2007 (7) TMI 636 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Management of the College is under any constitutional or legal obligation to provide legal education irrespective of its inability to manage the Law College.
2. Whether the provisions of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, mandate any prior permission to closedown the educational institution.
3. Whether there is any requirement in law to seek permission from the Bar Council of India to closedown a Law College.
4. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the Bar Council of India in granting approval to the Management of the College to closedown the Law College.
5. Scope of writ of mandamus in this context.

Summary:

1. Constitutional or Legal Obligation to Provide Legal Education:
The court examined whether the Management of the College is under any constitutional or legal obligation to provide legal education despite its inability to manage the Law College. It was noted that the Management of the College had undertaken to run the 5-year LL.B. degree course until the present batch of students completed their studies, despite financial burdens. The court concluded that there is no right vested in the appellants/petitioners to insist on the continuance of the Law College, nor is the Management of the College under any legal or constitutional obligation to run the Law College irrespective of financial viability.

2. Prior Permission u/s A.P. Education Act, 1982:
The court analyzed whether the A.P. Education Act, 1982 mandates any prior permission to closedown the educational institution. Section 26 of the Act mandates that no private institution shall be closed down unless a notice of not less than one academic year is given. The court found that the Management of the College issued the required notice, and the contention that the College cannot be closed down without prior approval or permission of the competent authority is not well-founded.

3. Requirement of Permission from Bar Council of India:
The court considered whether there is any requirement in law to seek permission from the Bar Council of India to closedown a Law College. It was noted that the Bar Council of India's role is to ensure the maintenance of standards in legal education, and there is no provision or procedure obligating an institution to obtain prior permission to closedown. The request made by the Management of the College was in the nature of information furnished to the Bar Council of India not to extend its approval of affiliation.

4. Principles of Natural Justice:
The court examined whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the Bar Council of India in granting approval to the Management of the College to closedown the Law College. It concluded that since there is no requirement in law to apply for and obtain any permission from the Bar Council of India to closedown any Law College, the appellants/petitioners are not entitled to any prior notice or hearing from the Bar Council of India.

5. Scope of Writ of Mandamus:
The court discussed the scope of writ of mandamus and concluded that under the guise of challenging the orders passed by the Bar Council of India, the appellants/petitioners are virtually asking for a writ of mandamus directing the Management of the College to continuously run the Law College irrespective of the inconvenience and financial implications involved. The court cannot issue any such mandamus compelling any private management to perform an impossible act.

Conclusion:
The writ appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed without costs.