ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The 1st petitioners is the Employee's Association and petitioners 2 to 5 are the employees of Sir C.R. Reddy Law College, Eluru. They challenge the orders of Bar Council of India, 1st respondent, dated 15-7-2002, permitting the closure of Sir C.R.R. Law College, Eluru, the 7th respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the Law College').
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as under:
3. Sir C.R. Reddy College, Eluru, was established in the year 1951. It had established several educational institutions at Eluru. It proposed to establish a Law College. It was accorded approval by the 1 st respondent, through orders dated 13-9-1976. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, issued G.O. Ms. No.943 dated 22-9-1997, according permission for establishment of the Law College. Accordingly, the 7th respondent-Law College came to be established. The Andhra University, the 2nd respondent, granted affiliation from time to time and through proceedings dated 2-1-1984, it accorded permanent affiliation. Initially, the Law College was running the three years Law Degree Course and thereafter it has introduced the five years Law Degree Course also. The approved strength of the Law College is 480 in three years Degree Course (two sections of 80 students each for three years). So far as the five years Degree Course is concerned, its strength is 400 (one section of 80 candidates for each year). The University Grants Commission also extended certain financial aid for the purpose of establishing library. It has also an attached hostel maintained by the Government. In the recent past, the 6th respondent had ordered closure of the hostel on the ground that it was facing lot of problems on account of the same. In the year 2001, it started taking steps to close the Law College on the ground that therewas substantial depletion in the admissions into both the five years and three years Degree Courses and accordingly addressed letter dated 25-6-2001 to the various authorities seeking permission to close the Law College and requesting them not to allot the candidates. This was followed by subsequent correspondence and ultimately the 1st respondent accorded permission to close the Law College through the impugned order.
4. The petitioners contend that the decision of the 6th respondent to close the Law College was absolutely without basis. According to them, the reason for depletion in the admissions was closure of the hostel and the 6th respondent had treated the Law College as a commercial venture and had some interest been shown to continue the Law College, certainly there would have been improvement in the admissions. The petitioners allege that the action of the 1st respondent in according permission to close the Law College is contrary to the public interest, apart from being opposed to the objects underlying the Advocates Act and the rules governing the functioning of Bar Council. The petitioners also alleged certain procedural irregularities in the decision arrived at by the 6th respondent. It is also their contention that the action of the 6th respondent to close the Law College is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Education Act.
5. Respondents 6 and 7 filed counter-affidavit refuting the allegations of the petitioners. They raised objection as to the locus standi of the petitioners and also the maintainability of the writ petition. They have narrated the circumstances, which led to the closure of the Law College. Their main contention is that having regard to the fall in admissions into the 1st year of the courses year after year, they were sustaining huge financial losses and it was not feasible to continue the Law College.
It was also pleaded that their right to close the Law College cannot be challenged by the petitioners, and, at any rate, they cannot be forced to run a college contrary to their will and inspite of adverse circumstances.
6. When the matter came up for admission, the learned Counsel for all the parties submitted that they are prepared to advance their arguments for final disposal of the writ petition itself. In view of the urgency involved, as well as the submissions made by the learned Counsel for all the parties, the writ petition was taken up for final hearing itself.
7. Sri N. Ram Mohan Rao, learned Counsel appearing for Sri P. Chidambaram, Counsel for the petitioner's, made the following submissions:
8. Establishment of a Law College cannot be said to be purely a private affair. It has a public purpose to serve. The colleges are established on the basis of the need of the locality and to serve the population in the area. On account of establishment of a college in a particular area, the concerned authorities do not take steps to establish other colleges. Closure of an existing college would deprive the population in the area to have education. The 6th respondent was provided land by the Government, it had raised funds from the public and even if there is an uneconomical strength for certain years, that by itself does not constitute a valid ground to close the Law College. The 1st respondent, which is an agency to propagate legal education, ought not to have accorded permission for closure of the Law College, that too, without taking into account the views of the teaching staff and others concerned. Failure to take into account such views would constitute violation of principles of natural justice. The closure of the hostel has not only dissuaded but alsodisabled the students, mostly from backward communities, from getting admission into the Law College.
9. Sri C. Kodanda Ram, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 6 and 7, submits that it was with a fond hope to spread legal education that the 6th respondent had established the Law College, which is the 'first one in the State in private sector. He states that though respondents 6 and 7 have taken all possible steps to maintain the standards, on account of variety of reasons, such as, establishment of large number of Law Co'lleges in private sector, the strength in the Law College started falling down year after year, and it has come to such a minimum level that it is no longer feasible or possible to continue the Law College. He states that before deciding to close the Law College, the 6th respondent had considered all possibilities to continue the same, and only when it had no other alternative, it had decided to close the Law College. He states that the closure of the hostel has absolutely nothing to do with the intake and, at any rate, these respondents are not under obligation to maintain a hostel, whether with its own funds or with the aid of the Government. He strongly pleads that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the impugned order.
