Kerala High Court
Premchand R. And Anr. vs State Of Kerala Represented By Chief ... on 19 January, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1995KER276, AIR 1995 KERALA 276, (1995) ILR(KER) 2 KER 385, (1995) 1 KER LJ 435, (1995) 1 KER LT 388
ORDER
1. Petitioners in this original petition seek for a declaration from this Court that the proposed commencement of an evening LL.B. Course of three year duration by the Cochin University of Science and Technology, the 2nd respondent herein is patently illegal and violative of the provisions of the Advocates Act and also contrary to the provisions of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act. Petitioners also pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from admitting any student to the aforesaid classes without getting permission in writing of the Bar Council of India, the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent, Bar Council of Kerala. Petitioners further seek consequential reliefs also.
2. The first petitioner is a final year student of law in the Government Law College, Ernakulam and 2nd petitioner is an advocate practising in this Court. According to them, they are interested in maintaining a high standard of legal studies in the country and the prevention of opening law colleges without any infra-structure and contrary to the statutory rules framed under the Advocates Act. It is the case of the petitioners that without the specific permission from the 5th respondent, 2nd respondent is about to start an evening college in the University and the formation of such a college had been announced through newspapers and applications have been invited for the said course. It is the case of the petitioners that opening of law college without specific sanction from the 4th and 5th respondents is completely in contravention of the very scheme of establishment of Cochin University of Science and Technology and is non-conducive to public interest. Petitioners further averred that it will also affect the high standards of legal education required to be maintained. It is the further case of the petitioners that according to the provisions contained in the Cochin University First Statute and under the Faculty of Law, there are only two degrees that can be offered by the University, viz., Master of Law and Doctor of Law. Petitioners further averred that there is no amendment brought out in the Statutes in or other provisions of the Cochin University First Statute empowering or enabling the 2nd respondent to start a degree course. It is the case of the petitioners that the commencement of a course for grant of a degree in law is not contemplated under, the Statute. Petitioners further averred that before commencement of such a course, it is mandatory that the permission of the Bar Council of India and that of Bar Council of Kerala should be obtained and none of the preconditions are satisfied by the 2nd respondent in taking a decision to establish a new Evening Law College. According to the petitioners, the decision to start a new Law College offering LL.B. Course by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the Bar Council of India Rules. They also made special reference to Rules 16, and 20 of the Rules and according to them, without getting prior approval and sanction from the Bar Council of India, no law college can be established by any person including the 2nd respondent. They have also stated in the original petition that the fee prescribed by the 2nd respondent for the said course is highly exorbitant comparing with the fees now levied by the Government Law Colleges in the State. With the above averments, petitioners move this original petition before this Court for the reliefs that are referred to above.
3. On receipt of notice from this Court, on behalf of 2nd respondent, a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed in the case by the Registrar of the 2nd respondent University. According to the 2nd respondent, the LL.B. Course started in the existing Law Department of the Cochin University of Science and Technology is perfectly justified and no interference is called for by this Court in this proceedings. The existing Law Department of Cochin University of Science and Technology is a recognised professional law college by virtue of Rule 1(2)(a) of Part IVB of the Bar Council of India Rules. According to the counter-affidavit, the University does not intend to start any new law college, but the Law Department of the Cochin University of Science and Technology offers the LL.B. Evening Course for the Department of Law already established by the University and no law prohibits starting of three year LL.B. Course in the Department of Law. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the Board of Studies, Faculty of Law, the Academic Council and the Syndicate of the University had approved the starting of LL.B. Course and the LL.B. degree has been instituted by the Academic Council. It is the further case of the 2nd respondent that the course and college had been affiliated to the University and according to the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, the approval of the affiliation to the University is necessary only for starting a new college. It is the further case of the 2nd respondent that though no previous sanction from the Bar Council of India is necessary for starting the three year LL.B. Degree Course by the Law Department, the Cochin University of Science and Technology had already taken steps to inform the Bar Council of India, the proposal to start the LL.B. Course and necessary applications had been submitted to the Bar Council of India by the Registrar of the University on 22-11-1994. It is the further case of the University that under Clause (2)(ii) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, based on the provision of facilities and offering of opportunities for graduate and post-graduate education in social sciences, by instruction, training, research and development