1. Heard Mr. N. Sridhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ petitioner -Appellant, the learned Additional Advocate-General for the 1st respondent, Mr. Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Kakatiya University-2nd respondent and Mr. Satyam Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3.
2. Petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein. It is an Educational Society running a Degree College in Madhira, Khammam District, affiliated to the Kakatiya University, the second respondent herein. The third respondent herein is another Educational Society running a High School and a Junior College in Madhira. While so, the third respondent applied for permission to the first respondent, the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education, A.P., Hyderabad to start a new Degree College in Madhira to run B.Sc., and B.Com. (Computer) Courses. Resisting grant of permission on various grounds, the appellant filed a representation dated 4.5.2001 before the first respondent. As the said representation was not disposed of, he filed a Writ petition being W.P.No.9464 of 2003 which was disposed of by an order dated 15.5.2001 with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the judgment. It has filed another writ petition being W.P.No. 11264 of 2001 on the ground that the representation was not disposed of by the respondents as directed by this Court. By order dated 12th June, 2001, this Court disposed of the said -Writ petition at the admission stage itself directing the first respondent to consider the representation/ objections of the petitioner dated 4.5.2001 before any permission is granted to the third respondent herein. Subsequently, the first respondent passed proceedings dated 6.7.2001 granting permission to the third respondent herein to start the new Degree College. Challenging the grant of permission, the appellant herein filed yet another writ petition being W.P.No. 14124 of 2001. This Court by order dated 12.7.2001 granted interim suspension of the proceedings dated 6.7.2001 passed by the first respondent. In view of the same, by proceedings dated 16.7.2001 the first respondent issued directions keeping the proceedings dated 6.7.2001 in-abeyance. Inspite of the fact that the proceedings dated 6.7.2001 were kept in abeyance, the third respondent invited applications and admitted students in the new College. Aggrieved by the said action, the appellant filed W.P.No. 17930 of 2001 seeking a direction to prevent the third respondent to run the College. The learned single Judge, clubbed both the Writ Petitions 14124 and 17930 of 2001 together and by a common judgment dated 14.12.2001 dismissed both the writ petitions. Challenging the same, the present writ Appeal is filed.
3. Mr. Sridhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the directions issued by this Court on earlier occasions to consider and dispose of the objections raised by the Appellant-Society have not been followed by the respondents at all and no orders were passed disposing of the representation. Our attention was drawn to the order dated 15.5.2001 passed by one of us (I. Venkatanarayana, J.) in W.P.No. 9461 of 2001 and the other order dated 12th June, 2001 passed by Gopal Reddy, J., in W.P. No. 11264 of 2001 respectively. Gopal Reddy, J., while referring to the orders dated 15.5.2001 passed by Venkatanarayana, J., directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 4.5.2001 filed by the Appellant herein within a period of six weeks, observed that in view of the direction given in W.P.No. 9461 of 2000, the respondents are under obligation to dispose of the objections filed by the Appellant before granting permission to the 3rd respondent to start a new Degree College. The learned Judge, however, did not express any opinion on the merits of the matter. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the directions issued by this Court in both the writ petitions have not been complied with and by the impugned orderdated 6-7-2001, the first respondent accorded permission for starting a private unaided degree college from the academic year 2001-2002.
4. Mr. Sridhar Reddy, further submits that in the order impugned in the writ petition there is a mention of W.P.No. 8636 of 2001 in the reference 3rd cited and nowhere there is any mention of the representation dated 4.5.2001 which itself clearly shows that the respondents have not considered the objections raised by the appellant herein nor complied with the two earlier orders passed by this Court. Hence it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondents in their proceedings dated 6.7.2001 without any reference to the objections made by the Writ petitioner and without compliance with the directions issued by this Court in the two earlier orders is bad in law and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Our attention was also drawn to G.O.Ms.No.29 Education (Rules) dated 5.2.1987 by which the Government of Andhra Pradesh have framed rules called A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987. Inviting our attention to Rule 4 of the said Rules, Mr. Sridhar Reddy vehemently contended that if in the opinion of the competent authority, opening of a new institution is likely to create unhealthy and undesirable competition with another institution of the same class/category in the area, no permission shall be granted. It is further argued that permission for the establishment of any of the educational institutions mentioned in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 or opening of additional courses in any existing educational institution shall be granted only if the conditions laid down in Section 2 of the Act are satisfied and after obtaining the prior approval of the Commissionerate under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986. Mr. Reddy also submitted that that even the college run by the appellant-society is not getting required number of students and when that is the situation, granting permission to another college to start a similar institution in the same area will create only an unhealthy and undesirable competition between the appellant and the third respondent.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General and the learned Counsel appearing for the University and the third respondent-College submitted that the contentions put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant have no merit and that the said contentions are not only against the real state of affairs but also opposed to the factual aspects which have been considered by the learned single Judge in the impugned order under appeal. Our attention was specifically drawn to paragraph 2 of the additional counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent herein wherein it is clearly stated that by oversight, in the impugned proceedings dated 6-7-2001, at reference 3rd cited, W.P.No.8636 of 2001 was wrongly mentioned. In fact in its place W.P.Nos.9461 and 11264 of 2001 dated 15-5-2001 and 12.6.2001 respectively ought to have been mentioned. The first respondent, at the outset, has also expressed his regrets for the mistake crept in the impugned order. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 9461 and 11264 of 2001, the first respondent requested the University to constitute an Inspection Team and to look into the representation of the appellant-institution and also the need of the locality before granting permission for a new degree college. Accordingly the Kakatiya University constituted an Inspection Team and that Committee personally visited Madhira town and verified all the aspects and submitted a report recommending for grant of permission. Accordingly, basing on the report of the Experts' Committee, by the impugned proceedings dated 6-7-2001 the permission was granted to the 3rd respondent It is also stated that the 3rd respondent applied for new courses in the existing college viz., (B.Sc. Maths, Electronics, Computer Sciences) and B.Sc. (Maths, Statistics and Computer Sciences) etc., for the academic year 2001-2002 and that the first respondent also granted permission which itself speaks that there is need for new courses and new colleges. It is further stated that the courses permitted to the third respondent-college are entirely different from the courses sanctioned to the appellant-society and this was done so as to prevent any unhealthy competition among the colleges in the local area.
