Madras High Court
Vanniyar Educational Trust vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 September, 2011
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 23-09-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.No.7279 OF 2011 Vanniyar Educational Trust, Konerikuppam, Malathur Post, Thindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District-604 307, rep.by its President Mr.G.K.Mani. .. Petitioner -vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Law (L.S.) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, "Poompozhil", No.5, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 028, rep.by its Registrar. 3.The Bar Council of India, rep.by its Secretary, No.21, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi-110 002. ... Respondents For petitioner : Mr.K.Balu For respondent 1 : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General, for Mrs.V.M.Velumani, Special Government Pleader. For respondent 2 : Mr.V.M.G.Ramakannan For respondent 3 : Mr.K.Venkatakrishnan. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the letter (MS) No.1524/S/P/LS/2008, dated 30.12.2010, of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to grant permission/NOC as claimed by the petitioner for starting a private Law College in the name and style of Saraswathi Law College at Thindivanam, to enable the petitioner to approach the second and third respondents for granting affiliation and final approval to the said college.
2. Facts :
2.1. Petitioner is a registered Trust. The object of the Trust is to start educational institutions for the welfare of the public in all districts and to grant scholarship, to the students, studying in the educational institutions and to promote education in the relevant fields of Health, Medicine, Arts, Science, Management, Technical, Engineering, Agriculture, Law, Computers, Human Resource Management, Printing Technology and to start other job oriented courses and also preparing the students belonging to the weaker sections of the society to participate in the competitive examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, Public Service Commission and Union Public Service Commission, Indian Civil Service, Indian Police Service etc. The Trust has its registered office in all the districts in the State of Tamil Nadu and is possessing sufficient lands and resources for construction of educational institutions.
2.2. On 09.07.2007, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary, Department of Law Education, Chennai, requesting for issue of permission/No Objection Certificate for starting a Law College in the name and style of "Saraswathy Law College" at Thindivanam from the academic year 2008-2009. Along with the representation, the petitioner also submitted the necessary application duly enclosing the relevant records required for the purpose of granting permission/NOC. The petitioner received a reply from the second respondent on 03.10.2007, stating that according to Section 6 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act,1996, in short, "the Act", no law college shall be recognized by the University for any purpose except with the prior approval of the Government and the University concerned. It was further stated that for establishment of a new Law College in Tamil Nadu, prior approval of the Government of Tamil Nadu is necessary. Therefore, a direction was given to approach the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has also received a letter dated 08.10.2007 from the Director of Legal Services, Chennai, stating that the representations for grant of permission/NOC was forwarded to the Government for further action.
2.3. In furtherance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner submitted a representation on 25.09.2007 to the first respondent in continuation of its earlier representation dated 09.07.2007. The petitioner also submitted a proposal for starting an unaided private Law College at free of cost in the name and style of Saraswathy Law College (Co-education) at Konerikuppam from the academic year 2008-2009, requesting the first respondent to process the application for issuance of permission/NOC. A copy of the said representation was also submitted to the second and third respondents and the Director of Legal Services, Nandanam, Chennai-35. Since the first and second respondents had not issued No Objection Certificate, the petitioner was not in a position to approach the Bar Council of India, third respondent herein, for taking further steps for approval for starting the private law college. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27590 of 2008 on the file of this Court for a mandamus, directing the first respondent to grant permission/NOC as claimed by the petitioner for starting a private Law College in the name and style of Saraswathy Law College at Thindivanam to enable the petitioner to approach the second and third respondents for grant of affiliation and approval for the said college. This Court, on 20.11.2008, disposed of the said Writ Petition, directing the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 25.09.2007 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The first respondent, by his order dated 23.01.2009, rejected the request of the petitioner for granting permission. Aggrieved over the said rejection, the petitioner filed another W.P.No.2003 of 2009 to set aside the order of the first respondent and this Court, by its order dated 13.08.2010, set aside the said order and directed the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, seeking permission/NOC to establish a private Law College, namely, Saraswathy Law College, at Thindivanam. Thereafter, the first respondent, again by his order dated 30.12.2010, rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of permission/NOC, for starting a private Law College at Thindivanam, which order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
3. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating as follows :
3.1. The petitioner filed W.P.No.27590 of 2008 to direct the State Government to consider the applications dated 25.07.2007 and 25.09.2007 with regard to No Objection Certificate to start a new law college in the name and style of Saraswathy Law College at Thindavanam, Villupuram district for the academic year 2008-2009. The High Court, in its order dated 20.11.2008, directed the State Government to consider the application of the petitioner dated 25.09.2007 and to pass orders on the same in accordance with law, following the procedure contemplated under the relevant rules. Accordingly, the Government considered the request of the petitioner with reference to the proviso to clause (v) of Section 5 of the Act and passed orders in letter No.1524/S/P/LS/2008, dated 23.01.2009.
