BAJRANG VIDHYALAYA SAMITI DEEG Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Samiti has challenged the order dated 22. 03. 2005 whereby the No Objection Certificate ('noc', for short) issued by the Commissioner, College Education, jaipur Rajasthan has been cancelled.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are in narrow compass: the petitioner Samiti was established in 1943 with the object of imparting education. Wanting to establish a Private Law college in Deeg, on 29. 03. 2004, the petitioner submitted an application to the Commissioner, College Education for grant of permission. The petitioner felt that it will be in the interest of people of Bharatpur District that a Law College be established in Deeg as there was a single Law College functioning at bharatpur. Therefore, the Law College at Deeg could cater to a large portion of District Bharatpur. Vide letter dated 07. 07. 2004, the Commissioner, College Education issued a temporary NOC. The petitioner was permitted to open a Law college for the academic session 2004-05. The college was run in the name and style of Shri Bajrang Vidhi Mahavidhyalaya, deeg, Bharatpur. On two different occasions, the college was inspected. The first time by the Principal, M. S. J. College, bharatpur and second time by Shri Kishan Meena, Retired principal College Education. On the basis of inspection reports, the University of Rajasthan issued a provisional affiliation. While applying to the Bar Council of India for its approval, petitioner submitted the NOC of the State Government, the affiliation Letter of the University of Rajasthan as well as deposited Rs. 50,000/- with the Bar Council. The said application was duly forwarded by the Deputy Registrar (Acad.) to the Bar council of India. Subsequently, the petitioner had also deposited Rs. 50,000/- with the Bar Council of India as fees for the approval and for granting affiliation to the Law College. Since the academic session was coming to end in March, 2005, vide letter dated 04. 03. 2005, the Commissioner, College education extended the period of temporary NOC by another six months. However, while doing so, the Commissioner laid down certain conditions which were required to be fulfilled by the petitioner. One of the conditions was that the College would get the approval of the Bar Council of India and would follow the guidelines issued by the Bar Council of India. However, since the petitioner was not following the said condition, vide letter dated 19. 03. 2005 the Commissioner issued show-cause notice for cancellation of the NOC. According to the show-cause notice, the petitioner was informed that it was neither affiliated with the University of Rajasthan, nor it gotten its approval from the Bar Council of India. Therefore, it was asked to show reason why the temporary NOC should not be cancelled. Immediately on 26. 03. 2005, the petitioner informed the Commissioner that the College was already affiliated to the University of rajasthan. Further, it has already applied for the approval of the Bar Council of India. However, notwithstanding, the explanation given by the petitioner, vide letter dated 22. 03. 2005, the Commissioner cancelled the NOC. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) MR. Suresh Pareek, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in order to impart legal education in Bharatpur district, the petitioner had established a private law College. While establishing the College, the petitioner had incurred lot of expenses. Therefore, the founding of the College would be in the interest of the students and the people of bharatpur District. Secondly, the petitioner's Private College was already affiliated with the University of Rajasthan. It had also applied for the approval of the Bar Council of India. It had even deposited the requisite fees. Therefore, for the lethargy and inefficiency of the Bar Council of India, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Hence, the Commissioner was not justified in passing the impugned order.