Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)The Secretary To Government Education ... vs Society For St. Ann'S Mehdipatnam, ... on 25 March, 1991
even though local surveys to be conducted under amended provisions were not conducted and how permissions for the said institutions were granted. The Government shall also bear in mind the decision of this court in Secretary to Government v. Society for St. Ann's (3 supra) where it has been held that the Government policy dated 6th August 1990 in so far as it is contrary to the provisions of Section 20 (3) (a) is in violation of the legislative policy.
Andhra Kesari Education Society, ... vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 22 November, 1983
We, however, notice that such a direction was granted by the Division Bench in Andhra Kesari Education Society, Ongole v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2 supra). It is true that the learned Judges issued such a direction and the Government was directed to give time to petitioner in that case to make good any inadequacies. But we do not think that the learned Judges laid down any principle of law that this court should straightaway issue a writ of mandamus directing grant of permission. In that case, the facts were found and even with regard to the local need, the learned Judges assumed that the material on record showed that there was local need so far as Prakasam District was concerned in view of certain reports of the committees. We have already held that it is for the Government to decide the question as to the local need and while doing so, it is necessary for the Government to consider any material before it by the parties including any reports of any committees appointed by the State or by the Regional Deputy Director or other persons, apart from statistics showing the need. We do not, therefore, think that the abovesaid Division Bench laid down any such absolute proposition. It may be that in a given case where after the matter has been sent to the Government for re-consideration and the Court thinks that the Government is not granting permission either deliberately or mala fide, it might issue a mandamus to grant permission. In such cases, it is for the Court to consider whether a writ should be issued to grant permission or not.
Andhra Kesari Education Society vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 22 November, 1983
11. The decision as to the need Under Section 20 (3) (a) has to be taken by the Government. It is stated across the bar that the number of seats available in the degree colleges in Guntur will be around 500. The Government will have to necessarily collect statistics as to the 'need' in Guntur district, as a whole if it is not treated as a local area. If Narasaraopet can be considered as a local area, they must also collect statistics with regard to the need of that area. It is not for us to decide whether Guntur district should be taken as a unit or Narasaraopet Division should be taken as a unit. It is for the Government to take a decision in that behalf. We find that in the decision of this court in Andhra Kesari Educational Society, Guntur v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2 supra), decided by Jeevan Reddy, J. (as he then was) and Sardar Ali Khan, J.), it was assumed that the district could be taken as a unit. There, the district concerned was Prakasam district. While coming to the conclusion that there is need or otherwise for any locality, the Government could also take into consideration the reports, if any, already submitted by the Committee of the University as also the District Educational Officers or the Regional Deputy Directors of Education or other officers. In the present case, in fact, the said reports of the committee and the Director are to the effect that there is a need in the locality, viz., Narasaraopet Revenue Division. It does not appear from the impugned order that the correctness or otherwise of the saidreports has been considered by the Govt. It is well-settled that if a decision is taken with regard to a fact or discretion of the Government is exercised by not taking relevant factors into consideration or by considering irrelevant factors, the decision is liable to be quashed or the discretion exercised declared bad and the matter is to be ordinarily remitted once again to the authority. In the present case, when the Government came to the conclusion that there was no need in the locality, viz., Guntur district, they have not considered whether the Revenue Division of Narasaraopet should be treated as a separate locality and they have also not adverted to any statistics with regard to the need of Guntur district or Narasaraopet Revenue Division. It would be incumbent on the Government to come to the conclusion basing upon how many schools are started every year, how many extra teachers are required every year and in what subject. From the material papers filed by the Government, it is clear that even according to them, 25 private unaided institutions out of the 47 B.Ed. colleges have been declared to be substandard institutions established without providing infrastructure and teaching staff. It is not known whether the three existing institutions in Guntur district belong to that category or not.
State Of Kerala And Ors vs K.G. Madhavan Pillai And Ors on 19 September, 1988
18. However, in State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai (7 supra) the Supreme Court appears to have accepted that the right to establish an institution is a natural right. They did not, however, think it necessary to decide whether it is a fundamental right (paras 20 and 21).
State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Lok Shikshan Sansatha & Ors on 26 July, 1971
Reliance in that case was placed upon the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Lok Shikshan Sanstha (4 supra).
A.P. Christians Medical Educational ... vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 1986
17. Under the unamended provisions, this court proceeded to observe in Andhra Pradesh Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1 supra) that the right to establish educational institutions individually or otherwise is a fundamental right.
The Sakharkherda Education Society, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 2 December, 1966
The Sakharkehda Education Society, Sakharkheda v. The State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court took the view that the words 'profession' or 'occupation' and 'business' under Article 19 (g) (1) are of wider import to imply institutions which want to establish educational institutions. The abovesaid decision of the Bombay High Court was of course reversed by the Supreme Court on another ground.
Bharat Sevashram Sangh Etc. Etc vs State Of Gujarat Etc. Etc on 18 August, 1986
In Bharat Sevashram Sangh v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court observed that the provisions in Section 23 of the Gujarat Education Act, 1977, which provide for taking part of the management by any registered school was not unconstitutional. In that context, they observed :