3.2. Aggrieved by the said order dated 23.01.2009, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2003 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009, praying to quash the same and to direct the Secretary, Law Department to grant permission/No Objection Certificate as claimed by the petitioner for starting a private Law College in the name and style of Saraswathy Law College at Thindivanam. The High Court, in its order dated 13.08.2010, in the aforesaid Writ Petition, has set aside the letter dated 23.01.2009 with a direction to consider the application submitted by the petitioner seeking permission/No Objection Certificate to establish a private law college, namely, Saraswathy Law College at Thindivanam and to pass necessary orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, so as to enable the petitioner to seek approval from the third respondent/Bar Council of India and also to seek affiliation from the second respondent, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, for commencement of the law course from the academic year 2011-2012.
3.3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the High Court, dated 13.08.2010, the Director of Legal Studies was directed in Government letter dated 03.09.2010 to visit and inspect the location proposed by the petitioner Trust for establishment of a private law college and its surroundings and to send a detailed report to the Government taking into consideration the population which the existing law colleges serve and whether there is any need for an additional law college in the proposed location, the area where the institution is sought to be established, infrastructural facilities, instructional facilities, the local need, the desirability and feasibility of the location chosen for establishment of the institution, the immediate surroundings of the proposed location etc., as in the decisions referred to by the High Court in paragraphs 17 to 22 of its order dated 13.08.2010. The Director of Legal Studies inspected the proposed location and submitted the report to the Government. The Government, on careful consideration of the report, rejected the request of the petitioner vide its order dated 30.12.2010, for grant of permission/No Objection Certificate, for starting a private law college at Thindivanam, for the reasons stated therein. Therefore, the said order of the first respondent cannot be interfered with.
4. Petitioner has filed an additional affidavit, stating as follows:
4.1. Pursuant to the proceedings of the Director of Legal Studies made in R.C.No.2822/A3/2010, dated 18.09.2010, the petitioner's law college at Thindivanam was inspected by the Director of Legal Studies on 22.09.2010 at 12.00 p.m. Based on the abovesaid inspection, the petitioner received a letter from the first respondent in Letter (MS) No.1524/S/P/LS/2008, dated 30.12.2010, rejecting the request for grant of permission/No Objection Certificate for starting a private law college at Thindivanam, by citing the following reasons :
(a) The list of ten persons submitted by the Trust, who are willing to be appointed as teaching staff in the proposed Law College are not qualified for teaching posts in a Law College, as per the recent guidelines.
(b) The Government Law College already functioning at Chengalpattu is sufficient to cater to the needs of the students aspiring for the law courses from both Chengalpattu and Thindivanam. Moreover, another Government Law College is already functioning at Vellore. Hence, there is no local need for starting a Law College at Thindivanam.
4.2. The petitioner challenged the above said proceeding of the first respondent dated 30.12.2010, before this Court in W.P.No.7279 of 2011. The said Writ Petition came up for hearing on 23.06.2011. On that day, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the petitioner herein to comply with the UGC guidelines regarding the appointment of qualified teachers in the Law College and adjourned the Writ Petition to 29.06.2011. As per the said direction of this Court, the persons who fulfilled the UGC guidelines and submitted their willingness to be appointed as lecturers in the petitioner's college for 3 year and 5 year courses have been appointed.
