Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : L.NARSIMHA REDDY
C.R.Reddy Law College Employeesassociation,.Eluru, West Godavari District - Appellant
Versus
Bar Counsel of India - Respondent
Decided On : 09-05-02
Education and University – Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 - Section 26 - Seeking permission to close law College - It had established several educational institutions at Eluru - It proposed to establish a law College - It was accorded approval by 1 st respondent, through orders - Government of Andhra pradesh, issued G. O. Ms, according permission for establishment of Law College - Accordingly, 7th respondent-Law College came to be established - Andhra university, 2nd respondent, granted affiliation from time to time and through proceedings - It accorded permanent affiliation - Initially, Law college was running three years Law degree Course and thereafter it has introduced five years Law Degree course also - Approved strength of law College is 480 in three years Degree course (two sections of 80 students each for three years ) - So far as five years degree Course is concerned, its strength is 400 (one section of 80 candidates for each year ) - University Grants Commission also extended certain financial aid for purpose of establishing library - It has also an attached hostel maintained by government - In recent past, 6th respondent had ordered closure of hostel on ground that it was facing lot of problems on account of same - In year 2001, it started taking steps to close Law College on ground that there was substantial depletion in admissions into both five years and three years degree Courses and accordingly addressed letter to various authorities seeking permission to close law College and requesting them not to allot the candidates - Followed by subsequent correspondence and ultimately 1st respondent accorded permission to close Law College through impugned order petitioners contend that decision of 6th respondent to close law College was absolutely without basis - According to them, reason for depletion in admissions was closure of hostel and 6th respondent had treated Law college as a commercial venture and had some interest been shown to continue law College, certainly there would have been improvement in admissions - Petitioners allege that action of 1st respondent is according permission to close Law College is contrary to public interest, apart from being opposed to objects underlying Advocates Act and rules governing functioning of Bar council - Petitioners also alleged certain procedural irregularities in decision arrived at by 6th respondent - It is also their contention that action of 6th respondent to close Law College is contrary to provisions of Act, 1982 – Held, As Court observed earlier, even if institution is admitted to grant-in-aid, posts are withdrawn depending on fall in intake - It cannot be said that decision taken by respondents 6 and 7 was without any basis - Allegation as to diversion of funds is refuted respondents 6 and 7 - When intake is so poor, it cannot be said that closure of college has affected careers of intending students in the area - Provisions of A. P. Education Act infraction of which is complained is Section 26 - Procedure to be adopted before completing closure of institution - It also provides for punishment for deviation from procedure - If at all there is any violation, same has to be ascertained by authority conferred with power and if there exists any violation, it has to entail in consequences provided for - That exercise cannot be undertaken in present proceedings - Allegation is that notice of closure is not even one year in advance - Management of institution asserts that such a notice was in fact given and there is no rebuttal of same - Far as role of 1st respondent is concerned, it needs to be observed that its role is confined only to ensure maintenance of proper standards as and when Law Colleges are established and as long such institutions exist - Just as they cannot compel an individual or agency, or for that matter, even a University to establish a Law College, they cannot compel any one to continue same, contrary to their convenience - Therefore, it cannot be said that 1st respondent has violated any provision of law or laws in according permission to close Law college - Court do not see any illegality in action of 1st respondent in according permission to close Law college - Writ Petition Dismissed.
( 1 ) THE 1st petitioners is the employee s Association and petitioners 2 to 5 are the employees of Sir C. R. Reddy law College, Eluru. They challenge the orders of Bar Council of India, 1st respondent, dated 15-7-2002, permitting the closure of Sir C. R. R. Law College, Eluru, the 7th respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Law College ).
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts are as under:
( 3 ) SIR C. R. Reddy College, Eluru, was established in the year 1951. It had established several educational institutions at Eluru. It proposed to establish a law College. It was accorded approval by the 1 st respondent, through orders dated 13-9-1976. The Government of Andhra pradesh, issued G. O. Ms. No. 943 dated 22-9-1997, according permission for establishment of the Law College. Accordingly, the 7th respondent-Law College came to be established. The Andhra university, the 2nd respondent, granted affiliation from time to time and through proceedings dated 2-1-1984, it accorded permanent affiliation. Initially, the Law college was running the three years Law degree Course and thereafter it has introduced the five years Law Degree course also. The approved strength of the law College is 480 in three years Degree course (two sections of 80 students each for three years ). So far as the five years degree Course is concerned, its strength is 400 (one section of 80 candidates for each year ). The University Grants Commission also extended certain financial aid for the purpose of establishing library. It has also an attached hostel maintained by the government. In the recent past, the 6th respondent had ordered closure of the hostel on the ground that it was facing lot of problems on account of the same. In the year 2001, it started taking steps to close the Law College on the ground that there was substantial depletion in the admissions into both the five years and three years degree Courses and accordingly addressed letter dated 25-6-2001 to the various authorities seeking permission to close the law College and requesting them not to allot the candidates. This was followed by subsequent correspondence and ultimately the 1st respondent accorded permission to close the Law College through the impugned order.
( 4 ) THE petitioners contend that the decision of the 6th respondent to close the law College was absolutely without basis. According to them, the reason for depletion in the admissions was closure of the hostel and the 6th respondent had treated the Law college as a commercial venture and had some interest been shown to continue the law College, certainly there would have been improvement in the admissions. The petitioners allege that the action of the 1st respondent is according permission to close the Law College is contrary to the public interest, apart from being opposed to the objects underlying the Advocates Act and the rules governing the functioning of Bar council. The petitioners also alleged certain procedural irregularities in the decision arrived at by the 6th respondent. It is also their contention that the action of the 6th respondent to close the Law College is contrary to the provisions of the A. P. Education Act.
( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 6 and 7 filed counter- affidavit refuting the allegations of the petitioners. They raised objection as to the locus standi of the petitioners and also the maintainability of the writ petition. They have narrated the circumstances, which led to the closure of the Law College. Their main contention is that having regard to the fall in admissions into the 1st year of the courses year after year, they were sustaining huge financial losses and it was not feasible to continue the Law College, it was also pleaded that their right to close the Law College cannot be challenged by the petitioners, and, at any rate, they cannot be forced to run a college contrary to their will and inspite of adverse circumstances.
( 6 ) WHEN the matter came up for admission, the learned Co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