of extension and by such other means as the University deems fit are among the objectives of the University. It is the case of the University that LL.B. Course offered by them gives a means to achieve the objectives of the University and it offers subjects relevant to the changing needs of the society such as environmental law, consumer law, law of science and technology, intellectual property rights and maritime law. It is also stated that Statute 117 of the University First Statute, confers the University to offer other degrees or diplomas as may be instituted from time to time in the Faculty of Law. The LL.B. Degree was instituted by the Academic Council of the University of Science and Technology in its meeting held on 15-2-1994 and Statute 117 enables the University to start a degree course other than those mentioned in Statute 112 by instituting the degree by the Academic Council. According to the respondent, no approval from the Bar Council of India is necessary for starting the LL.B. Course. The University Law Department had been in existence from the year 1963 onwards and the Department has been offering post-graduate course in law and also Ph.D. programme as the postgraduate diploma courses. Therefore, it is the case of the 2nd respondent that when such a Department offers LL.B. Course, there is no need for any permission from the Bar Council of India to offer such course. The 2nd respondent further stated in the counter-affidavit that the LL.B. Course is offered in the Cochin University Law Department. Facilities for library and clinical legal education are available in the Department. It is also averred that the Cochin University Law Department has one of the best libraries in India. It is the further case of the 2nd respondent that neither Rule 16 or 20 of the Bar Council of India had been violated. Necessary applications had already been forwarded to the Bar Council of India as early as on 22-11-1994 in the form prescribed by the Bar Council with necessary amount demanded by them for inspection by the Bar Council of India. The course now offers in the department contains many optional papers which other law colleges in the State are not offering. The optional prescribed under the curriculum is approved by the Academic Council in its meeting held on 25-8-1993 and the same was notified in the gazette dt. 8-12-1993, which is produced as Ext.R2(a). In the counter-affidavit, 2nd respondent also has stated that no prior sanction or approval is warranted as per the Advocates Act or Bar Council of India Rules from the Bar Council of India or from the State Bar Council to institute course in the Law Department of the University. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that the approval of the affiliation required under the Bar Council of India Rules is only for enrolment of the successful candidate as an advocate under the Advocate's Act. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that permission of the Council becomes necessary only in respect of newly started college. The 2nd respondent justified the demand of higher fees also. The respondent produced Ext.R2(c) decision of the Academic Council dt. 15-2-1994 wherein they had instituted the LL.B. Course (three year) in the University. According to the University, the Academic Council considered the recommendation of the standing committee for instituting the LL.B. (Evening) Course. The Academic Council also instituted degrees/diplomas for the LL.B. (Evening) Course as per Ext.R2(c). Therefore, according to the University, no further sanction is necessary from any of the University authorities for starting the three year LL.'B. (Evening) Course in the Law Department attached to the University. It is further stated that the course offered by the University is not for the purpose of enrolment alone, but also for the purpose of conferring academic degree to the successful candidates. Therefore, the 2nd respondent submits that no interference by this Court is called for in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. On behalf of the 4th respondent, Bar Council of India, a detailed statement also had been filed in the case wherein it is stated that under Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, the Bar Council of India is to promote legal education and to lay down the standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. It is also stated that under Section 7(1)(i), the Bar Council of India is to recognise Universities whose degree in Law shall be a qualification for enrolment as advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect the University. It is also averred that under Rule 17 of the Rules that no college shall impart instruction in a course of study of law for enrolment as an advocate unless its affiliation is approved by the Bar Council of India. It is the further case of the 4th respondent that the Law Department of the University of Cochin cannot impart a course of study in law for awarding LL.B. Degree for the purpose of enrolment unless its affiliation to the University is approved by the Bar Council of India. It is also stated in the said counter-affidavit that in case a degree offered by the 2nd respondent is not approved by the Bar Council of India, those candidates who had come out successful in the LL.B. Examination will not be permitted to enroll as an advocate under the provisions of the Advocates Act. It is the case of the 4th respondent that there is no justification for the 2nd respondent to start three year LL.B. Course without getting prior approval from the Bar Council of India and in case ultimately, the approval is refused, it will cause irreparable injury and hardship to those students who had already admitted and undergone the course. Therefore, according to the 4th respondent, the starting of the course without getting prior approval from the Bar Council of India is illegal, unjust and against the provisions of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules.
