1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7267/2005 Shri Bajrang Vidhyalaya Samiti, Deeg Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :- 17th August, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Suresh Pareek, for the petitioner. Mr.R.P. Singh, AAG for the State. The petitioner Samiti has challenged the order dated 22.03.2005 whereby the No Objection Certificate ('NOC', for short) issued by the Commissioner, College Education, Jaipur Rajasthan has been cancelled. The brief facts of this case are in narrow compass: the petitioner Samiti was established in 1943 with the object of imparting education. Wanting to establish a Private Law College in Deeg, on 29.03.2004, the petitioner submitted an application to the Commissioner, College Education for grant of permission. The petitioner felt that it will be in the interest of people of Bharatpur District that a Law College be established in Deeg as there was a single Law College functioning at Bharatpur. Therefore, the Law College at Deeg could cater to a large portion of District Bharatpur. Vide letter dated 07.07.2004, the Commissioner, College Education issued a temporary NOC. The petitioner was permitted to open a Law 2 College for the academic session 2004-05. The college was run in the name and style of Shri Bajrang Vidhi Mahavidhyalaya, Deeg, Bharatpur. On two different occasions, the college was inspected. The first time by the Principal, M.S.J. College, Bharatpur and second time by Shri Kishan Meena, Retired Principal College Education. On the basis of inspection reports, the University of Rajasthan issued a provisional affiliation. While applying to the Bar Council of India for its approval, petitioner submitted the NOC of the State Government, the Affiliation Letter of the University of Rajasthan as well as deposited Rs.50,000/- with the Bar Council. The said application was duly forwarded by the Deputy Registrar (Acad.) to the Bar Council of India. Subsequently, the petitioner had also deposited Rs.50,000/- with the Bar Council of India as fees for the approval and for granting affiliation to the Law College. Since the academic session was coming to end in March, 2005, vide letter dated 04.03.2005, the Commissioner, College Education extended the period of temporary NOC by another six months. However, while doing so, the Commissioner laid down certain conditions which were required to be fulfilled by the petitioner. One of the conditions was that the College would get the approval of the Bar Council of India and would follow the guidelines issued by the Bar Council of India. However, since the petitioner was not following the said condition, vide letter dated 19.03.2005 the Commissioner issued show-cause notice for cancellation of the NOC. According to the show-cause 3 notice, the petitioner was informed that it was neither affiliated with the University of Rajasthan, nor it gotten its approval from the Bar Council of India. Therefore, it was asked to show reason why the temporary NOC should not be cancelled. Immediately on 26.03.2005, the petitioner informed the Commissioner that the College was already affiliated to the University of Rajasthan. Further, it has already applied for the approval of the Bar Council of India. However, notwithstanding, the explanation given by the petitioner, vide letter dated 22.03.2005, the Commissioner cancelled the NOC. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Suresh Pareek, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in order to impart legal education in Bharatpur district, the petitioner had established a private Law College. While establishing the College, the petitioner had incurred lot of expenses. Therefore, the founding of the College would be in the interest of the students and the people of Bharatpur District. Secondly, the petitioner's Private College was already affiliated with the University of Rajasthan. It had also applied for the approval of the Bar Council of India. It had even deposited the requisite fees. Therefore, for the lethargy and inefficiency of the Bar Council of India, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Hence, the Commissioner was not justified in passing the impugned order. 4 On the other hand, Mr. R.P. Singh, the learned AAG, has strenuously argued that in order to make money, Law Colleges are mushrooming all over Rajasthan. The intention of the petitioner is not to impart education, but to generate income for itself. Because of the uncontrolled sprouting of the Law Colleges, it was felt necessary that the Law Colleges be required to be affiliated to a University and be required to obtain the approval of the Bar Council of India. In the present case, since the petitioner's Private College did not have the approval of the Bar Council of India, therefore, the Commissioner was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The education may be in the interest of people, legal literacy is the need of our, but in the garb of educating people, schools and colleges cannot be permitted to mushroom without any control or supervision. Afterall the state is duty bound to ensure that certain standard of education is maintained throughout the State. While issuing the temporary NOC vide order dated 07th July, 2004 certain conditions were imposed upon the petitioner, Samiti. One of the conditions namely condition No.9, clearly stipulated that the petitioner, Samiti would give admission to the students only after being approved by the Bar Council of India. And it was further stipulated that the petitioner, Samiti would be bound by the guidelines 5 established by the Bar Council of India. According to the Bar Council of India Act, one of the duties imposed upon the Bar Council of India is to ensure that legal education is imparted while keeping certain standard in mind. Considering the supervisory role that the Bar Council of India, the order granting temporary NOC had imposed the condition as mentioned above. In order to fulfill the said condition, of course the petitioner, Samiti had applied to the Bar Council of India. But, the approval was not granted by the Bar Council of India till passing of the impugned order. Hence in the absence of the approval by the Bar Council of India, the Commissioner was certainly justified in cancelling the temporary NOC. According to Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961 the one of the functions of the Bar Council of India “to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils.” Moreover, according to Section 7(1)(i) “to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrollment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State Bar Councils to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with such directions as it may give in this behalf.” In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki