IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :
11. 04-2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No.1859 of 2013 M.P.No.1 of 2013 Sapthagiri Educational Trust, rep.by its Secretary M.Vasu, ".Sai Bhavan"., No.31, Madley Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Law Department, Fort St.George, Chenai 600 009.
2. The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, rep.by its Registrar, 'Poompozhil', No.5, Dr.DGS Dinakaran Salai, Chennai 600 028.
3. The Bar Council of India, rep.by its Secretary, No.21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area, New Delhi 110 002.
4. The Director of Legal Studies, Government of Tamil Nadu, Purasawalkam High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in respect of the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide his letter No.1407/S/P/LS/2012-1, dated 5.11.2012 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to grant permission/No Objection Certificate to the petitioner's proposed Law College under the name and style of ".Sai Ram Institute of Legal Studies". at Poonthandalam Village, West Tambaram, Chennai -44, so as to enable the petitioner to get consent of affiliation and approval of affiliation from the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively. For Petitioner : Mr.R. Sureshkumar For Respondents 1&4 : Mr.V. Subbiah, Special Government Pleader For 2nd Respondent : Mr.S.Y.Masood For 3rd Respondent : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal ORDER
By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the Government of Tamil Nadu dated 5.11.2012 rejecting the request of the Sapthagiri Educational Trust for issuing 'No Objection Certificate' for the proposed Law College under the name and style of ".Sai Ram Institute of Legal Studies". at Poonthandalam Village, West Tambaram, Chennai-44, and for consequential directions.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows: (a) Sapthagiri Educational Trust was registered with Registration No.132/1994 under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, with the object of establishing and administering educational institutions, among other charitable activities. (b) Petitioner Trust has already established and is administering educational institutions in the field of Engineering Technology, Indian Medicine and also running schools in various places in Tamil Nadu including Chennai, Pondicherry and Bangalore. According to the petitioner, in order to further expand its educational activities, the petitioner Trust established well-equipped and well-reputed Law College/Law Institute in the name and style of ".Sai Ram Institute of Legal Studies". at Poonthandalam, which is in the outskirts of Chennai, for which the petitioner has already earmarked more than 10.7 acres of land as per the norms for establishment of a Law College. (c) It is also stated by the petitioner Trust that in Chennai and in the State of Tamilnadu, sufficient Law Colleges are not available to cater the needs of the students, who aspire for pursuing Law courses. At present Dr.Ambedkar Law College; The School of Excellence, Ambedkar Law University; and one Deemed University are conducting Law courses in Chennai and in the State, apart from seven Government Law Colleges, two private Law Colleges and one Deemed University and one National Law School at Sri Rangam are available. Due to non-availability of sufficient Law Colleges, the students hailing from Tamilnadu are joining Law Colleges in the State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and get Law degrees without proper instructions. (d) In order to cater the needs of large number of aspirants to become Law graduates, preparatory works had been initiated and completed by the petitioner Trust to establish the proposed Law college as per the Advocates Act, 1961, Rules made by the Bar Council of India, as well as the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act, 1996 and the Regulations made thereunder. (e) As per the Regulations, if anyone wants to establish a Law College in the State of Tamil Nadu, they have to approach the State Government to obtain its consent by way of 'No Objection Certificate' and only after getting the same, proposal will be considered by the University viz., Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, which is the affiliating University, other than Deemed Universities. After getting consent of affiliation from the University, the proposal has to be sent to the Bar Council of India, which in turn would grant approval to start Law Degree course/Courses of five years (integrated B.L.degree) with minimum qualification of Plus Two (+2), or three years Law Degree course (B.L.) with eligibility of graduation for admission. (f) The petitioner Trust applied for issuing NOC/consent from the State Government by application dated 30.1.2010 to commence the Law college from the academic year 2010-2011 with two sections of 60 students each per year of five years Law Degree Course, and a copy of the said application was also sent to respondents 2 and 3 for information and necessary follow up action. The said application was not processed by the State Government. Hence the petitioner was compelled to file W.P.No.15245 of 2011 and prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus to process the said application dated 