5. On behalf of the additional respondents 6 and 7, who were impleaded in the case, a counter-affidavit has been filed. According to additional respondents 6 and 7, no specific permission from the Bar Council of India is needed for sta(sic)a evening college in the University. According to them, a degree in Law increases the public awareness and helps those employed for further promotion chances in their career. They also justify starting of a new law college in the State of Kerala since there are only six law colleges in Kerala whereas much more law colleges were established in all the neighbouring States. They also stated that 50% of the advocates enrolled during the year 1992-94 had obtained their degrees from outside Kerala. Therefore, starting of a new law college cannot in any way affect professional avenues of the existing law colleges and advocates. The above respondents further allege that LL.B. Course offered by the University will augment the standards of legal education and add new dimensions to the legal education programmes in the country. They also support the University in their contentions that under the University Act, Regulations, Ordinances and Statutes, the action taken by the University for starting a LL.B. Course in the Law Department attached to the University is perfectly justified and no interference is called for from this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Respondents 6 and 7 further contended that the optional subjects offered by the University would assist and help the candidates for better prospects in securing employment and there is no legal basis or justification for the Bar Council of India to reject or disapprove the course offered by the 2nd respondent University in the matter of granting approval for the purpose of enrolment. Thus, respondents 6 and 7 fully supports the case of the University.
6. Thus the main question to be considered in this original petition is whether the 2nd respondent is justified in instituting a three year law degree course in the Cochin University of Science and Technology and whether the LL.B. degree offered by them without getting prior approval from the Bar Council of India would in any way be illegal and against the provisions of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules.
7. Section 16 of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act provides the various authorities of the University which includes the Syndicate, Senate, Academic Council, the Faculties and the Board of Studies. Section 24 of the Act prescribes the powers and duties of the Academic Council.
It is the duty of the Academic Council to make regulations and to amend or to repeal the same with the approval of the Syndicate in respect of prescribing courses of studies and scheme of examination in the manner prescribed under Section 42 of the Act. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that in exercise of the powers conferred on the Academic Council under Section 24 read with Section 42 of the Act, the Academic Council in its meeting held on 25-8-1993 resolved to approve the regulation and amendment to the regulation for Bachelor Degree in Law (LL.B.) Course and in exercise of the powers vested on the Vice-Chancellor under Section 11(11) of the Act, Vice-Chancellor has approved regulations/amendment to the regulations passed by the Academic Council. As per the Regulation, the eligibility of the candidates who seek admission for the said course, procedure for selection, the curriculum for the said course, etc. had been prescribed. This is evident from Ext.R2(b) notification issued by the 2nd respondent dt. 18th Dec. 1993 and published in the Kerala Gazette No. V. dt 1st Feb. 1994. Thereafter, the Academic Council met on 15-2-1994 considered the question of instituting a job-oriented course and resolved to institute the LL.B. (Evening) Course after taking into consideration the recommendation of the standing committee. This is evidenced by Ext. R2(c) minutes of the meeting of the Academic Council held on 15-2-1994.
8. The action taken by the Academic Council had been approved by the Faculty of Law constituted under Section 25 of the Act. The same is approved by the Board of Studies also constituted under Section 26 of the Act.
