BHARATI VIDYAPEETH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD all the learned Counsel; Shri Anturkar for the petitioner, Smt. Gokhale for respondent No. 1 and Shri Ketkar for respondent No. 2. None appears for respondent No. 3, though served.

(2.) THIS is a petition by Bharati Vidyapeeth, which is a public charitable trust registered in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is also a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petition relates to the permission to start a morning Law College, at Sangli, which is a District Headquarter in Maharashtra. The petition is for a writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 and 2 State of Maharashtra and Shivaji University respectively to grant permission and affiliation to the said Law College in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The third respondent Bar Council of India, New Delhi, is a statutory body constituted under section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961. One of the functions of the Bar Council of India (for short, B. C. I.) is to promote legal education and to lay down the standards for such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. Under section 7 (1) of the Advocates Act, it is also the function of the B. C. I. to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State Bar Councils to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with such directions as it may give in this behalf.

(3.) WHAT the petitioner contends is that despite the Shivaji University (for short, "the University") having initially recommended its proposal for starting the Law College, at Sangli for the academic years 1994-95 and 1995-96 and despite the B. C. I. having granted permission to the petitioner to start the Law College, at Sangli, for teaching three years course with morning classes from the academic year 1996-97, no decision was taken either by respondent No. 1 State or by respondent No. 2 University in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The relevant facts are as under :