( 1 ) IN these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of Rules, 17, 18 and 19 of Bar Council of India rules, for short the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India by virtue of the power conferred upon it under Sections 7 (h) and (i), 24 (1) (c) (iii) and (iiia) (9) 49 (1) (af) (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 for short the Act .

( 2 ) A. V. Educational Society, a Society registered under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Act, 1350-Fasli, is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23603 of 2000 and it had established a Law College by name "k. V. Ranga Reddy Institute of Law". The petitioner being aggrieved by the proceedings bearing Lr. No. APSCHE/ Law Colleges/secy/2000, dated 10-8-2000 of the A. P. State Council for Higher Education, the 2nd respondent in writ petition refusing permission to the petitioner college to convert the 5 year. degree course to 3 year degree course and for switching over from the Evening College to Day College, it is stated, it has filed WP No. 16278 of 2000 in this Court and the same is pending inter alia challenging the vires of A. P. State Council for Higher Education Act, 1988 (Act 15 of 1987) on the grounds of the said Act being unconstitutional and beyond legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature. The petitioner complaining that Rules 17, 18 and 19 of the Rules are ultra vires of the Act and therefore insistence to seek approval of the Bar Council of India for affiliation is illegal and unauthorized, has filed the writ petition challenging the vires of the Rules, 17, 18 and 19 of the Rules.

( 3 ) ANWAR-UL-ULOOM Educational Association, New Mallepally, Hyderabad, is the petitioner in WP No. 23614 of 2000. The said association is the society registered under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Act, 1950 Fasli with Registration No. 23/1952 and this society established a Law College by name "anwar-Ul-Uloom College of Law" in the year 1988. The Bar Council of India vide its letter No. BCI: D:712:1999 (LE/meg.), dated 3-8-1999 addressed to the Osmania University, Hyderabad, the 4th respondent in the writ petition, refused to include the name of the petitioner-Law College in the list of approved Law Colleges. The petitioner society being aggrieved by the said action has filed this writ petition questioning the vires of Rules 17, 18 and 19 of the Rules and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to insist for the Bar Council of India s approval as a condition for the grant of affiliation to the petitioner College-Anwar-Ul-Uloom College of Law.

( 4 ) IN both the writ petitions, the petitioners have not assailed any particular adverse action or order of the Bar Council of India or the Ahdhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education. Therefore, the only question that arises for the decision of the Court is whether Rules 17, 18 and 19 of the Rules are ultra vires the Act.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the Bar Council of India acted without jurisdiction in framing the Rules 17, 18 and 19 in providing for the affiliation of every college imparting education in law must be approved by the Bar Council of India. The learned Counsel would contend that the impugned rules travel beyond the scope of the power conferred upon the Bar Council of India under Section 7 of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, whereas Section 7 of the Act only grants power to the Bar Council of India to prescribe standards and recognize Universities whose degrees would be valid for the purposes of the Act, Rules 17, 18 and 19 travel far beyond the powers delegated to it under Section 7 and also the Rule-making power under Section 15 of the Act and are, therefore, ultra vires the rule making power of the Bar Council of India. The learned Counsel would contend, the impugned rules inter alia impinge upon the authority and functioning of the Universities constituted for the