IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 360 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/11/2000 in WP NO : 3592 OF 1997 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Govt of A.P Rep by its Principal Secretary Education Dept , Secretariat , Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Collegiate Education Govt of A.P Nampally, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 C.R.R. Law College Employees Asscociation Rep bby its Secretary Ch.N. Manikyala Rao Reg.No.83/97 , Eluru , W.G.Dist. 2 C.R.R. Law College . Rep by its Secretary /Correspondent , Eluru , W.G.Dist. 3 C.R.Reddy Law College Rep by its Secretary/ Correspondent Eluru , W.G.Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A.NO. 360 OF 2001 ORDER: (Per Smt. T. Meena Kumari, J) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 30.11.2000 passed by a learned single Judge in WP No. 3592 of 1997 whereby a direction was given to the Government to admit the 3rd respondent-college to grant-in- aid with effect from 22.7.1985, the date on which Act 22 of 1988 came into force and release necessary funds from the said date. The 3rd respondent-law college applied for admission to grant-in-aid. It fulfilled the criteria laid down under the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time and also under the provisions of the Act 22 of 1988. The Government considered the matter and issued an order on 2.11.1995 rejecting the case of the 3rd respondent-college for grant-in-aid on the ground that it is a professional college and it is not covered by the provisions of A.P. Education Act and the A.P. Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-Aid (Regulation) Act, 1988 (Act No. 22 of 1988) which the learned single Judge did not accept and directed the Government to admit the 3rd respondent-college to grant-in- aid. Although many grounds were taken in the memorandum of appeal, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submits that the 3rd respondent-college is not functioning for the last three years and no students have been allotted. This is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and he submits that the respondents are making efforts to start a fresh college. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned single Judge has to be modified to the extent that the Government shall consider admitting the 3rd respondent-Sir C.R. Reddy Law College to grant-in- aid as and when a fresh application is made by the respondents in case a fresh college is started and dispose of it in accordance with law. The order of the learned single Judge is accordingly modified. With the above modification, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Dt.14.7.2008 KR ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {LOBIS}