5. The first respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit, stating as under :
5.1. The Supreme Court of India, in Shivaji v. Bharti Vidyapeeth, AIR 1999 SC 1762, while holding that the policy of the Government that where there is a single law college in a district of the State no other law college therein will be permitted, as arbitrary and unreasonable and observed as follows :
"Account has to be taken note of whether or not a law college exists in a District. What is relevant and what should be taken into consideration is the population which the existing law college serves and whether therefore there is need for an additional college".
5.2. The State Government, in this case, taking into consideration the population of Kancheepuram, Vellore and Villupuram districts and the Government law colleges functioning at Chengalpattu and Vellore, had come to the conclusion that there is no local need for starting a law college at Thindivanam. As per 2011 census report, the population of Kancheepuram district which comprises Chengalpattu is 39,90,897, that of Vellore district is 39,28,106 and the population of Villupuram district which comprises Thindivanam is 34,63,284. The total number of advocates registered in the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is approximately 67,618, including 335 advocates practising at Thindivanam. The total number of Courts/Tribunals functioning in Tamil Nadu is 814. The details of courts functioning at Thindivanam are : Principal District Munsif 1; Additional District Munsif 1; Fast Tract Court I & II 2 and Judicial Magistrate Court I & II 2. There is no District Court at Thindivanam. The District Court at Villupuram is nearly 40 kms. from the place of the proposed law college. Rule 8 (1) of the Rules under Part IV on Standards of Legal Education and Recognition of Degree in Law, framed under the Advocates Act,1961 (Central Act 25 of 1961) by the Bar Council of India specifies that a law college shall be located at a place where there is at least a District Court or a Circuit District Court or within such distance thereof as the Bar Council of India permits. Location of the proposed law college does not satisfy the aforesaid requirement. State Government have decided to establish a National Law School in Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District, on the pattern of the National Law School of India at Bengaluru, by enacting a State legislation. In the said circumstances, there is no local need for starting a law college at Thindivanam at proposed by the petitioner, as already stated in Government letter dated 30.12.2010.
6. The petitioner has filed a reply to the additional counter filed by the first respondent, stating as follows :
6.1. The first respondent is not justified in taking the census of population only in respect of Kancheepuram, Vellore and Villupuram districts and he has conveniently omitted Cuddalore, Thiruvannamalai and Ariyalur districts. The population of Thiruvannamalai District is 24,68,965; Cuddalore District is 26,00,880; Ariyalur District is 7,52,481 and Villupuram District is 34,63,284 in altogether the population will be around 92,85,610. The first respondent has forgotten the fact that the Advocates enrolled in Thindivanam are practising only at Thindivanam. On the other hand, several advocates have shifted to various other nearby districts and Hon'ble High Court at Madras. The first respondent has made an irresponsible statement as if there was no District Court at Thindivanam without considering the fact that two Fast Track Courts cum District Sessions Courts are functioning presided over by the Judges in the rank of District Judge. Apart from that, Villupuram District Court is also functioning, which is only 36 kms. from Thindivanam in the National Highway. Therefore, the first respondent has misconstrued Rule 8 (1) of the Bar Council of India Rules.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the first respondent has erred in holding that already law colleges are existing at Vellore and Chengalpattu and there is no need to establish another law college at Thindivanam, when the said colleges are at a distance of 100 and 60 kms. Respectively. He would further contend that there are no law colleges at Villupuram, Cuddalore, Perambalur and Thiruvannamalai and, therefore, the reasons assigned by the first respondent for rejecting the request of the petitioner for establishment of a private law college are not correct and, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Also, it is his contention that the petitioner has satisfied the UGC guidelines in appointment of professors, readers and lecturers and, therefore, there is no non-compliance of the provisions of UGC. He relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Shivaji University through Director v. Bharti Vidyapeeth through Joint Secretary & Others, reported in 1999 (3) SCC 224, wherein it has been held as under :
"11. Where we differ is with the order that the High Court has passed, particularly in clause (iii) thereof, quoted above. In our view, it is a university which must decide whether or not it can support the proposal for the commencement of a new college. If in a given case, the university has gone wrong in declining such permission by relying upon a ground which is arbitrary or unreasonable or otherwise defective, the court should set aside such refusal and return the matter to the university for reconsideration in the light of its judgment.