30.1.2010. The said writ petition was disposed of on 29.6.2011 by this Court with a direction to the first respondent to consider the said application and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law for the grant of NOC in the academic year 2011-2012 within a period of 12 weeks. (g) The first respondent, by letter dated 12.3.2012 informed the petitioner that the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued G.O.Ms.No.194 Law Department dated 5.3.2012, prescribing norms and standards/conditions as well as format of the application for getting NOC for Self-financing Law Colleges, and the petitioner was directed to make appropriate application in terms of the said Government Order. In compliance with the said direction, petitioner submitted fresh application in the required format on 29.3.2012 and paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards processing fee as required by the first respondent to consider issuance of NOC for the academic year 2012-2013 with annual intake of 180 students in three sections, each of 60 students. Petitioner also constructed three-storey building and made available towards infrastructural and instructional facilities. (h) In response to the said application of the petitioner dated 29.3.2012, 4th respondent viz., the Director of Legal Studies sent a communication on 25.5.2012 intimating the date of inspection as 6.6.2012 along with the Principals of Government Law College, Chengalpattu and Vellore and the petitioner was directed to furnish details regarding availability of finance, bank guarantee and other related documents during the inspection. Inspection was held on 6.6.2012 and all the documents and amenities were verified. On 9.6.2012 the 4th respondent directed to furnish the staff list with qualification. The same was also furnished on 12.6.2012. Again on 30.7.2012 petitioner was directed to give certain clarification regarding the qualification of the staff as per UGC regulation, which were also clarified on 4.8.2012, which was acknowledged by 4th respondent on 8.8.2012. (i) The first respondent having delayed the process, petitioner again filed W.P.No.25617 of 2012 praying for issuing a writ of mandamus. In the said writ petition notice was ordered and the same is pending. (j) On 5.11.2012, by the impugned order, the first respondent rejected the request of the petitioner Trust stating certain reasons for rejecting NOC viz., existing colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu are sufficient to cater the needs of the students, no District Court is located within the vicinity of the College, the Public transport facility is very limited in the location, computer lab is not provided with internet connection, ladies toilet not attached to the ladies rest room, no Judge Chamber constructed in Moot Court hall, and the faculty members are not fully qualified. (k) The said impugned order dated 5.11.2012 is challenged in this writ petition by contending that the details regarding the percentage of marks in SLET/NET examinations had already been submitted on 4.8.2012, which were not verified properly; that regarding the non-availability of District and Sessions Court in the nearby vicinity, the State Government itself has established National Law School at Sri Rangam, Tiruchirapalli District, where there is no District Court, whereas in this case District Court at Chengalpattu and Sub Court at Tambaram are situated within short distance; that another Deemed University is already located in the outskirts of Chennai City, which was granted approval by BCI without any District Court in the nearby area; and that, denial of NOC by the State Government to the petitioner Trust is in violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) and 19(6) of the Constitution of India.
4. The State Government opposed the writ petition through 4th respondent filing counter affidavit contending that the District Court in Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu is located about 35 kms away from the proposed college; there is no independent building to accommodate the proposed Law college; Government Law Colleges are functioning in Chennai, Chengalpattu, which are sufficient to cater the needs of the students in Kancheepuram District; there is no need to start a new Law College at Kancheepuram District; petitioner has not satisfied the norms issued in G.O.Ms.No.194 Law Department dated 5.3.2012 for the grant of NOC; there are sufficient Law Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu viz., seven Government Law Colleges, School of Excellence within the campus of Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Saveetha College of Law (Deemed University) at Poonamallee, Tamil Nadu National Law School at Sri Rangam, etc. It is further contended that the qualification possessed by the law faculty members are not in accordance with the UGC Regulations and on 4.8.2012 the college submitted only the degrees obtained by the teaching staff as per the percentage of marks and passing of SLET/NET examinations in respect of faculty members were not submitted. The District Court being located at a distance of 35 kms away, the students will not be in a position to attend the Courts as part of their practical training. Therefore the impugned rejection order is proper, which requires no interference.
5. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner Trust stating about the availability of Public Transport Service and the Management's ability to provide transport facility, availability of class rooms, furniture, computers, ladies toilets, Judge Chamber for Moot Court purpose, indoor sports and games, faculty qualification with percentage of marks, etc. Copies of the said details are also filed along with reply/additional affidavit.
6. Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that regarding infrastructural and instructional facilities provided, the same can be verified by re-inspection and the petitioner institution has no objection for ordering re-inspection and if any fees is to be paid for re-inspection, the Trust is willing to deposit the same before the competent authority. Learned counsel further submitted, the two objections raised that there must be a District Court in the nearby area and there is no necessity to have another Law College are not sustainable in the light of the earlier decisions of this Court rendered in W.P.No.2003 of 2009 dated 3.8.2010; W.P.No.7279 of 2011 dated 23.9.2011; W.A.No.2102 of 2011 dated 25.4.2012; and in Review Application No.8 of 2013 dated 29.1.2013, wherein similar issue was already considered and rejected the said two conditions raised by the respondents, and ultimately the said order was implemented by granting NOC to Saraswathy Law College, Tindivanam, Villupuram District. The learned counsel further submitted that when Saraswathy Law College was started, there was no District Court nearby and as such the issue raised in this writ petition regarding two conditions are held against respondents 1 and 4, and therefore the impugned order may be set aside with direction to the 4th respondent to re-inspect the college to find out the availability of infrastructural and instructional facilities and fresh order may be directed to be passed within a given time.
7. Mr.V.Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader supported the impugned order on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit. However, he is not in a position to dispute the fact about the earlier orders passed by this Court, which was also implemented by the Government by granting NOC to the said Saraswathy Law College, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
8. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 4.
9. In W.P.No.2003 of 2009 dated 13.8.2010 similar issue was considered and this Court, taking note of the need of Advocates to enforce the citizen's right to get free legal aid under Article 39A, speedy justice as enshrined in Article 21, passed the order and directed to grant permission/NOC for starting the Law College. In spite of the said direction issued, again the request of the said college was rejected by order dated 30.10.2010, which was challenged in W.P.No.7279 of 2011 before this Court and this Court by order dated 23.9.2011 set aside the rejection order by holding that as per Rule 8(1) of the BCI Rules, BCI alone is competent to permit starting of a Law College at a particular location, and the State has no other option except to grant NOC, and a direction was issued to grant NOC. Against the said order made in W.P.No.7279 of 2011, W.A.No.2102 of 2011 was preferred, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 25.4.2012. Review application was filed by the first respondent in R.A.No.8 of 2013, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 29.1.2013 and after filing contempt petition in Cont.P.No.1129 of 2012, the order of this Court was implemented by the Government by granting NOC to the said College. The Division Bench in the judgment dated 25.4.2012 made in W.A.No.2102 of 2011 in paragraphs 8 and 9 held thus, ".8. Rule 8(1) of Section A in Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules reads as follows:- ".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.". A reading of the above Rule shows that 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 disttance thereof as the Bar Council of India permits. A close reading of the rule does not indicate that a law college should be located only in the District Headquarters where the District Court is located. The Rule contemplates that the Law College shall ordinarily be located, which means that it can also be located in other places, provided if there is any Circuit District Court or within such distance thereof the Bar Council of India permits.