6. The first respondent has also filed a detailed counter-affidavit in the writ petition. It is useful to refer to Para 8 of the counter-affidavit dated 27th September, 2001 in order to appreciate the events that took place insofar as granting of permission to the third respondent college and also to apprepiate the stand taken by the first respondent. It is better to reproduce Sub-clauses (i) to (xvi) of paragraph 8, which read thus:
(i) "In response to the advertisement issued by A.P.State Council of Higher Education on 17.2.2001 in prominent newspapers, Bhargavi Educational Society, Madhira had submitted their proposal on 15.3.2001 for starting a new private unaided degree college in Madhira during the academic year 2001-2002. The date for receipt of application form was 15.3.2001.
(ii) The management of Suseela Memorial Degree Colleges (sponsored by Sri Teja Educational Society) an existing college in Madhira has submitted a representation on 4.5.2001 to A.P. State Council of Higher Education requesting not to grant permission to any other college at Madhira, as there is no viability for another college.
(iii) The proposal of the said society based on the report of the Scrutiny Committee dated 12.5.2001 was recommended by APSCHE for sending a Joint Inspection Committee.
(iv) Kakatiya University was requested to arrange Joint Inspection to Bhargavi Educational Society (Appl.No.214) along with other proposals on22.5.2001. The University was also requested to examine the representation made by Sri Teja Educational Society, Madhira.
(v) The Management of Sri Teja Educational Society, Madhira filed two writ petitions in Honourable High Court, Andhra Pradesh seeking direction to APSCHE not to grant any new college in Madhira.
(vi) The Honourable High Court in W.P.No. 9461 of 2001 dated 15.5.2001 directed A.P. State Council of Higher Education to consider and dispose of the representation of Sri Teja Educational Society sponsors of Suseela Memorial Degree College, Madhira within a period of 6 weeks.
(vii) The Honourable High Court in W.P.No. 11264 of 2001 dated 12.6.2001 without expressing any opinion whatsoever regarding the need to establish any new college at Madhira directed APSCHE to consider the representation/objections of Sri Teja Educational Society before any permission is granted to establishment of a new college in Madhira.
(viii) A.P. State Council of Higher .Education requested the authorities of Kakatiya University on 13.6.2001 to examine the contents in the representation of Sri Teja Educational Society and the directions of Honourable High Court in W.P.No.9461 of 2001 and W.P.No. 11264 of 2001 before recommending starting of a college at Madhira.
(ix) The proposed college of Bargavi Educational Society was inspected by a Joint Inspection Committee on 7.6.2001. The proposal was rejected by Kakatiya University on the ground that infrastructural facilities are not available in the rented building shown for the proposed college. Since the proposal is rejected the viability for starting another college at Madhira was not examined, Kakatiya University has sent the reports to A.P. State Council of Higher Education on 14.6.2001.
(x) The representation of the Management of Bhargavi Educational Society dated 23.6.2001 and duly endorsed by Vice-Chancellor of Kakatiya University on 25.6.2001 was considered for re-inspection since the Management has produced evidence of having provided accommodation for the proposed college in their own building constructed in the land of the society.
(xi) Kakatiya University conducted re-inspection to Bhargavi Educational Society on 27.6.2001. Based on the report of the re-inspection committee Kakatiya University recommended the proposal of said society for starting a new degree college of Madhira during 2001-2002.
(xii) Immediately Kakatiya University has constituted an expert committee to assess the viability to run a new private degree college at Madhira. The committee's report was sent to A.P. State Council of Higher Education on 2.7.2001. The committee having surveyed and studied the existing position at Madhira and expressed their opinion that starting of another Degree College will no way create unhealthy and undesirable competition and also opined that there is requirement for another college in view of availability of students.