12. In the instant case, we are in no doubt that the appellant was in error in refusing to accord permission to the first respondent to start the said law college only because a law college already existed at Sangli. That decision must, therefore, be set aside and the matter must go back to the appellant to consider the issue afresh. In doing so, it must take into consideration what the population of Sangli District is, what population the existing law college serves and whether the said law college is, in this light, required. Having regard to the lapse of time, the appellant must do so within eight weeks."
8. On the contrary, the learned Advocate General appearing for the first respondent would submit that the Government Law College already functioning at Chengalpattu is sufficient to cater to the needs of the students aspiring for the law courses from both Chengalpattu and Thindivanam; that another Government Law College is functioning at Vellore and, hence, there is no local need for starting a Law College at Thindivanam. He would further submit that the list of ten persons submitted by the petitioner Trust, who are willing to be appointed as teaching staff in the proposed law college, are not qualified for teaching posts in a law college as per the UGC guidelines and for these reasons, the request of the petitioner for starting a private law college was rejected by the impugned order, which cannot be found fault with.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.
10. Legal education in India refers to the education of lawyers before entry into practice. It is offered by the traditional universities and the specialised law universities and schools, only after completion of an undergraduate degree or as an integrated degree. It has been traditionally offered as a three year graduate degree. However, the structure has been changed since 1987. Law degrees in India are granted and conferred in terms of the Advocates Act, 1961, which is a law passed by the Parliament both on the aspect of legal education and also regulation of conduct of legal profession. Under the said Act, the Bar Council of India is the supreme regulatory body to regulate the legal profession in India and also to ensure the compliance of the laws and maintenance of professional standards by the legal profession in the country.
11. In this regard, the Bar Council of India prescribes the minimum curriculum required to be taught in order for an institution to be eligible for the grant of a law degree. The Bar Council also carries on a period supervision of the institutions conferring the degree and evaluates their teaching methodology and curriculum and having determined that the institution meets the required standards, recognizes the institution and the degree conferred by it.
12. Vanniyar Educational Trust, petitioner herein, is a registered Trust. The object of the Trust is to start educational institutions for the welfare of the public in all districts and to grant scholarship to the students, studying in the educational institutions and to promote education in the relevant fields of Health, Medicine, Arts, Science, Management, Technical, Engineering, Agriculture, Law, Computers, Human Resource Management, Printing Technology and to start other job oriented courses and also preparing the students belonging to the weaker sections of the society to participate in the competitive examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, Public Service Commission and Union Public Service Commission, Indian Civil Service, Indian Police Service etc.
13. Be that as it may, on 09.07.2007, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary, Department of Law Education, Chennai, requesting for issue of permission/No Objection Certificate for starting a Law College in the name and style "Saraswathy Law College" at Thindivanam from the academic year 2008-2009. Along with the representation, the petitioner also submitted the necessary application duly enclosing the relevant records required for the purpose of granting permission/NOC. Thereafter, the petitioner received a reply from the second respondent on 03.10.2007, stating that according to Section 6 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act,1996, in short, "the Act", no law college shall be recognized by the University for any purpose except with the prior approval of the Government and the University concerned. It was further stated that for establishment of a new Law College in Tamil Nadu, prior approval of the Government of Tamil Nadu is necessary. Therefore, a direction was given to the petitioner to approach the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has also received a letter dated 08.10.2007 from the Director of Legal Services, Chennai, stating that the representations for grant of permission/NOC was forwarded to the Government for further action.
14. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation on 25.09.2007 to the first respondent in continuation of its earlier representation dated 09.07.2007. A copy of the said representation was also submitted to the second and third respondents and the Director of Legal Services, Nandanam, Chennai-35. Since the first and second respondents had not issued No Objection Certificate, the petitioner was not in a position to approach the Bar Council of India, third respondent herein, for taking further steps for approval for starting the private law college. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27590 of 2008 on the file of this Court for a mandamus, directing the first respondent to grant permission/NOC for starting a private Law College in the name and style "Saraswathy Law College" at Thindivanam to enable the petitioner to approach the second and third respondents for grant of affiliation and approval for the said college. This Court, on 20.11.2008, disposed of the said Writ Petition, directing the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 25.09.2007 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, whereupon, the first respondent, by his order dated 23.01.2009, rejected the request of the petitioner for granting permission. Aggrieved over the said rejection, the petitioner filed another W.P.No.2003 of 2009 to set aside the order of the first respondent and this Court, by its order dated 13.08.2010, set aside the said order and directed the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, seeking permission/NOC to establish a private Law College, namely, Saraswathy Law College, at Thindivanam, and pass necessary orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, so as to enable the petitioner to seek approval from the third respondent/Bar Council of India and also to seek affiliation from the second respondent, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, for commencement of the law course from the academic year 2011-2012. Thereafter, the first respondent, again, by his order dated 30.12.2010, rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of permission/NOC, for starting a private Law College at Thindivanam, which order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The reasons given by the first respondent for rejection of permission are two, viz.,
(i) The list of ten persons submitted by the Trust, who are willing to be appointed as teaching staff in the proposed Law College are not qualified for teaching posts in a Law College, as per the recent UGC guidelines.
(ii) The Government Law College already functioning at Chengalpattu is sufficient to cater to the needs of the students aspiring for the law courses from both Chengalpattu and Thindivanam. Moreover, another Government Law College is already functioning at Vellore. Hence, there is no local need for starting a Law College at Thindivanam.
15. In the given situation, what is to be examined is, whether the said reasons given by the first respondent for rejection of permission/No Objection Certificate to the petitioner for starting a private Law College at Thindivanam are valid ?
16. Coming to the first point, it is to be stated that, pursuant to the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 30.12.2010 and subsequent to the challenge of the same in this Writ Petition, on 23.06.2011, this Court directed the petitioner to comply with the UGC guidelines regarding the appointment of qualified teachers in the Law College and adjourned the Writ Petition to 29.06.2011.
17. As per The University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations,2000, the minimum qualifications for the post of Professors, Principals, Readers and Lecturers in subjects other than Fine Arts, Management, Engineering and Technology in Universities or Colleges for appointment of persons through open advertisement and for their Career Advancement are thus :
"1.0.0. Direct Recruitment 1.1.0.Principal (Professor's Grade) (1) A Master's Degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O,A.B,C,D,E and F. (2) Ph.D.or equivalent qualification.
(3) Total experience of 15 years of teaching/Research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of higher education.
1.2.0. Principal (Reader's Grade) (1) A Master's Degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O,A,B,C,D,E &F. (2) Ph.D.or equivalent qualification.
(3) Total experience of 10 years of teaching/Research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of higher education.
1..3.0. Humanities, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Physical Education, Foreign Languages and Law.
1.3.1.Professor An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research, with 10 years of experience in post-graduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University/National Level Institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level.
or An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.
1.3.2.Reader Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. In addition to these, candidates who join from outside the University system, shall also possess at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O,A,B,C,D,E and F at Master's degree level.
Five years of experience of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degree and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula.
1.3.3.Lecturer Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O,A,B,C,D,E and F at Master's degree level, in the relevant subject from an Indian University, or, an equivalent degree from a foreign University.
Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for Lecturers conducted by the UGC,CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC.
Note : NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D.degree. However, the candidates who have completed M.Phil.degree or have submitted Ph.D. thesis in the concerned subject upto 31st December,1993, are exempted from appearing in the NET examination."
