HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 12609 OF 2010 . DATED 15th JULY, 2011. BETWEEN Sri Sarvani Educational Society, Lakidam Junction, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram district, Rep. by its Secretary, K.Srinivasa Rao and anr … Petitioners And The Board of Intermediate Education, Rep. by its Secretary, Vidya Bhavan,Hyderabad and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 12609 of 2010 ORDER: The first petitioner-educational society has established a junior college in Gantyada Mandal of Vizianagaram district in the name and style of ‘ Sri KPN Junior College’ (second petitioner herein) commencing from the academic year 2001-2002. The case of the first petitioner-society is that along with the second petitioner-college there is one more Government Junior College and in both the colleges the sanctioned intake strength is not being filled up and about 1/3rd seats remain unfilled in every academic year. It is the further case of the first petitioner-society that notwithstanding the same, the first respondent issued notification in Rc.No. 18/E2-3/2010-11, dated 18.3.2010 calling for the applications to establish new private unaided junior colleges in the identified revenue mandals, Municipal areas in the State and in so far as Vizianagaram District is concerned, out of 24 identified mandals, Gantyada Mandal is one such identified area. It is the grievance of the first petitioner-society that though the sanctioned intake strength in the aforesaid two junior colleges is not being filled up in every academic year, however the first respondent without any justification and without conducting proper survey to identify the educational needs of the subject locality as envisaged under Section 20 of the Education Act, 1982, issued the impugned notification calling for applications for establishing new private unaided junior colleges in the locality of Gantyada mandal. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent-Intermediate Board while denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that based on the SSC pass outs and particulars of admissions made into Intermediate first year course, viability to sanction private un-aided junior colleges was ascertained in mandals in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 114, Higher Education (IE.II) Department, dated 9.8.2000 and G.O.Ms.No. 79, Higher Education (IE.II) Department, dated 21.7.2005. It is further stated that the first respondent-Board has issued the impugned notification for establishment of new private un-aided junior colleges in Andhra Pradesh in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government in this regard and also after conducting a due and proper survey by the competent authority as envisaged under Section 20 of the Education Act, 1982. The impleaded respondent has also filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner- society. It is stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the impugned notification, the impleaded respondent has also submitted its application for permission to establish a new private junior un-aided private college at Kotarubilli junction of Gantyada mandal by enclosing all the necessary documents including the demand drafts towards registration, processing and inspection fee etc.,. The impleaded respondent further asserted that it has already invested huge sums of money in securing land and construction of building , purchasing requisite furniture and other necessary infrastructure, for establishment of a private junior college. The petitioner also filed reply affidavit to the counters of the first and second respondents inter alia denying all the allegations made in their counters. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Board and the learned Counsel for the impleaded second respondent. Perused the entire case file. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit has submitted that the District Educational Officer is not the competent authority to conduct any survey under Section 20 of the AP Education Act, 1968 and in fact no survey has been conducted prior to the issuance of the impugned notification. The learned Counsel further submits that in any event, if permission is granted for establishment of new degree colleges in the Gantyada mandal at this stage, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury and therefore, he sought for a declaration that the impugned notification issued by the first respondent in so far as it relates to Gantyada Mandal in Vizianagaram district is illegal and arbitrary. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Board submits that after conducting the necessary survey as to educational needs and ascertaining viability for sanction of un-aided private junior colleges in Gantyada Mandal, and duly following the guide lines issued by the Government in this regard in G.O.Ms.No. 114, Higher Education, dated 9.8.2001 G.O.Ms.No. 79, dated 21.7.2005, G.O.Ms.No. 5, dated 8.1.2008, G.O.Ms.No. 29, daed 5.2.1987 etc., the impugned notification was issued and therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned notification. The learned Counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the impugned notification. He submits that it is a policy of the government in the filed of education and the scope of judicial review in this regard by this Court is very narrow and limited. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the learned single judge of this Court in the case of General Secretary, Affiliated LP Junior College Vs. Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Health and Education Department, Hyderabad {2002 LAP.0.129}. Section 2(12) of the AP Education, 1982 defines ‘Competent authority’ to mean ‘any person, officer or authority authorized by the Government by notification to perform the functions of the competent authority under this Act for such area or for such pourpose as may be specified in the notification’. