BABA EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION BADVEL Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION SAIFABAD HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 30-12-1996 and 7-1-97 as arbitrary and contrary to the judgment ofthis Court in W.P.No.17731 of 1996 dated 11-9-1996.

(2.) The case arises under the following circumstances :The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, with registration number 277/90. The object of the Society was to impart education and to establish various educational institutions. While so, the Government issued notification dated 6-1-1996 under Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act'), inviting applications from individuals or bodies for establishing Degree Colleges. In pursuance of the said notification, keeping in view the object of the Society, an application was made by the petitioner on 31-1-1996 seeking permission for establishment of the Degree College at Gopavaram town, which is a Mandal Head Quarters in Cuddapah district. The petitioner furnished bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs and also offered fixed deposit of Rs. 13 lakhs evidencing availability of finances for construction of buildings, etc. A document proposing to purchase 10 acres of land, a lease deed of temporary accommodation in Badvel town, and rough plans of the building were also submitted. It is the case of the petitioner that it obtained about 6000 Sq.ft. of land for temporary accommodation of the college. But, however, this fact was not brought to the notice of the authorities when the application was made initially. In the nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that it fulfilled that all the conditions prescribed for grant of permission for establishing Degree College. While so, the Joint Inspection Committee inspected the premises on 4-6-1996 and had recommended for grant of permission to establish a Degree College for the academic year 1996-97. On 12-8-1996, the petitioner submitted further documents with regard to the lease deed for 8190 Sq.ft. No Objection Certificate from the Gram Panchayat and photographs of the building sought to be taken on lease. However, the Respondent No.l issued proceedings on 20-8-1996 stating that it was not possible to grant permission for the academic year 1996-97 and the application was rejected by the Council for the reason that 'the building in which the college is proposed to be located is found unsuitable/inadequate'. Against the said order of the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17731/1996 and this Court was convinced that the petitioner made out a case for grant of permission to establish a Degree College and accordingly quashed the order dated 20-8-1996 and directed the respondent to consider the matter afresh. Since no action was taken in pursuance of the this Court, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act and filed C.C.No. 1512/96 and the same is pending. While so, on 4-1-1997, the petitioner-Society received proceedings dated 30-12-1996 rejecting the application of the petitioner for the following reasons : "1. The building lease is furnished by the Society for 11 months only against 5 years. No documentary evidence has been produced for five years. 2. The lease document is incomplete, unregistered and understamped. 3. The Photographs submitted show 10 rooms in total, whereas in the lease agreement they have mentioned as houses which is totally false and misleading. 4. The college cannot have 180 working days even if permission is granted."Questioning the said proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that in the earlier writ petition, all these issues were considered by this Court and the Court was convinced that a case was made out for grant of permission and that the very same objections are being raised in the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner submits that it is purely a case of mala fide action on the part of the 1st respondent. It is also the case of the petitioner that apart from 1st respondent, 2nd inspection was also done by the committee consisting of Deans of Academic Council and College Developmental Council of S.V. University of Tirupathi, on 30-10-1996 and submitted a report to the Council in November, 1996, recommending grant of permission to the petitioner. Even this recommendation was given a go-bye and the present impugned order is passed. It is also the case of the petitioner with regard to the fourth reason that only 180 working days are available, and therefore, permission for the academic year 1996-97 is not feasible of compliance and the said reasoning is not correct inasmuch as the Government granted permission on 30-11-1995 to S.B.V.D. Sabha Committee, Pullampet, Cuddapah district. The petitioner also submits that the Chairman of the 1st respondent-Council took exception to the action of the petitioner in approaching the High Court and obtaining orders. Therefore, it is a case of mala fide exercise of power. The petitioner further submits that he has taken building on lease and invested huge amounts and it would cause irreparable loss if the permission is not granted to the petitioner.

(3.) However, after filing the writ petition, the 1st respondent issued under proceedings dated 7-1-1997 in continuation of earlier proceedings dated 30-12-1996, giving some more reasons. Therefore, the petitioner also filed another application seeking permission to amend the prayer assailing proceedings dated 7-1-1997 also, on the ground that the reasons given in the said proceedings are fully untenable and they are nothing but elaboration of the earlier reasons. It is further submitted that this itself shows the attitude of the 1st respondent in dealing with the matter.