JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.:- The question involved in these appeals relates to the vires of the Tamil Nadu Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The appellants are interested in running educational institutions, which are covered by the expression "private educational institution" within the meaning of S. 2(f) of the Act. The main challenge is directed against Ss. 2(c), 3(a), 3(b), 6, 7 read with 15, 22 and 28. The High Court struck down S. 28 and upheld the other sections. That part of the judgment where S. 28 has been declared to be invalid has not been impugned by the respondent-State.

2. The provisions of the Act which are relevant for appreciating the ground urged by the appellants are as follows. Section 3 mandatorily requires a private educational institution to obtain the permission of the competent authority for the purpose of running it. The Manager of such an institution has to, as required by S. 4, make an application for permission in the prescribed form accompanied by a fee. Section 6 lays down the power of the competent authority to deal with such an application in the following terms :

"6. Grant of permission.- On receipt of an application under Section 4 the competent authority may grant or refuse to grant the permission after taking into consideration, the particulars contained in such application:

Provided that the permission shal1 not be refused under this Section unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of making his representation:

Provided further that in case of refusal of permission the applicant shall be entitled to refund of one-half of the amount of the fee accompanying the application." .

The competent authority is empowered under S. 7 to cancel the permission in certain circumstances. One of the conditions for exercise of power is contravention of any direction issued by the competent authority under S.15. The power to exempt any institution from the provisions of the Act is vested in the State Government under S. 22, which is quoted below:-

"22. Power to exempt.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may, subject to such conditions as they deem fit, by notification exempt any private educational institution or class of private educational institutions from all or any of the provisions of this Act or from any rule made under this Act."

Section 28,. which has been declared invalid by the High Court states that if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Government may "do anything which appears to them to be necessary for the purposes of removing the difficulty."

3. The Act is impugned on the ground that it does not lay down any guideline for the exercise of the power by the delegated authority, as a result of which the authority is in a position to act according to his whims. The Act having failed to indicate the conditions for exercise of power, the decision of the competent authority is bound to be discriminatory and arbitrary. It has also been argued that the restrictions put by the Act on the appellants, who are running tutorial institutions are unreasonable and cannot be justified under sub-clause (g) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has attempted to defend the Act 42 on the ground that sufficient guidance is available to the authority concerned from sub-section (2)(c) of S. 4 which enumerates the particulars required to be supplied in the application for permission. They are 10 in number and are mentioned below:

"4. Application for permission.

(1) ...........................

(2) Every such application shall

(a) ...........................

(c) contain the following particulars, namely: -

(i) the name of the private educational institution and the name and address of the manager;

(ii) the certificate, degree or diploma for which such private educational institution prepares, trains or guides or proposes to prepare, train or guide its stude