18. In view of the above guidelines of UGC and as per the direction of this Court, the candidates, who fulfilled the qualifications and submitted their willingness to be appointed as Lecturers in the petitioner's college for 3 year course and 5 year course, have been appointed in the petitioner's college. The names of the candidates and their qualifications are as under :
Sl.No. Name Qualification 1 Mr.K.Chenthil Kumar M.L.-55.21% & (NET) 2005 2 Ms.S.Manjula M.L.-57.85% & (NET) 2010 3 Mr.R.Karthikeyan M.L.-58% International Law & Organisation-2009 4 Mr.M.Ramesh M.L.-54.75% & (NET) 2010 (S.C.Category) 5 Mr.R.Elumalai M.L.-55.87% (NET) 2005 6 Mr.S.K.Bala Shanmugam M.L.-65% & (NET) 2010 7 Mr.R.Nagarajan M.A.(English) Gold Medalist (S.C.Category) 8 Dr.M.Annamalai M.A.,Ph.D.(History) 9 Mr.N.Dhanasekaran M.A., M.Phil.(History) 10 Dr.V.Shanmugam M.A., Ph.D.(Economics) 11 Dr.B.Sujatha M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D.(Politics) 12 Mr.S.Rammohan M.A.(Sociologhy) & (NET) 2008
19. Therefore, following the compliance of the UGC guidelines with regard to the appointment of teaching staff, there is no impediment in respect of the claim of the petitioner for grant of No Objection. So, the first condition is fulfilled by the petitioner.
20. With regard to the second point, the stand of the first respondent is that the State Government, taking into consideration the population of Kancheepuram, Vellore and Villupuram districts and the Government law colleges functioning at Chengalpattu and Vellore, has come to the conclusion that there is no local need for starting a law college at Thindivanam and there is no District Court at Thindivanam. It is also the standpoint of the first respondent that the District Court at Villupuram is nearly 40 kms. from the place of the proposed law college and that the location of the proposed law college does not satisfy the aforesaid requirement.
21. In this connection, the Supreme Court, in the case of Shivaji University, referred to above, has held that refusal to accord permission to start a law college only because a law college already existed at a particular place is not justified, and, in doing so, the authority must take into consideration what the population of the location is, what population the existing law college serves and whether the said law college is required.
22. When the first respondent has taken the census of Kancheepuram, Vellore and Villupuram districts for considering the request of the petitioner for granting permission for starting a private Law College, it is not known to this Court why he has not taken into account the population of Cuddalore, Thiruvannamalai and Ariyalur districts, especially when the population of the said districts is 26,00,880, 24,68,965 and 7,52,481 respectively. If the said population of the above three districts coupled with that of Villupuram District, which comes to 34,63,284, is taken together, the same will be 92,85,610. In addition, the first respondent has forgotten the fact that the advocates enrolled in Thindivanam are practising only at Thindivanam. In fact, several advocates have shifted to various other nearby districts and Hon'ble High Court at Madras. The first respondent has also stated that there is no District Court at Thindivanam, without considering the fact that two Fast Track Courts-cum-District Sessions Courts are functioning thereat, presided over by the Judges in the rank of District Judge. Apart from that, Villupuram District Court is also functioning, which is only 36 kms. from Thindivanam in the National Highway. It is brought to the notice of this court that the Government Law College at Coimbatore is functioning at a distance of 15 kms. from the District Court, Coimbatore.
23. In this context, Rule 8 (1) of Section -A in Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules is quite relevant, which Rule reads thus :
"8 (1). A Law College shall ordinarily be located at a place where there is at least a District Court or a Circuit District Court or within such distance thereof as the Bar Council of India permits."
24. As per the said rule, a Law College shall be located at a place where there is at least a District Court or a Circuit District Court or within such distance thereof as the Bar Council of India permits and it is the domain of the Bar Council of India to grant final approval for establishment of Law Colleges. When that being the position, the first respondent has misconstrued Rule 8 (1), assuming that he is the sole and final authority to finalise the matter.
25. Further, as per Rule 18 (2) of the same Rules, every law college applying for approval of affiliation shall obtain permission/no objection for establishment of Law College from Government or Higher Education Department of the State, if the same is a requirement under the prevailing law or any order in the State.
26. Since it is mandatory to obtain permission/No Objection Certificate for establishment of a Law College, the petitioner has applied to the first respondent for the same. However, to the utter dismay of the petitioner, the respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner, that too in spite of repeated positive directions of this Court in earlier litigations, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is a matter of much concern.
