The requirements of owning a building, acquiring 10 acres of land, depositing Rs. 4.5 lakhs, and establishing a model school were not pre-conditions for grant of permission under Section 20(3) of the A. P. Education Act, 1982.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition calls in question the correctness and validity of the Govt. order contained in G O Rt. No. 101 Education (S) Department, dated 15-1-1985, refusing permission to the petitioner to establish a College of education. This is the third writ petition filed by it. The first writ petition W P 7957/82, was allowed by this court on 12-11-1982 with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner s application within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of the order. No orders were passed within four weeks as directed by the court, whereupon the petitioner proceeded to appoint the staff, and also admit students. The District educational Officer, Ongole, wrote to the superintendent of Police to stop the admissions. A copy of the letter was marked to the Secretary and Correspondent of the Petitioner-society, While it is not netessary to state the several facts (all of which are found stated in the judgment of a Bench of this Court in writ petition, WP 9137/82 filed by the petitioner (reported in 1984 (2) A P L J p. 45) it is sufficrent to mention that the second writ petition (WP 9137/82) was filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the Govt of A P and the District Educational officer, Ongole to grant permission to it to run the college of education and the teachers Training School, at Ongole, the correctness of the order of the Govt. dt. 9-11-1983 refusinn permission to the petitioner-society to establish a college of Education on the ground that "there are already 13,066 unemployed b. Ed. , in the State, was questioned in the said writ petition. Tha Government opposed the said writ petition stating that the private and Government Teahcers trailing Colleges already existing in the state are more than sufficient to cater to the needs of the state and, even by 1983 more than 13,000 unemployed trained graduates were awaiting employment and therefore, the Governments order refusing permission to the petitioner was perfectly in order. This plea of the Govt. was rejected by the Bench. It was held that the only reason given by the Govt. for refusing permission is neither valid, nor tenable The Govt s order dated 9-11-82 was, accordingly, quashed and a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner s application shall be disposed off within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It was also observed that, it would be open to the authorities to call upon the petitioner to submit such further particulars as may be necessary for disposal of its application, in the light of the observations contained in the said judgment.

( 2 ) COMPLAINING that even though the four week s period had expired long ago, no orders were passed by the government in pursuance of the judgement of this court and that, the repeated requests of the petitioner have proved of no avail, the petitioner came forward with contempt case No 275/1984 (in w P No 9137/82) on 3-12-1984. It was admitted on 22-12-1984, and notice issued to the sole respondent in the contempt case viz. . Sri V P Rama rao, Secretary to Government Education deptt. Govt of A P Hyderabad After the contempt case was filed, the impugned order was passed on 16-1-1985 and communicated to the petitioner, again refusing permission to the petitioner when this fact was brought to our notice in the contempt case, we conserved that the said fact may malea difference. The petitioner demurred and stated that any how he is filing a writ petition challenging the said order. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the present writ-petition which we heard along with the contempt case.

( 3 ) THE order impugned in this writ petition given five reasons for refusing the permission sought for They are (i) that, the building as per the requirement is owned by the society except a rsnted building which is found to be not adequate according to the standard designs for needs of a college of education" (ii) as ag