9. Tindivanam is a place where, according to the petitioner, the population is 26,00,880, 24,68,965 and 7,52,481 in Cuddalore, Thiruvannamalai and Ariyalur districts, which are nearer to Tindivanam. Nearby to Tindivanam, Villupuram District is also located, where the District Court is functioning and the population of that district is 34,63,284. In and around Tindivanam District, approximately 92,85,610 persons are living and the distance between the five districts, viz., Cuddalore, Thiruvannamalai, Ariyalur, Villupuram and Tindivanam is not beyond 40 kms. from Tindivanam. That apart, a District Court at the level of Additional District Judge is also functioning at Tindivanam. In that sense, the learned Judge is right in holding that establishment of a Law College at Tindivanam would be in compliance of Rule 8(1) of Section-A in Part-IV of the Bar Council of India Rules.". In paragraphs 12 and 13 it is further held as follows: ".12. Before we dispose of the writ petition, it would not be out of context to refer the importance of legal education. Dr.Radhakrishnan lamented ".Our Colleges of Law do not hold place of high esteem either at home or abroad, nor has law become an era of profound scholarship and enlightened research".. But this trend is slowly changing colours with more and more bright and talented students being attracted to the legal profession. Unlike other forms of professional education such as medicine and engineering, legal education is both professional as well as liberal. Legal students are multi-disciplinary in character. Legal education is essentially a multi-disciplined, multi-purpose education, which can develop the human resources and idealism needed to strengthen the legal system. A law graduate, particularly a lawyer, a product of such education would be able to contribute to national development and social change in a much more constructive manner. In that sense, legal education cannot take the back bench in pursuit of general education any more. Legal education is a course not confined to legal profession alone as against any other professional courses. A basic degree holder, irrespective of discipline, is entitled to pursue legal education. Now it is extended to even students coming out from plus two examination as well. Knowledge in law would generally improve the standard in the life of students and development of rural area would be the main criteria to ascertain the actual development of the country. In that view, imparting legal education to rural students assumes more importance and the same cannot be denied on flimsy grounds.
13. Tindivanam, being a place situated outskirts to certain main cities, would certainly require a law school to cater the needs of many rural students coming from at least four districts, viz., Cuddalore, Villupuram, Ariyalur and Tiruvannamalai, where there is no law school. That apart, it is not the case of the appellant that no law school could be established at Tindivanam except stating that in the absence of a District Court, a law school cannot be established at Tindivanam. As we have answered the above question with reference to Rule 8(1) of of Section-A in Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, there cannot be any impediment for the appellant to consider the application for issuance of No Objection Certificate.". Thus, the contentions regarding location of the Law College in the vicinity of the District Court, availability of sufficient Law Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu, and no new institution is necessary to conduct Law Courses, cannot be sustained.
10. In the reply affidavit filed on 4.4.2014, the compliance of other requirements viz., transport facility, providing of sufficient class rooms, computers, ladies toilets, Chamber for Moot Court Judge, Moot Court Hall, availability of indoor sports and games, and qualification of the faculty are stated and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner asserted that the 4th respondent can very well inspect the College and satisfy about the availability of the infrastructural and instructional facilities in the proposed Law College. The learned counsel also submitted that the Management is willing to pay the inspection fee, if the same is intimated. The said submission made by the learned counsel is recorded.
11. In the light of the above said findings, the impugned order dated 5.11.2012 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to consider grant of NOC for establishing the Law College in the name and style of ".Sairam Institute of Legal Studies". by the petitioner Trust from the academic year 2014-2015, without reference to the objection viz., District Court is not available within the vicinity and sufficient Law Colleges are available in the State of Tamil Nadu, and on verification of the availability of infrastructural and instructional facilities by making inspection, and pass fresh orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. First respondent is directed to intimate the inspection fee payable by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on remitting the said inspection fee, 4th respondent is directed to make inspection within one week therefrom and send proposal to the Government for passing orders as stated above. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No 11-04-2014 vr To 1. The Secretary to Government, Law Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chenai 600 009.
2. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, 'Poompozhil', No.5, Dr.DGS Dinakaran Salai, Chennai 600 028.
3. The Secretary, Bar Council of India, No.21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area, New Delhi 110 002.
4. The Director of Legal Studies, Government of Tamil Nadu, Purasawalkam High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J vr Pre-Delivery Order in W.P.No.1859 of 2013 11-4-2014