9. Statute 117 of the Cochin University First Statutes of 1980 enables the University to grant such other degrees or diplomas as may be instituted from time to time in the Faculty of Law. The LL.B. degree instituted by the Academic Council as per Ext.R2(c) had been incorporated as one of the degrees offered by the University as LL.B. Under Chapter XIV Statute 168 wherein the Senate has accepted the degree instituted by the Academic Council. Statute 117 enables the University to start a degree course other than those mentioned in Statute 117 by instituting a degree in LL.B. by the Academic Council. In the light of the above facts, the contention raised by the petitioners that no amendment had been brought about in the statute or to the other provisions of the Cochin University First Statute empowering or enabling the University for starting three year degree course by the 2nd respondent is absolutely without any legal or factual basis. So also, there is no legal basis for the averment made by the petitioners that the commencement of a course for the grant of a degree in law is not contemplated under the Statutes. Ext. R2(b) and (c) and the statements in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent would amply prove that the three year LL.B. Degree Course instituted by the University is perfectly legal and there is no legal infirmity attached for the decision arrived at by the University in offering a three year LL.B. Course by the University attached to the existing Law Department of the Cochin University of Science and Technology. All the Statutory Authorities constituted under the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act had approved the said decision and the statutes and ordinances framed thereunder had been complied with by the University in offering and instituting the three year LL.B. Course by the said University. The said three year course is started by the University after complying with all the statutory procedure contemplated under the Act, regulations and ordinances and duly approved by all the statutory authorities contemplated under the Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners that for starting such a course, 2nd respondent University did not follow the statutory provisions contained under the Act, statutes and the regulations has only to be rejected. The preamble of Cochin University of Science and Technology Act clearly shows that the University can offer courses for graduate and post-graduate studies. Section 2(ii) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act lays down the provisions of facilities and offering of opportunities for graduate and post-graduate education in social sciences by instruction, training, research and development or extension and by such other means as the University may deem fit. It is also mentioned in Sub-section (iii) of Section 2 of the Act that the University may devise and implement programmes of education in areas including social sciences that are relevant for the changing needs of the society. The LL.B. Course of the University gives emphasis on the objectives of the University and offers steps relevant to the changing needs of the society such as environmental law, consumer law, law science and technology intellectual property rights and maritime laws. Therefore, the LL.B. Course offered by the University cannot be considered to be a course not covered by the provisions of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act as wrongly stated by the petitioners. I reject the said contention.
10. It is the case of the petitioners in the original petition that the fee collected by the 2nd respondent for admission to three year LL.B. Course in exorbitant compared with the fees levied by the other six law colleges already in existence in the State of Kerala. Under Section 40 of the Act, fee can be prescribed by way of ordinances subject to the provisions of the Act and the statutes and Section 41 prescribes the procedure for making the ordinances. The fee prescribed by the University for the course had been approved as per the decision of the Syndicate held on 22nd June, 1994 wherein the Syndicate considered along with the recommendation of the Standing Committee on academic matters, finances and projects, the proposal for fixing the fee structure of the proposed LL.B. Course and they have resolved to fix the fee structure in the manner fixed by the Syndicate in its meeting referred to above. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners that the fee is exorbitant also cannot be considered by this Court in this proceeding.
11. It is also the case of the petitioners that there is no infra-structure like library and other facilities for starting a LL.B. Course by the 2nd respondent. The statement was totally denied by the 2nd respondent in his lengthy counter-affidavit. The facilities offered by the University, including the library and other facilities had been elaborately stated in the counter-affidavit and also in Ext. R2(a) application submitted by the 2nd respondent before the Bar Council of India for approval of the affiliation of the course. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the said course was started by the 2nd respondent University without taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter. The specialties and optional subjects offered by the University for the said course would give added advantage to those students studying for the said course and coming out successful in the examination. In many other colleges established in Kerala, the optional subjects offered by the 2nd respondent University for the said course are not being offered. In this connection, the statement made in the counter affidavit by the 2nd respondent that the optional areas offered in the course have been recommended not only by the curriculum developing scheme by the U.G.C., but also the Bar Council of India has to be accepted. It is further stated that the Bar Council of India Rules contemplate offering subjects legally relevant as may be prescribed by the University at their option as optional papers and the optional papers thus prescribed under the curriculum approved by the Academic Council in its meeting held on 25-8-1993 had already been published and notified in the gazette. These statements had not been controverted by the petitioners by filing any reply affidavit.
