APHC010289922024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 129 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:-35 [3483] Sri K. Narahari Varaprasad ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, Sr. Counsel, appearing vice Mr. Ghanta Sridhar Advocates for Respondents : Mr. N. Subba Rao, Sr. Counsel, appearing vice Mr. Sri Vijay Mathukumilli CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 6th August 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ: The present petition has been filed purportedly in public interest challenging the orders, dated 14.09.2023 and 20.09.2023, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (in short, „the Council‟), whereby provisional permission was granted to respondent No.5 i.e. Siddhartha Educational Academy and respondent No.7 i.e. Swathi Educational Society for starting new private unaided law colleges namely Rayalaseema Law College/respondent No.6 and KMR Law College/respondent No.8 to run 3 Year LL.B. course as also 5 Year LL.B. course with an intake capacity of 60 students each. 2 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 2. The challenge to the orders is based on the premise that the same were in gross violation of the procedure prescribed in terms of Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, (in short, „the Act, 1982‟) which envisages that first a survey be conducted by the competent authority to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction, and notify in the prescribed manner through the local newspapers calling for applications from the entities desiring for establishing educational institutions. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the Council had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 20 of the Act, 1982, and the Rules framed thereunder and the Council had failed to identify the educational needs of the locality under which the law colleges were sought to be established. It is stated that the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987, (in short, „the Rules, 1987‟) would apply to the colleges imparting law courses and that permission to establish an educational institution could be granted only if the conditions laid down in Section 20 of the Act, 1982, were satisfied. Reference was also made to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 to buttress the point that no permission shall be granted if the educational needs of the locality were already served and, in the opinion of the competent authority, a opening of new institution is likely to create unhealthy and undesirable competition. It was, in that context, urged that the grant of permission was unjustified and illegal. 3 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 4. Since the petitioner claims violation of the provisions of the Act, 1982, and the Rules, 1987, it would be appropriate to briefly refer to some of the relevant sections of the said Act. Section 18 of the Act, 1982, envisages that the Government, for purposes of implementing the provisions of the Act, provide adequate facilities for imparting general education, technical education, special education and teacher education in the State by – a) establishing and maintaining educational institutions; b) permitting any local authority or a private body or persons to establish educational institutions and maintain them according to such specifications as may be prescribed; and c) taking, from time to time, such other steps as they may consider necessary or expedient. Section 19 of the Act, 1982, deals with classification of educational institutions into State Institutions those are established, maintained and administered by the Government; Local Authority Institutions which are established, maintained and administered by a local authority; and Private Institutions which are established, maintained and administered by any body of persons registered in the manner prescribed. Section 20 of the Act, 1982, envisaged as under: “20. Permission for establishment of educational institutions- 4 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 (1) The competent authority shall, from time to time, conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction, and notify in the prescribed manner through the local newspapers calling for applications from the educational agencies desirous of establishing educational institutions. (2) In pursuance of the notification under sub-section (1), any educational agency including local authority or registered body of persons intending to (a) establish an institution imparting education; (b) open higher classes in an institution imparting primary education; or (c) upgrade any such institution into a high school; or (d) open new courses (Certificate, Diploma, Degree, Post-Graduate Degree Courses etc.) may make an application, within such period, in such manner and to such authority as may be notified for the grant of permission therefor. (3) Any educational agency applying for permission under sub- section (2), shall, (a) before the permission is granted, satisfy the authority concerned, (i) that there is need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality; (ii) that there is adequate financial provision for continued and efficient maintenance of the institution as prescribed by the competent authority; (iii) that the institution is proposed to be located in sanitary and healthy surroundings; ...........” 5. In exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 20 and 21 r/w Section 99 of the Act, 1982, rules called “the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987,” came to be enacted. 5 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 Rule 4 of the Rules, 1987, envisages that the permission of establishment of any of the educational institutions mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 or for opening of additional courses in any existing educational institution shall be granted only if conditions laid down in Section 20 of the Act, 1982, are satisfied. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 further envisages that no permission shall be granted if the educational needs of the locality are adequately served already and in the opinion of the competent authority that the opening of a new institution is likely to create unhealthy and undesirable competition with another institution of the same class/category in the area. 6. It is, in the backdrop of the aforementioned provisions, that Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, would vehemently urge that permission was granted to the private institutions without the competent authority conducting any survey with a view to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction. 