bearing on grant of permission to open new college to a private institution & norms used to apply mind by State Government are also equally relevant when such new college is to come up as a conducted college or university's college. In fact, while urging that S. 82 is not attracted, such ground or logic behind it has not even been touched & no other reason except one that college to be opened is of University itself, has been advanced. In fact, while urging that S. 82 is not attracted, such ground or logic behind it has not even been touched & no other reason except one that college to be opened is of University itself, has been advanced. There is no effort made to distinguish between such conducted college & other colleges visavis S. 82 of 1994 Act by any of the respondents. We, therefore, find no substance in exemption claimed by respondent 5 University or any other respondents. Section 82 of 1994 Act is equally applicable to Model College established by respondent 5 and in absence of such permission, the same can not be accepted as legally established. 15. The starting of Model College at Ghansavangi & allotment of land therefor at Mouza Rajegaon by the State government is not in dispute. Entire controversy centers around the determination of authority which chose it as a location. Admittedly when petitioner demanded the information or the documents, Respondent 5 University directed him to State Government on the pretext that the information & documents are available with the State & not with it. First letter or document to go out of control of the University in this connection is dated 18.3.2011. It is signed & sent by the Director, Board of College & University development to Secretary, University Grants Commission i.e. Respondent 3. This mentions Ghansavangi as proposed place and adds that the proposal is duly recommended & forwarded by the competent authority i.e. Government of Maharashtra. It has been sent through a private courier by “AIR”. UGC has replied to it on 8th April, 2011 but then above this date, March, 2011 appears in print & below it in next line, figure “8” appears which is rather confusing. Even thereafter & below said “8”, in still next line words “April 2011” appear. The same are most probably due to seal of date used & date there is obliterated or not very clear. University in reply affidavit has relied upon the alleged appointment & report of Dr. Dhaigude committee. However, the date of Meeting of that Committee is not disclosed by the University in its reply affidavit but a document showing that it was conducted on 15.3.2011 has been produced. Its member Shri Sontakke is shown to have remained absent & Dr. University in reply affidavit has relied upon the alleged appointment & report of Dr. Dhaigude committee. However, the date of Meeting of that Committee is not disclosed by the University in its reply affidavit but a document showing that it was conducted on 15.3.2011 has been produced. Its member Shri Sontakke is shown to have remained absent & Dr. G.R. Manza, Deputy Secretary & D.B. Bharad, Assistant Secretary are shown to have attended that meeting though they are not its members. This only document even if accepted to be the report of that Committee, it does not contain mention of Ghansavangi at all & there is no discussion on location aspect in it. If location was to be finalized by this Committee, it could have been possible only after evaluation of comparative merits or demerits of the locations in the light of UGC norms. There is no such exercise shown to be undertaken or even produced before this Court. 16. The most important is the document alleged to be the agenda or subject no. 32 placed before the meeting of the Management Council dated 16.3.2011. It does not mention this meeting of Dr. Dhaigude Committee or then its alleged report. On the contrary, it records that State Government was already informed that said college was to come up at Ghansavangi and also notes that a committee under chairmanship of Dr. Dhaigude was also formed in respect of said proposal. It therefore reveals that Management Council or the University had not decided to locate the Model College at Ghansavangi & State Government was informed in advance that the location Ghansavangi would be got approved through Management Council & then forwarded to State. Nobody can foreclose the statutory right of the management council. But then no such resolution of the Management Council choosing or approving Ghansavangi as location is produced. No further report of Dr. Dhaigude committee is also produced. Document filed by petitioner at Annex. F as agenda of said meeting has not been denied. Its contents are relatively short & places the proposal dated 15.3.2011 of one Committee prepared as per UGC norms before the meeting with a note that the proposal was to establish model school at Ghansavangi. It does not use name “Dhaigude” anywhere. It is also mentioned that Vice Chancellor had to recommend two experts in education field also for said purpose. It does not use name “Dhaigude” anywhere. It is also mentioned that Vice Chancellor had to recommend two experts in education field also for said purpose. It bears date 16.3.2011 below the signature of the Director. This agenda & agenda at Ex. R3 filed by Respondent 4 are not