1. W.P. No. 6308 of 2014 is filed by four degree colleges located at Gudur, SPSR Nellore District challenging the notification issued by the first respondent dated 19.02.2014 whereby Gudur Mandal was notified as identified Mandal for establishment of new private unaided decree colleges for the academic year 2014-2015. W.P. No. 9441 of 2014 is similarly filed by six degree colleges located at Rayachoty, YSR Kadapa District, challenging the notification of second respondent dated 19.02.2014 inviting applications for starting new private degree colleges in Rayachoty. Respondent No. 5 herein is an educational society, which proposes to establish a new degree college at Rayachoty in pursuance of the impugned notification. Accordingly, it was permitted to be impleaded in W.P. No. 9441 of 2014, as respondent No. 5, vide orders in WPMP No. 20863 of 2014 dated 26.09.2014. Both the aforesaid writ petitions challenge the notification, primarily, on the ground that the notification is contrary to Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 5 of the Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 (for short 'the Rules').

2. By order dated 06.03.2014, W.P. No. 6308 of 2014 was admitted and interim direction was issued viz.

'The process of consideration of the applications for establishment of new degree colleges may go on but, however, the same may not be finalized.'

Similarly, by order dated 27.03.2014, W.P. No. 9441 of 2014 was admitted and similar interim direction was issued. Respondent No. 5 in W.P. No. 9441 of 2014 has filed W.V.M.P. No. 2828 of 2014 seeking vacation of the interim direction and second respondent has filed a common counter affidavit in five similar matters, which include the present writ petitions. Since both these writ petitions question similar notification, they were heard together.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on Section 20 of the Act to contend that permission for establishment of an educational institution can be considered by the competent authority, from time to time, only after conducting a survey so as to identify the educational needs of the locality. Rule 5 of the Rules is also relied upon, which stipulates that in pursuance of the notification, applications can be filed before the competent authority in Form I in triplicate not later than 31st January of the year preceding the academic year in which the institution is proposed to be opened. Learned counsel contends that already sufficient number of colleges exist at Gudur and Rayachoty, which are subject matter of these two writ petitions. Learned counsel state that initial notification, which was issued by the second respondent for the academic year 2014-2015 dated 22.01.2014 did not include Gudur Mandal and only by subsequent notification, impugned herein, dated 19.02.2014, Gudur and Kaluvai Mandals were notified as identified mandals. It is specifically stated that while issuing the subsequent impugned notification, no survey whatsoever was conducted nor the drastic fall in intake of sanctioned strength in existing colleges in Gudur Mandal is taken into consideration. It is also contended that the existing colleges itself are showing substantial fall in the sanctioned strength, hence, opening of new degree colleges in Gudur and Rayachoty mandals respectively would result in unhealthy competition and would lead to closure of existing colleges also. It is stated that the mandatory requirement of Section 20 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules having not been fulfilled, the impugned notifications inviting applications for Gudur and Rayachoty Mandals respectively is wholly illogical and impermissible. Learned counsel have also appended along with the writ petitions, the statistics to show the sanctioned strength year wise and the vacancy position in the existing colleges.

4. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second r