(xiii) The re-inspection report and expert committee report were referred to legal opinion. Based on the recommendation of the legal expert of APSCHE permission was granted to Bhargavi Educational Society, Madhira on 6.7.2001 to start a new private degree college during the academic year 2001-2002.
(xiv) The Honourable High Court, A.P. in W.P.M.P.N0. 17667 of 2001 dated 12.7.2001 suspended the operation of the permission order issued by APSCHE to Bhargavi Educational Society.
(xv) The Court order was immediately implemented keeping the permission order in abeyance. The same was communicated to Bhargavi Educational Society, Madhira on 6.7.2001 under a copy marked to Kakatiya University.
(xvi) The representation of Sri Teja Educational Society dated 26.7.2001 against the Management of Bhargavi Education Society that they have admitted students and running classes was sent to Kakatiya University on 31.7.2001 with a request to examine the matter and to take necessary action immediately."
7. A perusal of all the details and the chronological events mentioned above would clearly go to show that the respondents have meticulously followed the procedure and the provisions of the Act and also complied with the directions issued by this Court on two earlier occasions and after due examination of the contents in the representation of the appellant-educational society only granted permission for starting of a new college by the third respondent A detailed statement has also been made in Sub-para (ix) of para 8 in regard to the inspection made by a Joint Inspection Committee on 7.6.2001 and also re-inspection made on a subsequent date. We have perused the inspection report and the re-inspection report and the report submitted by the Experts' Committee. The reports of re-inspection and Expert Committee were referred to legal opinion. Based on the recommendation of the legal expert of APSCHE, permission was granted to the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 6.7.2001 to start a new Private Degree College during the academic year 2001-2002.
8. The third respondent also filed a counter-affidavit in regard to its application for permission to start a new Degree College to run B.Sc., and B.Com. (Computer) Courses. In our opinion, the appellant-society cannot have any grievance because of the permission granted to the third respondent in accordance with the rules. In our view, the contention of the appellant that the permission is contrary to the rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 5-2-1987 is not correct. A perusal of the report submitted by the authorities would go to show that it is not correct to contend that there is no potential to start another decree college at Madhira. It is stated in Para 5 of the counter-affidavit that there are about 5 Junior Colleges with a total strength of 2,500 students apart from private candidates. For all these students there is only one Degree College which has the sanctioned strength of 60 seats only in B.Sc., (MFC) whereas more than 700 students are therein MPC in Intermediate. There is also a Government College which has only Arts and B.Com. General subjects and there is no Science or Computer Course offered by the Government Degree College. Because of this, the third respondent has applied for permission to start B.Sc., (MPC) English and Telugu Media, B.Sc., (Microbiology) and B.Com. (Computers). We are of the view that there is every justification for the third respondent for starting another Degree College and there is no justification on the part of the appellant to oppose the same.
9. We have perused the entire pleadings and the provisions of the Act and the guidelines issued by the Government and also the regulations for the conduct of business of the A.P. State Council of Higher Education. In our view, the rules framed in G.O. Ms. No.29 dated 5.2.1987 have been fully complied with. The rule only says that there should be no permission in cases where it would lead to an unhealthy competition and where educational needs of the locality are adequately served. As stated earlier, the educational needs of the locality are not adequately served and, therefore, the permission to start a new Degree College with B.Sc. and B.Com. (Computers) has been granted to the third respondent. The Inspecting body has also taken into consideration the relevant factors and only thereafter has recommended for sanction of the College to the third respondent. When an Expert Body submits an inspection report that there is feasibility for starting another Degree College, it is not proper for this Court to sit in appeal over the recommendations made by the said Committee. In fact on the recommendations of the Joint Inspection Committee and the Vice-Chancellor of Kakatiya University, Warangal, only the permission was accorded to the 3rd respondent for starting a new Degree College. It is also not in disputes that the 3rd respondent-college has well equipped campus with its own building and playgrounds and teaching staff and that it is located in the center of the town. It can be seen from the records produced before us that after grant of permission by the first respondent, the third respondent also admitted 110 students in these new courses, which goes to show that there is adequate demand for starting another Degree College in the area in question. Once, permission is granted from the first respondent, the second respondent would have to grant affiliation to the new college and the said action of the 2nd respondent cannot be found fault with. In our view, it is not for the appellant-society to say that the educational needs of the student community in the area in question are already met by their college and, therefore, starting of another college there would create an unhealthy competition. In fact, as could be seen from the Inspection Reports and other records that there is a big gap between the needs of the students and the present facilities which gap has to be filled up by granting permission to another Degree College and accordingly permission has been granted to the third respondent to start a new Degree College which cannot be found fault with. The learned single Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter and also gave categorical findings by the impugned judgment that the authorities have objectively assessed the need and permitted the third respondent to start a Degree College which in his opinion cannot be termed as arbitrary and illegal.
10. We, entirely agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. In our opinion, there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.