same. Agenda of Respondent 4 is little longer & discloses pre-intimation of location Ghansavangi to State Government. This disclosure is not there in other copy at Ex. F. Copy produced by petitioner is photostat & it shows signatures of Registrar Shri Kachole, Director, Deputy Registrar Shri Manza & Asst. Registrar Shri Bharad also upon the subject. Other copy of agenda at Ex. R3 is also photostat copy of a longer note signed by these persons only. It appears to have been prepared on 9th or 10th March,2011 as per dates below some of the signatures. The purpose of preparing second agenda on same subject is beyond comprehension. However, both do not refer to name Dr. Dhaigude at all. Resolution dated 16.3.2011 on this subject reveals that the selection of Ghansavangi as location is not by the Management Council. The alleged report of Dr. Dhaigude committee also does not mention it. Thus choice of Ghansavangi for locating the Model College has been selected by some outside agency & forced upon Respondent 5. The information supplied to petitioner by Respondent 5 University at least to that extent appears to be true. Most surprising is the fact that Respondent 4 has himself produced the true copy of the resolution on said subject as part of document 4. In the backdrop of this proposal which states that Ghansavangi as location is already informed to State Government & Management Council was supposed to approve it on 16.3.2011, the resolution shows total ignorance to this object of placing the subject before it. If resolution no. 32 is perused, the members of the Management Council were reeling under the impression that a committee was preparing the report & resolved that a proposal accordingly should be sent to State Government. They were never informed that any ex-post facto sanction was sought from them. The affidavit dated 21.11.2011 filed by Dr. G.R. Manza on behalf of Respondent 5 University asserts that Ghansavangi region has been approved by Management Council in its meeting dated 16.3.2011 vide resolution no. 32. They were never informed that any ex-post facto sanction was sought from them. The affidavit dated 21.11.2011 filed by Dr. G.R. Manza on behalf of Respondent 5 University asserts that Ghansavangi region has been approved by Management Council in its meeting dated 16.3.2011 vide resolution no. 32. This person has sworn an affidavit which is contrary to records of Respondent 5 & contrary to information supplied under RTI Act. This person has on 14.6.2012 sworn subsequent affidavit in which he has not made any amends but has proceeded further to capitalize on his initial story. This material variance between the resolution as recorded & agenda-subject show that agenda was not available to the Management Council at all. Hence agenda supplied to this Court may not be in existence on 16.3.2011. Respondent 4 has also stated that meeting conducted at guest house under his chairmanship on 13.6.2011 was not for deciding the location as it was already recommended by Dr. Dhaigude committee in its letter dated 15.3.2011 & accepted by the Management Council on 16.3.2011. We therefore see no base for action of the Director, Board of College & University development to Deputy Secretary, University Grants Commission in sending on 23.3.2011 details of Ghansavangi with undated certificates of Block Development Officer. Cover page of the alleged proposal sent with it is shows year of preparation of proposal to be 2010 & at the same time it carries name Ghansavangi as location of proposed model college. Its each page carries the signature of Registrar but then nowhere date is mentioned. Document with heading “Certificate as required by the Commission” show two signatures of very same authority but again without any date. Forwarding letter sent 7 signed by it is also undated. Last document certifying that proposed Model College will be Constituent College by him leaves space for indicating “Date & Place” of the execution thereof blank. All these documents are supplied on record by Respondent 5 University as photostat copies of records of the University. 17. Here, it is equally necessary to note the reply given on 8.8.2011 by Deputy Secretary, Planning & Statistics to petitioner. It informs him that information about other locations in Jalna district considered either by the University or Government is available with State & should be obtained there. It has disclosed that Ghansavangi or any other place was not suggested by it for location of Model College. It informs him that information about other locations in Jalna district considered either by the University or Government is available with State & should be obtained there. It has disclosed that Ghansavangi or any other place was not suggested by it for location of Model College. On demand of copy of Committee constituted for deciding the location either by State or by University and its report, said officer has reiterated that this information was available with State & be obtained from it. Shri Manza in his reply affidavit dated 21.11.2011 has declared that Model College has been opened on 18.6.2011 in rented premises of Zilla Parishad. The admissions to students were closed on 30.7.2011 & till then 417 students had been admitted. College had total staff of 12 & it included a Principal, 