IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 764 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/07/2008 in WP NO : 4371 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Dharmavanth Junior College Yakuthpura, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Correspondent, Dhonde Rao Jadhav, S/o. Late Sri Hanumantha Rao, R/o. Vikarabad, R.R. Dist. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Government of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Board of Intermediate Education A.P., Hyderabad. Rep. by its Secretary, Opp: to lata Talkies, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Regional Inspection Officer (Twin Cities) Board of Intermediate Education Premises of Mahabubia Junior College, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.A.VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Division Bench of this Full text of Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 764 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 22-07-2008 passed in WP.No. 4371 of 2008 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge while dismissing the main writ petition observed that the appellant-writ petitioner has to comply the defects as pointed out by the second respondent and make a fresh application for grant of affiliation. 2. The main writ petition was filed for a writ of certiorari relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent-Board of Intermediate Education, A.P. Hyderabad in Proceedings RC.No. 28083/E3-1/1969-70 dated 02-1-2008 and consequential proceedings of the third respondent in RC.No. 114/R/O (TC)/DIE dated 18-2-2008 and RC.No.114/R/O (TC)/DIE dated 19-2-2008 and to quash the same by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and the well established principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Rule 11 (2) of the AP Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules 1987. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned proceedings dated 02-1-2008 passed by the second respondent are in clear violation of mandatory provision of Rule 11 (2) of the AP Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules 1987 and that the respondents have received affiliation fee every year from 2005-06 onwards and so far they never rejected the application of the appellant seeking renewal of affiliation and hence the said action of the respondents amounts to granting affiliation. Moreover, the permission and recognition of the appellant-college was never cancelled or withdrawn by the competent authority and hence the question of making application for affiliation does not arise. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant college was established as long back as on 1967-70 and there was no requirement of payment of any corpus fund as per the rules then in vogue and more so the authorities never insisted on payment of corpus fund. Further the learned counsel drew attention of this Court that the appellant-college did not commit any mistake in making admission of the students and thereby the demand of penalty of Rs.1,00,000-00 per year from 2005-06 onwards is quite arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Education Act and the Rules made thereunder. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education submitted that the contention of the appellant-college that from the academic year 2005-06 onwards is being run as private unaided Junior College under the management of Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad, is not tenable. The appellant-college has not submitted any representation to run the college as private unaided one by paying the amount through FDR towards Corpus fund in the Joint account of DVEO Hyderabad and the Secretary and Correspondent of the college and by appointing unaided teaching staff and not fulfilled the conditions prescribed for sanction of unaided private junior college. The appellant college continued un-authorizedly since 2005-06 concealing the orders of the Commissioner, Board of Intermediate Education that the college was closed in June 2005. Moreover the provisional affiliation has been issued for the academic year 2005-06 by the second respondent for four subjects with one section in English and Telugu Media is not correct. The learned Government Pleader has taken this Court with regard to the four conditions as per Rule 13 (2) of GO.Ms.No. 29, Edn. (Rules), dated 05-2-1987: (i) The provisional affiliation was extended subject to fulfillment stipulated conditions as per Board rules. (ii) It will not be considered as valid unless the management fulfills the conditions and final orders will be issued by the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education. (iii) The provisional affiliation cannot be taken as an authority for further extension of affiliation. It is valid only for the current academic year. (iv) This orders will not confer any right on the management for claiming right of affiliation for any previous years. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the appellant- college had no affiliation as on the date of issuance of the impugned proceedings. The temporary affiliation of the appellant had with the second respondent expired by 2005-06 and there is no affiliation granted by the second respondent for the academic year 2006-07. That was the reason for granting attendance exemptions to the students who appeared for the examination through the appellant college after collecting the penalty. For running an unaided Junior College, the above conditions are required to be fulfilled. Further the Regional Inspection Officer informed the appellant to pay certain penalties for violation of Rule 14. From the correspondence between the appellant and the Commissioner as well as the Board of Intermediate Education it is clear that appellant college failed to comply the defects pointed out for grant of affiliation. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-college as well as the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, one of the reason for our disinclination to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge is that the appellant-college failed to comply the defects pointed out for grant of affiliation and make a fresh application for grant of affiliation. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-college and the finding of the learned Single Judge, we are the of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. If the appellant-college is inclined to make a fresh application for grant of affiliation, in which event the respondent has to consider the same in accordance with the Rules applicable and pass appropriate orders. 6. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 16-6-2009 I s L