10. Smt. L. Sudha Rani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, submits that the Bar Council has considered the representation submitted to it by respondents 6 and 7 from all angles and, only on being satisfied about the genuinely of the request, it had accorded permission for closure of the Law College. She states that once the management of the institution decides to close the same, the Bar Council cannot compel them to run. At any rate, there is no provision to that effect either in the advocates Act or the rules made thereunder.
11. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education submits that it had received application from the management of the Law College seeking permission to close the Law College. According to him, inasmuch as the 1st respondent, which is competent to grant permission either to establish or close the Law Colleges, the role of the State Government is very limited. So far as the compliance of A.P. Education Act is concerned, he submits that the State Government will ensure that the procedure is strictly complied with.
12. Sri T. Rajendra Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra University, the 2nd respondent, submits that the University has a very limited role to play in such matters. He submits that the role of the University in the matters of establishment or closure of Private Law Colleges is almost minimal. It is only as long as the colleges exist, that it has the power to grant or withheld affiliation and to regulate the academic matters in the college.
13. From the contention of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the questions that fall for consideration are -
(1) Whether the petitioners have the locus standi to challenge the course of the Law College and
(2) Whether the closure of the Law College is illegal and suffers from any infirmities
14. As regards the 1st question, the learned Counsel for respondents 6 and 7 has raised serious objections as to the locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the impugned order. He has also raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. This question should not detain the matter for long. Though a private educational institution may be established by an agency on its own accord, once aninstitution is established, the matter ceases to be a purely domestic affair of the management. Educational institutions are permitted to be established to cater to the educational needs of a particular area. It is for this reason that the State Government is conferred with the power to identify the need and the specialised agencies like the Medical Council, AICTE, Bar Council, etc., are conferred with the power to ensure maintenance of standards in the institutions so established. Almost every facet of running of the institution is governed by one provision or the other. The management is given the latitude to manage its affairs, within the framework of law.
15. The learned Counsel for the petitioners is right when he submits that once an institution is permitted to be established, to that extent, it had prevented the other similar institutions to come into existence in that area, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be accorded the complete freedom to abruptly close the institution, at its wish. The A.P. Education Act and the other enactments, which provide for establishment of institutions, contain the provisions prescribing the procedure for closure of institutions. Therefore, when the closure of institutions is not a matter solely dependent on the volition of the educational agency, the affected parties can certainly ensure that the relevant provisions of law are complied with. The staff of a college cannot be said to be lacking locus standi in such matters. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors., : (1983)ILLJ45SC , is sufficient to repel the contention of the learned Counsel for respondents 6 and 7.
16. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi, : AIR1996SC1 , highlighted the importance of legal education in the following terms:
'The need for a continuing and well organised legal education is absolutely essential reckoning the new trends in the world order, to meet the ever growing challenges. The legal education should be able to meet the ever-growing demands of the society and should be thoroughly equipped to cater to the complexities of the different situations. Specialisation in different branches of the law is necessary. The requirement is of such a great dimension, that sizeable or vast number of dedicated persons should be properly trained in different branches of taw, every year by providing or rendering competent and proper legal education. This is possible only if adequate number of law colleges with proper infrastructure including expertise taw teachers and staff are established to deal with the situation in an appropriate manner.'
It is, therefore, evident that establishment or continued existence of colleges of law, is in public interest and steps should be taken, as far as possible, to ensure their existence. When an attempt is made by the teachers, or for that matter, any one, who can be said to have concern in the legal education, the same cannot be thwarted on the ground of locus or maintainability.
17. Now remains the important question as to whether there existed any basis, either for respondents 6 and 7 in deciding to close the Law College, or for the 1st respondent in according permission for the same.
18. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised several grounds in this regard. An attempt was made to demonstrate that there were some procedural irregularities in taking the decision. However, the same could not be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. An argument was advanced stating that though the Law College was established in the private sector, the Government has provided the land andfunds were raised from the public to construct the buildings. It was also alleged that, at one point of time, the Law College was running on profitable lines and some of its funds were diverted to other institutions, run by the 6th respondent. It, however, needs to be noted that as long as the institution continued to be run by the 6th respondent, the various incentives, be it in the form of providing land, advancement funds by UGC, etc., by themselves cannot transform a private institution into public one.