8 teachers & 3 nonteaching employees. In reply dated 8.8.2011, it has been disclosed that till then no committee was constituted by University to appoint the teaching staff. Admission forms were made available at Matsyodari Vidyalaya at Ghansavangi, Matsyodari Mahavidyalaya at Ambad & Matsyodari Mahavidyalaya at Jalna. It is not in dispute before us that all these educational institutes are being run by the public trust of which father of Respondent 4 is Chairman. Respondent no. 5 had initially not dared to place oath of any responsible officer behind any of its documents and the copies thereof are made available to Court by its learned Senior Advocate claiming the same to be copies of original. The learned Counsel for Petitioner has also taken inspection of the said original record. However, Shri Manza who has filed contrary affidavit has chosen not to annex any documents from the records of University with it. Though there are allegations against him in the matter, administration of Respondent 5 has permitted him to file the reply affidavits. On 3.8.2012, the respective Counsel finished their arguments and, in this situation, we gave opportunity to Vice-chancellor of the Respondent 5 University to file affidavit explaining why the documents could not be filed properly & permitting him to place on record any other relevant fact. The original agenda of & the proceedings of the Management Council Meetings was also directed to be made available for Court's perusal. 18. Petitioner has in rejoinder affidavit dated 27.4.2012 asserted that sanctioned strength of the students at its Ghansavangi College is 1080 and it could admit only 602 students. The original agenda of & the proceedings of the Management Council Meetings was also directed to be made available for Court's perusal. 18. Petitioner has in rejoinder affidavit dated 27.4.2012 asserted that sanctioned strength of the students at its Ghansavangi College is 1080 and it could admit only 602 students. In other words, educational facility for all 417 students admitted by Model College was already in existence at said place. But as petitioner has not given figures of past enrollment, we are not in position to conclude that it is establishment of Model College at Ghansavangi which has adversely affected it. The question needs to be left open for consideration by the appropriate authority under 1994 Act. 19. The contention that place Ghansavangi has been entered in note written by Shri Manza on letter dated 20.1.2011 sent by State due to or after some discussions with his superiors is itself thus unpalatable. This factual plea not taken is clearly an afterthought. It is apparent that that Respondent 5 was not free agent then & is not left free to assist this Court because of some pressure upon it & Shri Manza has gone out of way to help Respondent 4 and for that purpose, even to mislead this Court. Unfortunately, the high officer like Vice-Chancellor has also imitated Dr. Manza only. Inconsistencies in documentation are because of this fear & pressure only. There is no decision by Respondent 5 in fact or law to locate Model College at Ghansavangi or any where else, & its officers including the Vice-Chancellor have conspired with Respondent 4 in avoiding such decision. We therefore do not find it necessary to examine the UGC Scheme or distance criterion of 10 Kms. therein to see whether Ghansavangi or Rajegaon is suitable for locating a Model College. Being a statutory body, the law requires University to take a decision & that decision must manifest itself in the shape of a proper resolution of the Management Council. The members on Management Council must evaluate the relevant data & using their expertise, find out most appropriate location visavis the UGC scheme. The State Government can then process it further. This application of mind is prohibited in present matter, obviously with some ulterior motive. The members on Management Council must evaluate the relevant data & using their expertise, find out most appropriate location visavis the UGC scheme. The State Government can then process it further. This application of mind is prohibited in present matter, obviously with some ulterior motive. In absence of such a decision, it is clear that what has come up at Ghansavangi as Model College is in law a fraud by Respondent 5 upon UGC, Union of India and also State Government. This state of affairs could not have resulted in absence of influence of Respondent 4. The entire exercise contrary to law is therefore with some extraneous design. The contention of Adv, Dixit on parameters for choosing a site, its directory nature or otherwise & attempt to demonstrate that Ghansavangi is ideal location can not be countenanced as this Court can not speculate & visualize how the Management Council could have viewed the situation. If we presume that both agendas on same subject were before the Management Council, then from tenor of resolution passed, it is apparent that Management Council has not cleared Ghansavangi or had no occasion to examine it as the proposed location. For same reason, we do not consider whether there can be any comparison & competition between conventional college & a Model College. Similar efforts by Adv. Salunkhe therefore can not succeed. These fields may become