12. As stated earlier, it is the definite case of the petitioner that for the LL.B. Course started by the 2nd respondent no sanction/ approval had been obtained from the Bar Council of India, the 4th respondent or from the State Bar Council, the 5th respondent. It is the case of the 2nd respondent University that no such permission much less previous permission is necessary for starting LL.B. Course by the 2nd respondent University. According to the University, LL.B. Course is started in the existing Law Department of the Cochin University of Science and Technology which is a recognised professional law college. It is the further case of the University that being a recognised professional college, no previous permission is necessary either under the Advocates Act or under the Bar Council of India Rules for starting such a course in the existing Law Department of the University. Alternatively, it is the case of the 2nd respondent that they have applied for sanction from the 4th respondent Bar Council of India and submitted their application for approval evidenced by Ext.R2(a) dt. 22-11-1994. It is also their case that as directed by the Bar Council of India, an amount of Rs. 15,000/-also had been remitted before the 4th respondent as inspection charges/fees. It is the further case of the 2nd respondent that what is required under the Advocates Act as well as Bar Council of India Rules is the approval of the affiliation of the course of study of law by the University for enrolment as an advocate by the Bar Council of India and not for starting a new law college complying with the provisions of the University Act, Statutes and Regulations.
13. Section 7 of the Advocates Act prescribes the functions of the Bar Council of India. Under Section 7(1)(h) of the said Act, it is the function of the Bar Council of India to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. The 4th respondent Bar Council of India had been constituted under Section 4 of the Advocates Act. The Bar Council of India Rules had been prescribed under the Advocates Act. Rule 12 of the above Rules prescribes the courses of instruction for the preparatory law degree course and under R. 16, the University shall establish or recognise only those colleges which have full-time classes in law and if the requisite facilities and library as prescribed by the above rules. Rule 20 of the above Rules provides that no college started after coming into force of those Rules shall impart instructions in a course of study in law for enrolment as an advocate unless its affiliation is approved by the Bar Council of India. But under Sub-rule (11) provides that an existing law college shall not be competent to impart instruction in a course of study in law for enrolment as an advocate if the continuance of its affiliation is disapproved by the Bar Council of India. Under Rule 1(ii)(a) of Part IVB of the Bar Council of India Rules, the existing Law Department of the University is a recognised professional college within the meaning of the said expression under the Bar Council of India Rules. Therefore, according to the 2nd and additional 6 and 7 respondents, it is not a new law college wherein the provisions of the Bar Council of India Rules for starting a new college can be said to be applicable. It is the case of 2nd, additional 6th and 7th respondents that for starting a three year LL,B. Course in the Law Department attached to the University, already in existence, none of the specifications and stipulations contained in the Bar Council of India Rules for opening a new law college are applicable. It is true that what is intended under the Bar Council of India Rules is an approval of the affiliation of the college and degree offered by the University for the purpose of enrolment by the Bar Council of India. Rules 16, 17 and 18 of the Bar Council of India Rules would show that those Rules are applicable in respect of the affiliation of the colleges in the University and once the college is affiliated in the University, the approval of the Bar Council of India is intended for the purpose of enrolment of those candidates who have successfully completed the course and obtained a degree. Exts. R4(a), (b) and (c) communications would also support the said view. The Bar Council of India Rules do not contemplate approval for starting any new law college. What is contemplated is approval of the affiliation granted for the course started by the University for the purpose of enrolment. Neither the Advocates Act nor the Bar Council of India Rules would insist that before starting a law college prior sanction is necessary from the Bar Council of India. What is required is affiliation by the Bar Council for the course offered by the University for the purpose of enrolment. The Bar Council of India is interested in imparting proper legal education to those candidates who had come out successful in the examination conducted by the University for the purpose of enrolment. Therefore, approval that is necessary under the Bar Council of India Rules is only approval of the affiliation of the degree offered by the University or law college for the purpose of enrolment. Offering a degree by the University and instituting a Bachelors Degree in Law by the 2nd respondent cannot be considered to be for the purpose of enrolment alone. The object of conferring such a degree cannot be for the purpose of enrolment alone. Persons who obtained degree in Law from the University need not enrol themselves as advocates. The Bar Council of India Rules are applicable in respect of imparting legal education to those students who are anxious to enrol themselves as advocates under the Advocates Act for practising in courts. In the absence of any stautory prohibition, prohibiting the University or law college from conducting law degree course wihout getting prior permission from the Bar Council of India, it cannot be said that the L.L.B. Course