Karnataka High Court
Arundhati College Of Law Anr vs The State Of Karnataka Through Its Ors on 29 February, 2012
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NOs.84518-519/201 1 (Edt
BETWEEN:
1. Arundhati college of Law
Through its principal,
Sri: Rajendrakurnar Yadav,
Sb Jadadeesh Yadav,
Age: 35 0cc: Principal.
Rio Rangampeth,
Tq: Shorpur,
Date: Yadgir585224.
2. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Vidva Vardhaka Sangh.
Through its Secretary.
Bhagappa Sb Tonnappa Billava,
Age: 52 0cc: Agri & Social Service.
Rio Shoraput Dist: Yadgir.
PETITIONERS.
(By Sri: J. Augustin, Adv.)
AND
1. The State of Karnataka
Through it's Secretary.
For Higher eduction,
Vikasa Soudha Bangalore.
2. The Secretary
Bar Council of India.
21 Rouse Avenue,
Institutional Area. New Delhi.
3. The Registrar Karnataka
State Law University,
Navanagar Hubli.
Dist: Dharwad 580025.
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP for R-
1,
Sri: Shivakurnar Malipatil, Adv for R-3,
Notice for R-2 served.)
These writ petitions are filed under Artic
les-226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue
a writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the Annexure-J date
d 30-07-20 1 1O
passed by the 3rd
respondent discontinuing the affiliation of
the petitioner college
to run the first year LL.B course for the aca
demic year 2011-12,
and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for Ord
ers this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
These writ petitions are at the stag e of considering IA.Nos. 1 and 2/20 12 and are not adm itted yet. With the consent of counsel for petitioners and as well as respondents these matters are taken up for final disp osal. inasmuch as. if any interim order is to be passed ihat would itself amount to final disposal.
-
2. Brief facts leading to these petitions are as under.
First petitioner is law college which is run and managed by 2nd petitioner. The material on record shows that 1 arid 2nd petitioners approached respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to start law college in Shorapur Taluk of Yadgir. They obtained sanction from Government in the year 2007 vide Annexure-A which was subject to the approval by Bar Council of India and also affiliation to be granted by 3rd respondent university. It is seen that Bar Council of India 2hld respondent granted temporary affiliation to commence law college from 2007-2008 to 2009- 2010 for a period of 3 years subject to five conditions enumerated in its letter dated 20.4.2009. which is at Annexure C. Thereafter, it is seen that law college is not commenced during the said period for the reason that petitioners I and 2 were not able to fulfil the five conditions stated in the aforesaid letter dated 20.4.2009. Subsequently. temporary approval of affiliation was granted again on 18.9.2010 vide Annexure-E for a period of three years commencing from the academic year 2010 to 2011 with approved sanctioned strength of 60 students and the same was for a period of three years. Again same five conditions were reiterated.
-4-3. Pursuant to that there is nothing on record to show the affiliation granted by 3rd respondent but it is stated that 3rd respondent university has given its affiliation for commencement of law college. Accordingly, first batch of three year s LLB course was commenced for the academic year 201 0-20 11 pursuant to order of Bar Council of India vide Annexure-E. that is. first batch of students for the first year law course were admitted in the year 2010-2011. In terms of the conditions stipulated by Bar Council and also University it is seen that principal of petitioner-college and 2nd petitioner were required to provide all the basic infrastructures and other things for smo oth running of institution within the time stipulated.
4. As could be seen from Annexure-F inspection conducted by 3rd respondent showed said compliance was not there by petitioners 1 and 2. In that view of matter. when admission was required to be commenced for academic year 201.1-2012, 3rd respondent university was not in favour of permitting petitioners 1 and 2 to make adm issions for fresh batch of students for three years course of law for the academic year 2011-12 and thereafter. In this behalf. certain communications were also sent to petitioners herein vide Annexures-G and J. Inspite of such communications and without there being approval by 2m1 and 3'' respondentc for admitting second batch of students for three year law course commencing from 201 1-2012, 1 and 2'' petitioners proceeded to admit 24 students for first year law course for the academic year 201 1-2012 when such admission is contrary to Annexures G and J issued by 3rd respondent. The conduct of petitioners 1 and 2 in putting the interest of 24 students in jeopardy in gross disobedience to the direction issued by 31 respondent is subject matter of this wrfl petition.
5. As could be seen when 3rd respondent University did not permit petitioners to admit the students for 2h1d batch of three year law course commencing from academic year 2011 to 2012, they did not approve such admission, they did not receive examination fee from those students from petitioners 1 and 2, did not issue hall-ticket for them and they were denied of taking their first year law examination for the academic year 2011 2012. In that behalf. an application is made on 14.9.2011 seeking direction in the nature of conducting separate -6- examination for these 24 students, inasmuch as, examination for other students of 3rd respondent university has already concluded and result is due to he annotinced at any time.
6. This conduct of petitioners 1 and 2 clearly shows impudence with which they have conducted themselves. When petitioners themselves do not have any kind of respect for the system, it is strange how they would teach law to the student community. The petitioners in their anxiety to run the law college. have sacrificed the interest of 24 students in admitting them to three years law course for the academic year 201 1-2012 without taking any steps to see that they would be completing their law course in a smooth and undisturbed manner.
inasmuch as, permitting them to attend classes and write examination along with other students of the university for the academic year 2011 -2012. Now to get over the mistake that is committed by them. they are before this Court trying to submit that they are agreeable for any terms aiid conditions to he put by this court to enable the students to complete their academic year. This is virtually like keeping the students as hostages to -7- seek regularisatlon of unauthorised running of colle ge for academic year 2011-2012.
7. Though this Court Is not Inclined to grant any relief to petftioners 1 and 2 as they do not deserve, In the facts and circumstances of the case the fate of Innocent 24 students can not be compromised for the mistake of petitioners 1 and 2.
In that view of matter, though this Court Is not inclined to, In compassion towards the students. it is necessary to direc 3n1 t respondent university to hold examination for 24 students of 1t petitioner college wIthin 45 days from the date of receipt of this order and to apnounce the result of same only with an inten tion to see that the students should not suffer for no fault of them Accordingly. IA.II/2012 Is allowed. Consequently. the writ petitions are dispobed of. While doing so. IA. 1/2012 Is dismissed as it does not survive for consideration.
8. While disposing of these writ petitions with aforesaid observations this Court would like to place on record that the respondents should initiate appropriate proceedings again st Principal of 1 ' petitioner law college and the members oi managing committee of 2nd petItioner for willfully disobeyi ng the Lt -8- instructions given by university and in the process putting 24 students of l petitioner college to untold mise ry and mental agony and also putting their one academic year in jeopardy.
Third respondent Universfly is also directed to initiate appropriate proceedings for punishing them for disobedience of the terms and conditions at Armexures-G and J and proceeding with admission for academic year 2011-2012 contrary to the communication issued to them.
With these observations, writ petitions are disp osed of.
Sd/ JUDGE nd.