available to us in very limited jurisdiction provided the decision is first reached by a legally competent body like the Management Council. In law, the Management Council is supposed to consist of 20 persons and two invitees who participate in its discussions. Here the meetings have been attended by just 6 persons & two out of them are invitees who did not enjoy any elective or representative role. Vice-chancellor in his ex-officio capacity as Chairman, one Dr. A.R. Thete, Joint Director Dr. A.G. Khan & Secretary/Registrar Shri Kachole are the remaining 4 officers who attended the meeting dated 16.3.2011 obviously betrayed the trust & violated 1994 Act. 20. The affidavit filed by Vice – Chancellor Dr. Shri Vijay Manohar Pandharipande ratifies the affidavits filed by Shri Mhanza & also supports the documents Ex. A to Ex. J. Document at Ex. G with it is subject or proposal no. 20. The affidavit filed by Vice – Chancellor Dr. Shri Vijay Manohar Pandharipande ratifies the affidavits filed by Shri Mhanza & also supports the documents Ex. A to Ex. J. Document at Ex. G with it is subject or proposal no. 32 which expressly mentions that State Government was already informed that proposal for establishing the Model College at Ghansavangi would be got cleared through Management Council and sent to it. Thus this proposal contains reference to Ghansavangi. Resolution of the Management Council on this subject does not even refer to it & safely observes that the proposal as per in the report of “one committee” constituted for said purpose be sent to State. Non mention of Dr. Dhaigude committee in it speaks volumes. This is in backdrop of the fact that the alleged proposal mentions name of Dr. Dhaigude committee. Obviously, the Committee & alleged report did not exist on said date. That apart we have already found that Dr. Dhaigude committee does not use word “Ghansavangi” in its entire report(alleged). The document produced by petitioner at Exh. F as agenda of said meeting carries reference of proposal dated 15.3.2011 & Director has signed it on 16.3.2011 itself. If the agenda was already drafted on 10.3.2011& circulated, there was no need to redraft it on 16.3.2011. Thus agenda filed by Respondent 4 containing reference to name of Dr. Dhaigude appears to have been antedated to suit their design by Respondent 4 & 5. Paragraph 9 of the writ petition or the document Ex. F filed with petition by the petitioner does not find any consideration by the Vice-Chancellor or by Dr. Manza. The difference between this proposal or agenda of subject no. 32 & the alleged proposal filed by University is already noted by us above. Along with his affidavit in reply dated 26.4.2012, Respondent 4 has filed at pages 455 – 456 true copy of the noting dated 16.3.2011 as Ex. R3. First page of this noting is nothing but Ex. G with the affidavit of the Vice-chancellor while its next page is Ex. F filed by the petitioner. Its contents or genesis are however not explained by Respondent 4 or by Vice Chancellor. Dr. Manza has also not dealt with this document or paragraph 9 of the writ petition. This second page or Ex. G with the affidavit of the Vice-chancellor while its next page is Ex. F filed by the petitioner. Its contents or genesis are however not explained by Respondent 4 or by Vice Chancellor. Dr. Manza has also not dealt with this document or paragraph 9 of the writ petition. This second page or Ex. F with the writ petition shows that on 16.3 2011, the Management Council was to nominate two experts in the field of education. The alleged resolution of the Management Council totally ignores this business of nomination. However, the document of short agenda filed by Respondent 4 itself notes two names i.e. of one Vinod Rai & Dr. Rathpalle. 21. During arguments, it has been disclosed that the Management Council, duly constituted has already started functioning. The original (alleged) documents i.e. subject agenda (long one dated 10.3.2011) & proceedings were produced on 16.8.2012. Subject agenda shown to us is compilation of photostat copies of the computer printout & it is not signed or certified by anybody. The agenda is in two books in which pages are pasted together & bound by thin coloured cover. Second book with yellow cover contains subjects “XX” onwards. It has got an index to point out the relevant page of that volume which has that agenda details. The original proceedings or minutes are on loose papers which at its end carry signatures of Vice-chancellor & Registrar. The loose papers are not forming part of any bound proceeding book so as to put its authenticity beyond doubt. Absence of any express statutory provisions dealing with the procedure & maintenance of these records do not countenance such a state of affairs. The records have not been maintained in any known orderly manner in a mode conducive to its inherent authenticity. The proceeding book for meetings of the Management Council held in a year should be one, bound with consecutive paging & a certificate of a responsible officer at its opening declaring total number of pages in such book. Minutes or the proceedings of its meetings must appear therein one after the other in chronological fashion. It would have then shown impossibility of any insertion or interpolations. Same can also be