19. It has to be seen whether there existed any ' basis for the 6th respondent to close the Law College. From the letter dated 25-6-2002, addressed by the 6th respondent to various other respondents, it is evident that the only basis pleaded for closing the Law College was the substantial fall and depletion in the strength. The letter inter alia reads as under:-
'We have been also running 3 years B.L., Degree Course as a regular course in the Day College and the admissions in this course also have come down. We have a sanctioned strength of two sections, each 80 students, i.e., 160 students per year. However, we have only 55 students in the II year and 55 students in the III year i.e., 110 students in all instead of the sanctioned strength of 320 students in the II and III years put together. The admissions in the I year have not yet began for 2001-2002 academic year. We presume that the admissions in the I year of the 3 years B.L. Degree regular course of the day college also will further decrease during the current academic year. The admissions in the Law Colleges are generally decreasing year after year on account of varied reasons.
We have also 5 year LLB., Degree Course in the Day College. There were only 12 admissions during 2000-2001 academic year in 5 year LLB., Course whereas the sanctioned strength of students in the class is 80 in number. The following table shows the decreasing admissions.
Academic yearSanctioned
strengthNo. of students admitted
1997-9880651998-9980481999-200080292000-20018012
As such, the Management of the College is incurring huge deficit year after year and it is unable to bear the increasing burden inspite of the best intentions to serve the society and the students at large. The Management has suffered the financial burden as shown hereunder and the Income and Expenditure Statements for the last 3 years besides the projected statement for 2001-2002 are herewith enclosed for your kind perusal.
YearDeficit
1998-1999Rs. 84,812-041999-2000Rs. 6,63,585-852000-2001Rs. 14,95,223-232001-2002Rs. 15,02, 146-00(Projected)
In the light of the above circumstances of decreasing strength of students and increasing financial deficit year after year, we hereby give notice under Section 26 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and also as per G.O. Ms. No.29, Education (Rules) dated 3-2-1987 our intention to close the admissions with effect from the I year of the 3 year regular B.L. Degree Course from 2002-2003 academic year and request you to kindly grant permission for the same.'
20. The petitioners do not dispute the facts and figures furnished by respondents 6 and 7. It is not in the purview of this writ petition to go into the factors that led to the steep fall in the intake of students in the Law College. However, once it is evident that the strength is so uneconomical and it is no longer feasible to continue theinstitution, there is hardly any provision or principle, which enables this Court to compel the continuance of the institution. It was not as if the management did not make an effort to salvage the crisis. The petitioners themselves stated in the affidavit that the management requested the staff to reduce the salary till the situation improves. The request was turned down. The figures furnished above speak for themselves.
21. It should not be forgotten that even where the Government extends grant-in-aid to private institutions, as and when there is fall in the strength, the corresponding posts are withdrawn from grant-in-aid. Admittedly, the Law College is not in receipt of any grant-in-aid. It may be true that the petitioners filed WP No. 3592/97 in this Court seeking a direction to the State Government to admit the Law College to grant-in-aid and the same was allowed with a direction to consider the admission of the Law College into grant-in-aid. However, as long as the Law College has not been admitted to grant-in-aid, the management has to bear the financial loss. As observed earlier, even if the institution is admitted to grant-in-aid, the posts are withdrawn depending on the fall in intake. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the respondents 6 and 7 was without any basis. The allegation as to diversion of funds is refuted respondents 6 and 7. When the intake is so poor, it cannot be said that the closure of the college has affected careers of intending students in the area.
22. The only provisions of the A.P. Education Act the infraction of which is complained is Section 26. The section provides for the procedure to be adopted before completing the closure of the institution. It also provides for punishment for deviation from the procedure. If at all there is any violation, the same has tobe ascertained by the authority conferred with the power and if there exists any violation, it has to entail in the consequences provided for. That exercise cannot be undertaken in the present proceedings.
23. The other allegation is that the notice of closure is not even one year in advance. The management of the institution asserts that such a notice was in fact given and there is no rebuttal of the same.
24. So far as the role of the 1st respondent is concerned, it needs to be observed that its role is confined only to ensure maintenance of proper standards as and when the Law Colleges are established and as long such institutions exist. Just as they cannot compel an individual or agency, or for that matter, even a University to establish a Law College, they cannot compel any one to continue the same, contrary to their convenience. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent has violated any provision of law or laws in according permission to close the Law College.
25. I, therefore, do not see any illegality in the action of the 1st respondent in according permission to close the Law College. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
26. If the petitioners have any complaint/claim/proposal of its own to ensure that the Law College continues to run, it is always open to them to approach the 1st respondent with the same.