Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : J.ESWARA PRASAD, M.JAGANADHA RAO
Government Of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
St.Anthonys Educational Society, Narasaraopet - Respondent
Decided On : 04-23-91
EDUCATION - Permission to establish an educational institution - Whether the Education policy dated 6.8.1990 can be said to be in conformity with the provisions of the Act and whether the same can be questioned in writ jurisdiction? - Whether the right to establish an educational institution can be said to be a fundamental right or atleast a natural right and whether when it is regulated under Sec. 20 there is any residuary discretion in the Government to refuse permission in spite of the provisions of the Act being complied with? - Whether the amendment to Sec. 20 by the A.P. Amending Act 27 of 1987 can be applied to the facts of the case and whether the necessary machinery has been constituted and the rules made so that the said amendment can be applied? - Whether the respondents have established either that Narasaraopet is not a local area or that there is no need in the said locality to establish a separate College of Education in the context of Sec. 20 of the Act? - Whether the conditions, if any, mentioned in Sec. 20 of the unamended act or the amended Act are all pre-conditions which have to be satisfied by an applicant before seeking permission? - Whether it is open to this Court ordinarily to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Government to grant permission for establishing an educational institution?
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a minority institution, applied for permission to start a College of Education at Narasaraopet. The application was rejected by the Government on the ground that there was no need for a new college in the area. The petitioner challenged the order in a writ petition, which was allowed by the single judge. The Government appealed against the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government's order was arbitrary and unreasonable. It held that the Government had not conducted a proper survey to determine the need for a new college in the area. It also held that the Government had not considered the petitioner's application in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. The court further held that the right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right and that the Government cannot refuse permission to establish a college without a valid reason.
Issues: 1. Whether the Education policy dated 6.8.1990 can be said to be in conformity with the provisions of the Act and whether the same can be questioned in writ jurisdiction? 2. Whether the right to establish an educational institution can be said to be a fundamental right or atleast a natural right and whether when it is regulated under Sec. 20 there is any residuary discretion in the Government to refuse permission in spite of the provisions of the Act being complied with? 3. Whether the amendment to Sec. 20 by the A.P. Amending Act 27 of 1987 can be applied to the facts of the case and whether the necessary machinery has been constituted and the rules made so that the said amendment can be applied? 4. Whether the respondents have established either that Narasaraopet is not a local area or that there is no need in the said locality to establish a separate College of Education in the context of Sec. 20 of the Act? 5. Whether the conditions, if any, mentioned in Sec. 20 of the unamended act or the amended Act are all pre-conditions which have to be satisfied by an applicant before seeking permission? 6. Whether it is open to this Court ordinarily to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Government to grant permission for establishing an educational institution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Education policy dated 6.8.1990 is not in conformity with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and can be questioned in writ jurisdiction. 2. The right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right and the Government cannot refuse permission to establish a college without a valid reason. 3. The amendment to Sec. 20 by the A.P. Amending Act 27 of 1987 cannot be applied to the facts of the case as the necessary machinery has not been constituted and the rules have not been made. 4. The respondents have not established either that Narasaraopet is not a local area or that there is no need in the said locality to establish a separate College of Education. 5. The conditions mentioned in Sec. 20 of the unamended act or the amended Act are not all pre-conditions which have to be satisfied by an applicant before seeking permission. 6. It is open to the Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Government to grant permission for establishing an educational institution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ appeal and directed the Government to grant permission to the petitioner to start a College of Education at Narasaraopet.
( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned sing e judge in W. P. No. 12558/90 dated 27. 11. 1990. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein viz. , St. Anthony s educational Society, Narasaraopet. The appellants in this appeal are the government and the Director of School Education. The relief claimed in the writ petition was for the issue of a writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the Government in G. O. Rt. No. 636 Education (EE-2) Department dated 17. 4. 1990 as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the appellant to grant permission to the writ petitioner society to start a college of Education at Narasaraopet for the academic year 1990-91.
( 2 ) THE following facts have to be stated : Initially the writ petitioner filed an application on 24. 9. 1988 seeking permission to start a College of education for the academic year 1988-89, before the Chief Minister, government of Andhra Pradesh. The writ petitioner claims to be a minority institution also. Thereupon the Joint Secretary, Education Department addressed a letter dated 28. 9. 1988 to the Registrar, Nagarjuna University requesting the latter to submit a feasibility report. The Vice-Chancellor of the said university appointed an inspection committee. At that stage the petitioner-society purchased land of an extent of ac. 10-20 cents on 2. 10. 1988. The Inspection Committee appointed by the University submitted a report dated 4. 11. 1988 stating that it was feasible to start a College of education at Narasaruopet. They gave various reasons in the said report. It appears that the Government requested the Director of School Education to send his report and thereupon the Regional Joint Director, School education, submitted a report on 10. 12. 1988 recommending the proposal on the ground that the Narasaraopet area is not having professional educational facilities within its reach as required. On 18. 12. 1988 the Director of School education addressed a further letter to the Government that the management promised to fulfil the necessary conditions for establishing a College of Education but that its minority status has not been established. The government was requested to take a policy decision on the issue on the report of the D. E. O. On 25. 1. 1989 a criptic order was passed by the Secretary to Government stating that the request of the petitioner is rejected inasmuch as the Government is now consolidating the existing institutions in the current year and that therefore the request to permit new institutions cannot be considered for 1988-89.
( 3 ) THE writ petitioner filed W. P. No. 14838/89 seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to grant permission to start a college at Narasaraopet. After hearing both sides, the learned Judge passed an order directing the Government to consider the petitioner s application in the light of the report ot the Inspection Committee of the Nagarjuna university and of the Joint Director of School Education dated 10. 12. 1988 and in accordance with law within four weeks. This order was passed on 26. 10. 1989. After the said judgment, the petitioner made a representation on 28. 10. 1989 to the Ministerfor Education. When the matter was pending before the Minister, the Secretary, Education Department directed the petitioner to fulfil the conditions of deposit of Rs. 3. 50 lakhs as corpus fund. On 9. 11. 1989 the Society deposited Rs. 3. 50 lakhs in the Andhra Bank, narasaraopet and produced a certificate to that effect. This certificate was however not in the joint names of the Society and the concerned departmental official as required by rules. Thereupon the Minister is said to have made an endorsement on 11. 11. 1989 to issue orders immediately. However, subsequently permission was refused by a separate order dated 17. 4. 1990 made in G. O. Rt. No. 636 of 1990. It is this order that is questioned in the wri
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
