LISA GILL, CJ.

This appeal has been filed for setting aside order dated 13.02.2026 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ Petition No.32418 of 2025 whereby, impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by appellant has been set aside and writ petition allowed. Learned Single Judge further directed appellant University to reconsider grant of affiliation to writ petitioner/College while taking note of adequacy of space as discussed in the order.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that respondent No.1/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.32418 of 2025 for setting aside order dated 07.11.2025 whereby affiliation to petitioner College was not granted for the academic year 2025-2026. Affiliation was denied on the ground of non-compliance of Bar Council of India (B.C.I.) norms to the extent that there is no separate demarcated land or building for the Law College and that multiple colleges are running in the same premises. Furthermore, faculty was not provided as per the norms of University/B.C.I. Some of the faculty was found to be working with other colleges.

3. Learned Single Bench, on considering the facts and circumstances, concluded that Rule 16(ii) of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (for short, “the Rules of 2008”) do not specifically contemplate a separate building and all that is required is that the Law College would have exclusive, sufficient floor space so as to effectively run a professional Law College, even in a multi faculty building. Objection Nos.3 and 4 were found to be trivial in nature and the University is directed to re-examine the same in the light of explanation given by writ petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that Rules of 2008 are categoric and provide for specific provisions which need to be complied with before affiliation can be granted to a Law College. Appellants do not have any problem in re-examining the matter in terms of the said applicable Rules. However, findings of learned Single Judge to the extent that only sufficient and adequate floor space is required to effectively run professional law courses even in a multi faculty building is not correct. Even in the case of Multi Faculty Institutions, requisite area has to be exclusively dedicated for Centre of Legal Education. Reference has been made to Rule 16 of the Rules of 2008, which provide that adequate land and dedicated space has to be provided for running a Law College. Moreover, objections in respect to faculty members cannot be termed trivial in view of specific applicable rules. Adequate number of full time and visiting faculty members have to be recruited.

5. It is further stated that in an inspection which was carried out on 14.10.2023, it had been pointed out to writ petitioner that premises in question should be demarcated separately for the Law College, as an Engineering College is already existing in the same premises.

6. Learned counsel for appellants points out that pursuant to order dated 28.10.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.1118 of 2025, inspection of premises was carried out on 04.11.2025 and it was revealed that the relevant guidelines have not been complied with. Order dated 07.11.2025 was passed not recommending grant of affiliation to the respondent Institution, though concededly without any opportunity of hearing to writ petitioner. Compliance of order dated 28.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.1118 of 2025 is cited as the reason. It is, thus, submitted that re-examination of the issue be permitted in consonance with applicable Rules of 2008.

7. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Institution, has submitted that land and building for the Law College i.e., Ac.4-00 cents has been dedicated to its exclusive use, whereas the requirement is only Ac.2-00 cents, as per the rules.

8. It is submitted that in case an opportunity had been afforded to the Institution to clarify the objections as have been raised, it would have been brought to notice of the Uni