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner agued that the District Educational Officer is not the competent authority to conduct a survey as envisaged under Section 20 of the AP Education Act, but he did not place before this Court any authority, notification or rule to substantiate his contention. His submission is that no survey as contemplated under Section 20 of the AP Education Act,1968 was conducted is also liable to be rejected, in as much as the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent placed before this Court the particulars of SSC passouts in Gantyada Mandal during the academic years 2006-07 to 2010-11 in ascertaining the viability to sanction new private un-aided junior college. It may be noticed that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No. 114, dated 9.8.2001 keeping in view the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 13927 of 1999 and a scheme was approved by the Government in the said Government Order. There are sufficient guidelines in the said Government Order subject to which the Board has to process the applications for grant of new colleges and these guidelines would show that the Government have taken sufficient safeguards to avoid unhealthy competition among various private junior colleges and also to ensure certain normative standards for mainstreaming manageable teachers – student ratio while keeping in mind the educational needs of the present day generation. Further, it is to be noticed that when the Government has decided on a policy of establishing as many colleges as required, the petitioner who is running another educational institution cannot come before this Court and contend that no new colleges shall be established within subject locality. Even assuming that no previous permission or survey was conducted, for the sake of argument, but not otherwise, the petitioner would have no locus standi for challenging the impugned notification in as much as no right vested in the petitioner was infringed. As such, when the right of the existing college is not infringed, they have no locus standi to question the impugned notification calling for the applications to establish new private un-aided junior college even if it contrary to the provisions of the statute or the Rules. Literally to say, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned notification issued for establishing of un-aided private junior colleges. In the field of education, as has been held by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions, ordinarily academic matters are outside the purview of judicial review and are not justiciable. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is with regard to a policy decision of the government in the field of education and the scope of judicial review by this court is therefore very narrow and limited. The questions of granting permission for establishment of new colleges etc., are all matters for the education authorities to decide and in the absence of any arbitrariness in the action of the respondents or violation of legal provision, the issue raised in this Writ petition is not amenable to adjudication. Whenever there is a college in a mandal, as a thumb rule, it cannot be said that another college is not viable. All these are matters for the Government and the Board, having regard to so many imponderables and inferences. Even in the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the impleaded respondent in the case of General Secretary, Affiliated LP Junior College (1 supra), a learned single Judge of this Court, while following the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, J.P. Kulashreshta v. Allahabad University, Maharashtra S.B.O.S. and H.S. Education v. Paritosh and State of Uttar Pradesh v. D.K. Singh, wherein it was laid down that the Court will not readily interfere in matters relating to decisions of academic authorities unless the decision taken is ex- facie arbitrary, biased or without jurisdiction and further a policy decision in the field of education ordinarily does not come within the purview of judicial review, unless such policy decision violates a constitutional or legal provision or is tainted with mala fides, elaborately considered the similar issue and held as under: “……….The petitioner is interested in the well-being and viability of the junior colleges started by its members. Though an attempt is made to bring the writ petition within the scope of PIL, to commend a liberal view of locus standi, having regard to the finding on question No. 1, strict standards of locus standi should be applied to this case. In Coastal Papers Limited v. Govt. of India, a Division Bench of this Court held: ... The Supreme Court has held in several licencing cases such as Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N. Teekappa Gowda and Bros and Mithlesh Garg v. Union of India, that where the right of an existing licencee is not infringed, it has no locus standi to question the grant of licence to another person even if it was contrary to the provisions of any statute or Rules... If the appellant should feel that it inadequate, as has been asserted in several representations, then it is a matter for review by the Government. If it is a question of meeting the risk by the subscribers to the capital, clearly it is a point which has to be advertised in the prospectus of the company as one of the external risk factors. If the company feels that this risk factor cannot be managed without government's support, all that we can say is that the appellant has to give way to another applicant who could manage that risk. The submission that arbitrary grant of permissions would result in unviable junior colleges and also low standards in teaching faculty, is without any basis. In any event, such an averment cannot bring the case into those categories of cases where the rule of locus standi can be relaxed. It is apposite to refer to the following observations from a decision of a seven- judge Bench of the apex Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India: Before we part with this general discussion in regard to locus standi, there is one point we would like to emphasize and it is, that cases may arise where there is undoubtedly public injury by the act or omission of the State or a public authority but such act or omission also causes a specific legal injury to an individual or to a specific class or group of individuals. In such cases, a member of the public having sufficient interest can certainly maintain an action challenging the legality of such act or omission, but if the person or specific class or group of persons who are primarily injured as a result of such act or omission do not wish to claim any relief and accept such act or omission willingly and without protest, the member of the public who complains of a secondary public injury cannot maintain the action, for the effect of entertaining the action at the instance of such member of the public would be to foist a relief on the person or specific class or group of persons primarily injured which they do not want. (Emphasis supplied) The petitioner has no locus standi, but this court has examined the issues having regard to the fact that the Government approved the Board's scheme for establishing of junior colleges and establishment of new sections having regard to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 13927 of 1999. In the absence of any illegality or irrationality, the scheme suffers from no infirmity……………” Viewed from any angle, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. For the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------ ------ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 15th July, 2011. Msnro