offered by the 2nd respondent in the Law Department attached to the University cannot be recognised for other purposes other than the enrolment purposes. It is true, for enorlment as an advocate, the approval of the affiliation of the degree by the Bar Council is necessary. According to the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, approval for affiliation to a University is necessary only for starting a college for the purpose of enrolment. It cannot be legally presume that those students who had passed out from the University a would confine themselves to the legal profession as a practising advocates. Admittedly, the course offered by the 2nd respondent is affiliated to a University viz. the Cochin University of Science and Technology. Under the Bar Council of India Rules, approval of such an affiliation is necessary only for the purpose of enrolment. Since the awarding of a law degree cannot be considered to be always for the purpose of enrolment, it cannot be said that the University did not have the right to start a new course for L.L.B.in the already existing Law Department of the University, provided the provisions of the University Act, ordinances and statutes are complied with for -starting such a course and offering such a degree. Those students who have passed from the University after obtaining the L.L.B. degree need not necessarily go for enrolment as an advocate. But for the purpose of enrolment under the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, approval of the affiliation of the course offered by the University is necessary. Without such approval, those students who had completed and passed the L.L.B. Examination from the 2nd respondent University are not entitled to practise as an advocate. Under the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, those persons who are desirous of enrolment as an advocate have to secure a degree in Law duly recognised and approved by the Bar Council of India. In the absence of an approval of the degree offered by the University in L.L.B. Course by the Bar Council of India no person is eligible to be enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules.
14. In the light of the above statutory provisions, it has to be held that the three year L.L.B. (Evening) Course now offered by the 2nd respondent is a course not recognised by the Bar Council of India and therefore, those students are not entitled to enrol themselves to practise as an advocate under the provisions of the Advocates Act and Rules framed thereunder without the approval of the 4th respondent.
15. It is true that Ext. R2(a) application had been filed by the 2nd respondent before the 4th respondent, Bar Council of India seeking approval of the three year L.L.B. (Evening) course now started by the 2nd respondent University. The said application has been filed by the 2nd respondent, obviously, under the provisions of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules for getting approval of the affiliation of the course and the degree offered by the University by the Bar Council of India. Necessary fees also had been remitted by the 2nd respondent as inspection fees. Ext. R2(a) application shows the various details asked for by the Bar Council of India for granting approval for the course started by the University. But submission of an application and remitting the required inspection fee alone would not be sufficient to declare that the 2nd respondent is entitled to get recognition/ approval of the course offered by them from the Bar Council of India. It is for the Bar Council of India to consider whether the course offered by the 2nd respondent would justify approval of the degree for the purpose of enrolment of those degree-holders as advocates. But in the absence of any order granting approval, it has to be held that those students who had already joined in the course are not entitled to be enrolled as advocates under the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules.
16. Admittedly, the Bar Council of Inda had not approved affiliation of the three year L.L.B. Course now started by the Law Department of the Cochin University of Science and Technology. Such approval is necessary in the case of those students who have come out successful in the examination that may be conducted by the University for the purpose of enrolment. Under such circumstances, it has to be held that the petitioners are entitled to get a declaration that the students who are admitted for the said course and who may subsequently complete the course and pass the examination are not entitled to enrol themselves as advocates under the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, since at present there is no approval of the affiliation of the said course now offered by the 2nd respondent from the Bar Council of India. Petitioners are, therefore, entitled to get such a declaration in this Original Petition. But the prayer of the petitioner to declare that the commencement of 3 year L.L.B. (Evening) Course by the 2nd respondent as illegal and violative of the provisions of the Advocates Act and also contrary to the provisions of the Cochin University Science and Technology Act is unsustainable since the course offered by the University offering a degree in bachelor of Law is instituted under the provisions of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act and under the provisions of the Statute and the regulations. I also declared that in case the application submitted by the '2nd respondent before the 4th respondent. Bar Council of India for approval or recognition of the above degree offered by them is favourably considered and recognition/ affiliation is granted, those students are entitled to enrol themselves as advocates on terms and conditions prescribed by the Bar Council of India.
Original Petition is disposed of in the manner stated above. But, there will be no order as to costs.