F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

(1) THE Bar Council of India (for short, BCI), represented by its Secretary is the appellant in both the Writ Appeals. The appellant-BCI is aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 20. 4. 2006 in W. P. No. 10231 of 2006 (in W. A. No. 929 of 2006) and dated 21. 3. 2006 passed in W. P. No. 24928 of 2005 (in W. A. No. 933 of 2006).

(2) BY the orders impugned in these Writ Appeals, the learned single Judge has taken the view in the Writ Petitions filed by the two Deemed Universities, namely Saveetha

Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (for short, SAVEETHA) and Shanmuga Arts, Science, Technology and Research Academy (for short, SASTRA) were governed by the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act (for short, UGC Act) and therefore, Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act, 1996 will have no application to such Deemed Universities (the first respondent in the Writ Appeals). The learned single Judge therefore set aside the order of the appellant-BCI directing the writ petitioners-Deemed Universities, to get "no Objection Certificate" (for short, NOC) from the State Government and recognition letter for the purpose of granting approval of "affiliation" to the writ petitioners to start a Law course. The learned Judge also directed the appellant-BCI to consider the application of the first respondent-Writ Petitioners (Deemed Universities) for approval of the Affiliation to B. A. , LL. B. (five years-integrated) and LL. B. (three years) Law courses without reference to the NOC from the State Government. The learned single Judge however made it clear that the appellant-BCI is entitled to consider the request for approval of the Affiliation on the basis of its inspection report.

(3) ASSAILING the orders of the learned single Judge, Mr. Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-BCI, after referring to Rules 16,17 and 18 of Part IV, Section A of the amended BCI Rules, Section 2 (a), (p) and (q), 5 (v) of the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act (for short, "dr. Ambedkar Law University Act"), Section 3 of the UGC Act and Section 7 (h) and (i) and 49 (af) and (d) of the Advocates Act, contended that by virtue of the above provisions, the BCI is entitled to insist for the NOC from the State Government and also a recognition letter from Dr. Ambedkar Law University for the purpose of considering the application of the writ petitioners-Deemed Universities, for grant of approval of Affiliation. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-BCI was based on Section 6 (1) and (2) of Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act read along with Rules 16 and 18 (2) of Part IV, Section A of the BCI Rules. The learned counsel for the BCI submitted that by virtue of Section 6 (1) and (2) of Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act read along with Rules 16 and 18 (2) of Part IV, Section A of the amended BCI Rules, unless an Affiliation from Dr. Ambedkar Law University and the NOC from the State Government is obtained, the BCI cannot grant approval of the Affiliation. The learned counsel for BCI relied upon 2000

(7) SCC 746 (Maharishi Dayanand University vs. M. L. R. Saraswati College of Education), 2003 (3) SCC 321 (St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional Director, NCTE), 2005 (3) SCC 212 (Govt. of A. P. vs. J. B. Educational Society) and 2005 (4) SCC 89 (Krishnasamy Reddiar Educational Trust vs. Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education).

(4) MR. V. M. G. RAMAKKANNAN, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent--Dr. Ambedkar Law University, in his submissions stated that the provisions under Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act contemplated a ban for starting a Law course by an institution or University within the University area as defined under Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act in the State of Tamil Nadu without the permission of Dr. Ambedkar Law University and the NOC from the State Government. Acc