applied to the agendas. But such course has not been even thought of. Proceedings or minutes of the other meetings or other agendas are not shown to us. Minutes or the proceedings of its meetings must appear therein one after the other in chronological fashion. It would have then shown impossibility of any insertion or interpolations. Same can also be applied to the agendas. But such course has not been even thought of. Proceedings or minutes of the other meetings or other agendas are not shown to us. The original of short agenda signed by the Director came to be filed on 17.8.2012 urging that it was misplaced. The pursis filed on 17.8.2012 states that it was found in some other file. The Respondent 5 has again not filed any affidavit to substantiate this stand. The alleged original (of Ex.F with petition) was along with communication dated 6/21.4.2011 sent by the Director to Vice Chancellor & three other persons. We have passed suitable orders in this connection on 16.8.2012 & 17.8.2012 sealing the so-called originals which now are in custody of this Court. The order dated 16.4.2012 passed by this Court & non-compliance therewith becomes significant in this background. We therefore disbelieve these so called originals and entire story pressed into service by Respondent 4 through Dr. Manza & Dr. Pandharipande. We find that both these officers have not assisted the Court of law though opportunity was very much available to them. 22. Discussion above is sufficient to show gross violations of Ss. 27, 30 & 82 of the 1994 Act in the matter. Obviously, it is Respondent 4 who forced Ghansavangi as location because of his influential position & all officers of the Respondent 5 forgot their duty to “law” & succumbed to his pressure. Though opportunity was extended to them to come clean, the responsible officers of the University have attempted to mislead this Court by submitting incorrect data. Manner in which the affairs of Respondent 5 were conducted left gaps & officers of Respondent 5 with Respondent 4 exploited the same to their advantage. They mislead the State Government as also Respondent 3 University Grants Commission. Had they brought correct position on record on 21.11.2011, this Court might not have refused interim relief to the petitioner. But then, we can not loose site of the fact that adverse impact on the strength of students with petitioner needs is yet not ascertained. Moreover, the public money has been spent on this entire exercise. Had they brought correct position on record on 21.11.2011, this Court might not have refused interim relief to the petitioner. But then, we can not loose site of the fact that adverse impact on the strength of students with petitioner needs is yet not ascertained. Moreover, the public money has been spent on this entire exercise. Respondent 4 & 5 have also succeeded in creating interest of students in an attempt to make the situation irreversible. We therefore direct the Respondent 1 as State government to take note of these facts & to institute necessary action against Respondent 4 & 5 in the matter. Respondent 1 to decide whether to decline permission or recognition & grants to said Model College at Ghansavangi or Rajegaon. Respondent 3 University Grants Commission shall also take necessary decision on same lines. Decisions to be taken by the respective Respondent 1 & 3 shall be their own & independent of each-other. The Management Council of Respondent 5 University shall consider issue of location of Model College in Jalna District afresh & uninfluenced by its existence at Rajegaon or Ghansavangi as per the scheme of UGC & !994 Act. Its members shall not be influenced by Dr. Manza or Dr. Pandharipande. These decisions shall be reached independently by the respective authorities within 8 weeks from today. If any one decision is against the existing location, the Respondent 5 shall discontinue the College forthwith. Needless to mention that the Respondent 1 State government, Respondent 3 University Grants Commission & authorities under 1994 Act are free to exercise their statutory or constitutional rights & take such actions as are needed to make amends & to restore confidence in the respective institutions of public importance. They are also free to recover the public money spent from Respondent 4, Dr. Manza & Dr. Pandharipande as per law, if the Model College is discontinued. 23. We allow the petition with directions & action as above with costs of Rs.15,000/-to the petitioner. Respondent 4, Vice-Chancellor & Dr. Manza shall personally pay Rs. 5000/-each within 8 weeks from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Shri Yawalkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, at this stage, makes a request for staying the judgment for a period of four weeks, however, this Court has not passed any orders which require ongoing College to be discontinued and its working is not affected. 5000/-each within 8 weeks from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Shri Yawalkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, at this stage, makes a request for staying the judgment for a period of four weeks, however, this Court has not passed any orders which require ongoing College to be discontinued and its working is not affected. Hence, his request is rejected.