Allowed

Siva Educational and Social Service Society, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Nov 2021WP/32159/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order rejecting an application for establishing a private degree college due to alleged deficiencies. The Court held that the rejection was invalid as no notice specifying deficiencies or opportunity to address them was issued, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh application. Reference was made to Section 20(1) of the A

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19.09.2013 set aside; petitioner directed to submit fresh application within two weeks; respondents directed to consider and pass order within four weeks.

Siva Educational and Social Service Society… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32159 of 2013

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Lr.No.APSCHE/Secy/NDC-2013-14/SVU/1503/ Rejected & Returned/2013, dated 19.09.2013 issued by the 2^nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and for a consequential direction to respondents to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 14.02.2013 for establishment of degree college at Madanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other orders.

¶5

The petitioner’s case briefly is thus:

¶6

The petitioner is a registered educational society. In the light of the notification dated 16.01.2013 issued by the 2^nd respondent inviting the applications from the registered educational societies/affiliated Aided and Un-aided Degree Colleges for starting new private un-aided Degree Colleges in UG and PG courses for the academic year 2013-2014 in the State of Andhra Pradesh including Madanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, the 1^st petitioner submitted application dated 14.02.2013 duly enclosing the relevant documents with a view to establish a Degree College. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings, dated 19.09.2013 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner on the untenable ground that the deficiencies which were observed during the prima facie counselling of the application were not submitted by the management within the stipulated time. The petitioner’s grievance

¶7

¶8

is that after submission of the application dated 14.02.2013, neither notice of intimation was issued to the 1^st petitioner to attend for prima facie counselling nor communicated any deficiencies calling upon the 1^st petitioner to comply with the same, therefore, the question of the 1^st petitioner not complying with the deficiencies does not arise and the respondent authorities cannot reject the petitioner’s application on that ground.

¶9

Hence, the writ petition.

¶10

The 2^nd respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition. It is contended that after bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Counsel for Higher Education was taken over by the Telangana State Counsel for Higher Education and their dispute was regarding the bifurcation of assets, employees and distribution of old records prior to 2015 are not settled and hence, the records are not available. The petitioner society has applied for establishment of private un-aided Degree College at Madanapalli Mandal pursuant to the notification issued by the 2^nd respondent. Both the applications filed by the petitioners to establish un-aided Degree Colleges were rejected on 19.09.2013 on the ground that the petitioner society did not comply with the requirements as stipulated by the erstwhile APSCHE under notification dated 16.01.2013 to enclose all documents listed under enclosures from 1 to 14 as specified in the rules books for sanction of new private unaided degree colleges for 2013-14. It is evident from the documents filed by the petitioner at Page No.28 of writ petition that they have submitted

¶11

¶12

only some certificates and they would provide remaining certificates at the time of inspection. In that view, the applications of the petitioner society were rejected in the prima facie scrutiny by the respondent by issuing the orders impugned herein for non filing of relevant documents.

¶13

It is further contended that the erstwhile APSCHE granted permission for two degree colleges in Madanapalli Mandal and therefore, for the subsequent years, there was no need to identify Madanapalli Mandal for establishing new private un-aided degree colleges as per the survey conducted under Section 20(1) of A.P. Education Act, 1982. Hence, this Mandal was not included in the subsequent notifications issued for the years 2014-15 onwards. The other allegations made in this writ petition are not tenable and hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, Smt.S.Parineetha, learned Standing Counsel for 2^nd respondent and learned Government Pleader for Education for the respondents 1 and 3.

¶15

While severely impugning the proceedings dated 19.09.2013, issued by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the petitioner’s applications, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, would submit that in the impugned order except stating that the deficiencies observed during the prima facie counselling of the application were not fulfilled by the management, no deficiencies were specifically

¶16

¶17

mentioned for the comprehension of the applicant as well as the Court. He would submit that in fact no prior notice was issued to the petitioner calling for prima facie verification of the application and therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to know about the prima facie scrutiny and even thereafter also, the respondent authorities did not issue any notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to meet the deficiencies. In that view, it is not just on the part of the respondent authorities to blame the petitioner as if the petitioner has not complied with the deficiencies pointed out.

¶18

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, while referring the letter, dated – Nil - of the petitioner addressed to the 2^nd respondent would submit that in the said letter, it was cryptically mentioned by the petitioner as if he were submitting some certificates and would provide remaining certificates at the time of inspection. Without clearly stating what were the certificates that were enclosed to the application. Therefore, the prima facie scrutiny committee has rejected the application of the petitioner at the threshold. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that, since sufficient number of colleges were established in Madanapalli Mandal, there was no requirement to consider the petitioner’s request.

¶19

I gave my anxious consideration to the above respected arguments. As can be seen from the impugned order, it is mentioned therein as if the deficiencies were observed during the prima facie counselling of the application and the petitioner has not submitted (not

¶20

¶21

complied with the deficiencies). However, in the impugned order, particulars of those deficiencies in the application were not mentioned. No other material is produced by the respondents to show that any notice was issued to petitioner specifying therein the deficiencies in the application of the petitioner. No doubt, in the letter of the petitioner dated – Nil - referred to by the learned Standing Counsel, it was vaguely mentioned as if some certificates were submitted without mentioning the particulars of those certificates. I am of the considered view, even admitting that the petitioner in his letter has not mentioned the particulars of the certificates which were enclosed, still on verification of those certificates at the prima facie counselling, if the respondent authorities found that the required documents were not enclosed or the documents enclosed were not relevant for the purpose of scrutiny, nothing prevents the respondent authorities to issue a notice/communication to the petitioner to submit the required particulars/documents within the time specified by the respondent authorities. That opportunity seems, not conferred on the petitioner and therefore, the principles of natural justice were a casualty in this case which is writ large from the impugned order.

¶22

The next ground pleaded by the learned Standing Counsel is that in the subsequent academic years, permission was granted for establishment of educational institutions in Madanapalli Mandal and therefore there may not be any requirement to consider the application of the petitioner. That contention is not a forcible one because the

¶23

¶24

permission was issued few years back and priorities have to be identified the respondent as per the present requirement.

¶25

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 19.09.2013 passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside and the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application within two weeks enclosing all the relevant documents, in which case, the respondent authorities shall consider the said application and also by taking the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration, pass an appropriate order in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously but not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner and communicate to the petitioner. No costs.

¶26

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand

¶27

closed.

¶28

__________________________________ JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶29

16.11.2021

¶30

Note: Issue C.C. by 23.11.2021 B/o.SS/SCS

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶32

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.32159 of 2013

¶34

Date: 16.11.2021

¶35

SS/SCS

Siva Educational and Social Service Society, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siva Educational and Social Service Society, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Raghava Rao Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (Apiic)

Ameeruddin Academy of General, Technical And Professional Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

G Harshavardhan Vs the State of Ap

M/S Stone Plus Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Siva Educational and Social Service Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Siddiqui Aided Schools Committee, Kurnool Dist. Vs Secy., Education Dept. and 3 Ors.