27. It is noticed that 4098 students in 3 year course and 1938 students in 5 year course, altogether 6036 students could not get admission in the Law Colleges at Tamil Nadu in the previous year. Because of the said fact, most of the students aspiring to become advocates migrated to other States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, wherein 37 and 93 colleges respectively are available. Also, only 2314 students were admitted in law colleges in the previous years. However, more than 3728 law graduates were enrolled in Tamil Nadu Bar Council during the year 2010 and 3200 for the year 2011 up to August,2011, which will definitely go to show that several law graduates studied outside the State of Tamil Nadu. Moreover, more than 636 Engineering Colleges are functioning in the State of Tamil Nadu, but, in respect of Law course, only 10 colleges are functioning. In such a situation, the stand taken by the first respondent that there is no local need for establishing law college in Tamil Nadu in general and at Thindivanam in particular is quite disappointing.
28. It is true, the State Government has to grant No Objection Certificate for establishment of law college, for which the petitioner has to satisfy the requirements. In this case, a perusal of the entire records and the earlier orders of this Court and also the impugned proceedings gives a clear impression to this Court that the petitioner has satisfied all the requirements and this Court, taking note of the entire circumstances, directed the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner, but, even then, the first respondent again rejected the request of the petitioner for NOC. The establishment of law colleges in the State is very much required for catering to the needs of the students, who aspire to become law graduates, for which efforts have to be taken by the State Government, either by itself or through some agencies, which are interested in that field. If the Government itself is interested to establish more number of law colleges, it can, otherwise, it should permit the agencies, which are willing, subject to satisfying all the requirements, taking note of the standard of legal education, infrastructure and other essential ingredients. In other words, the State should endeavour to encourage such agencies and give approval. Instead, it is seen that the State is not taking such an interest and is rejecting the permission again and again, negativing the claim of the petitioner, even though the power to determine the establishment and location of the law college is vested with the Bar Council of India. In view of the specific provision under Rule 8 (1), a Law College shall be located at a place where there is at least a District Court or a Circuit District Court or within such distance thereof as the Bar Council of India permits. When the intention of the legislature is that the Bar Council of India alone has the power to permit the starting of a law college at a particular location and the distance, the State has no other option except to grant No Objection Certificate to the petitioner.
29. On the questions viz., Whether the non-minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institution under Articles 21 and 29 (1) read with Articles 14 and 15 (1), in the same manner and to the same extent as minority institutions ? and What is the meaning of the expressions "education" and "educational institutions" in various provisions of the Constitution ? Is the right to establish and administer educational institutions guaranteed under the Constitution ?, which arose for consideration in the case of T.M.A.Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481, majority of the 11 Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the expression "education" in the articles of the Constitution means and includes education at all levels from the primary school level up to the postgraduate level. It includes professional education. The expression "educational institutions" means institutions that impart education, where "education" is as understood hereinabove. It was also held thereon that the right to establish and administer educational institutions is guaranteed under the Constitution to all citizens under Articles 19 (1) (g) and 26. When such a right is available to the citizens, the same cannot be deprived or denied or negatived by any means of non-accord or refusal of permission by the Government. (emphasis supplied)
30. In view of my elaborate discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, this Writ Petition allowed and the order impugned of the first respondent vide (MS) No.1524/S/P/LS/2008, dated 30.12.2010, is set aside, directing the first respondent to grant permission/No Objection Certificate, as claimed by the petitioner, for starting a private Law College in the name and style "Saraswathi Law College" at Thindivanam, so as to enable the petitioner to approach the second and third respondents for granting affiliation and final approval to the said college. Since the matter requires immediate attention in view of the commencement of the academic year, coupled with the fact that pursuant to the grant of permission/No Objection Certificate, the matter has to go before the respondents 2 and 3, the first respondent is directed to expedite the matter, preferably within a period of one week. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 are closed.
Index : Yes 23-09-2011 Internet : Yes dixit Note to Office : Issue Order Copy today itself. To 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Law (L.S.) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Registrar. Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, "Poompozhil", No.5, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 028, 3.The Secretary, Bar Council of India, No.21, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi-110 002. V.DHANAPALAN,J. dixit W.P.No.7279 OF 2011 23-09-2011