The court emphasized the importance of legal education, population needs, and constitutional rights in justifying the establishment of a new law college.

The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for the grant of permission/NOC for starting a private Law College under the name and style Saraswathy Law College at Tindivanam, for the grant of affiliation by the second respondent University and for approval by the Bar Council of India.

2.The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(a)The petitioner is a Trust, registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (Act 2 of 1882). The object of the Trust is to start educational institutions for the welfare of the public in all districts and to give scholarships, donations to the students and to promote education in the branches of Health, Arts and Science, Management, Technical, Agricultural, Law, etc., and to start job-oriented courses for the students belonging to the weaker sections of the Society and also to conduct coaching classes for candidates attending the competitive examinations conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, Public Service Commission, Union Public Service Commission, for various services including Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service.

(b)On 7. 2007 the petitioner Trust submitted an application before the first respondent for the grant of permission/No Objection Certificate (NOC) to start a new law college in the name and style of Saraswathy Law College at Tindivanam, Villupuram District, from the academic year 2008-2009 along with relevant records for the purpose of granting permission/NOC. The said application was filed under Section 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act, 1996, which states that No Law College or institution imparting legal education affiliated to, or associated with, or maintained by, any other University, whether within the State of Tamil Nadu or outside the State of Tamil Nadu, shall be recognised by the University for any purpose except with the prior approval of the Government and the University concerned.

(c)On 29. 2007 a further representation was submitted stating that the petitioner Trust is having 10 acres of land and other infrastructural facilities. The Director of Legal Studies by letter dated 10. 2007 stated that the petitioners representation was forwarded to the Government for further action. According to the petitioner, as the first respondent failed to issue permission/NOC, the petitioner Trust could not approach the Bar Council of India for approval and the second respondent University for affiliation.

(d)The petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.27590 of 2008 and prayed for a direction to the first respondent to grant permission/NOC based on the application of the petitioner for establishing private law college under the name and style of Saraswathy Law College at Tindivanam. This Court by order dated 20.11.2008 directed the first respondent to consider the application dated 29. 2007 and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks.

(e)In compliance of the said order, the representation of the petitioner was considered and the impugned order dated 21. 2009 was passed by the first respondent by stating that since no guidelines for granting permission/NOC has been framed by the Government so far, the grant of permission/NOC to start a new private law college at Tindivanam cannot be complied with. The said order is challenged in this writ petition on various grounds.

3. Thefirst respondent has filed counter affidavit contending that there are seven Government Law Colleges functioning in the State of Tamil Nadu and the same are located at Chennai, Madurai, Tiruchirapalli, Coimbatore, Tirunelveli, Chengalpet and Vellore, and there is one School of Excellence, attached to the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University. The said law institutions fulfils the requirements of all sections of the student community throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. The claim of the petitioner Trust is unable to be considered as guidelines for