7. It was also urged that it was only after a survey was conducted, that applications could have been invited in terms of Section 20 of the Act, 1982, from eligible educational institutions who would express a desire to establish a law college, that permission could have been granted subject to the fulfillment of conditions laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act, 1982. 6 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record a survey which was conducted in February, 2025, by a committee constituted by the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education to conduct a detailed study on the requirement of establishing new law colleges in various localities/ mandals of Andhra Pradesh apart from considering the need for additional sections and programmes in existing law colleges. 9. The Committee consisted of a former Vice-Chancellor of University, a former Registrar, a Professor and an Academic Officer, submitted their report, dated 26.04.2025. According to the report, and more particularly in paragraph No.6, the Committee records as under: “6. Final Recommendations and Conclusion: Based on the multi-faceted analysis of general degree demand, LAWCET examination performance, and comparative applicant pressure on existing law colleges, it is evident that the State of Andhra Pradesh requires targeted expansion of legal education infrastructure. Districts such as NTR, Kurnool, Chittoor, Palnadu, Anantapur, Vizianagaram, and Alluri Sitharama Raju, demonstrate high demand either through large applicant pools or a complete lack of existing law colleges. These regions are underserved in terms of accessibility to legal education, which may adversely impact regional equity and educational aspirations.” In the actionable recommendations of the report so submitted, the Committee identified the following districts for purposes of establishment of 3 Year LL.B. and 5 Year Integrated Law Programmes in the new law colleges which are given in the table below: 7 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 Sl. No. Name of the District No. of new Law Colleges 1 Alluri Sitarama Raju 1 2 Annamayya 1 3 Bapatla 1 4 East Godavari 1 5 Eluru 1 6 Konaseema 1 7 Krishna 1 8 Kurnool 1 9 Nandyal 1 10 Nellore 1 11 NTR 1 12 Palnadu 1 13 Parvathipuram Manyam 1 14 Sri Satya Sai 1 15 Vizianagaram 1 16 West Godavari 1 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would, therefore, submits that since the Committee in its report had not identified Chittoor as a district where there was need for establishing a law college, permitting the two law colleges to establish was therefore unjustified and unwarranted besides being arbitrary. 8 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 11. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at length. 12. Since a reference has been made to the report of the Committee, we would like first to comment upon the same. It is not out of place here to mention that whereas the impugned proceedings were issued in the year, 2023, the Committee, reference whereto has been made extensively by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, was constituted in the year, 2025, and the report submitted as late as in the month of April, 2025. 13. Reference to the report also would reflect that the Committee‟s stand somewhere is self-contradictory inasmuch as, whereas in paragraph No.6 of the report dealing with final recommendations and conclusions, the committee records that the district of Chittoor among others demonstrates high demand and that these regions were underserved in terms of accessibility to legal education, which may adversely impact regional equity and educational aspirations, yet while making its recommendations, the Chittoor district does not find a mention at all for purposes of establishment of new colleges even when among others, NTR and Kurnool districts found a mention in the table reproduced hereinabove. 14. We fail to understand as to how, if there was need to establish law colleges in Chittoor district was noticed by the Committee which had admitted the fact that this region was underserved in terms of accessibility to 9 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 legal education, it did not find a place in the recommendation for establishment of new colleges. Apart from this, the report comes at a time when the provisional permission had already been accorded to the private respondents to establish the colleges in question. 15. With a view to understand whether there was any need at all for the colleges to be established, we have posed a specific question to learned counsel for the private respondents as to what was the number of students that had been admitted against the sanctioned intake capacity. We were informed by Mr. N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the colleges concerned that as against the intake capacity of 60 each for each of the courses, the admissions were made against all the sanctioned seats. If that be so, we have no reason to disbelieve the statement made by learned Senior Counsel that all the seats were filled up by the two colleges concerned, which goes to show that there was need and demand from the student community for establishing the said colleges. 16. The another connected legal issue which was highlighted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was that in the absence of a survey, no permission at all could have been granted as is otherwise envisaged under Section 20 of the Act, 1982. This issue, however, is no longer res integra as the same was considered by a full Bench of the combined High Court of 10 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 Andhra Pradesh in Society of St. Ann’s Vs. The Secretary to Government1. In this judgment, the full Bench drew a distinction between the power of the Government to grant permission under Section 18 of the Act, 1982, and the power which is vested in the competent authority in terms of Section 20 of the Act, 1982. It was held that while the State Government considers the applications, it can take into account not only the need of providing educational facilities to the people in the locality, it can as well take into account the educational needs of the entire State, for purposes of implementing the provisions of the Act, as against the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 1982, which vests in the competent authority the power to conduct a survey to identify the educational needs of a locality under its jurisdiction. It further held that if a competent authority has either not been appointed or has not issued any notification calling for applications for establishing educational institutions as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 20, it would be open to an educational agency to apply to the State Government for grant of permission for establishing an educational institution. For purposes of reference, paragraph Nos.48, 49, 50 and 51 are reproduced as under: 1 W.P.No.5640 of 1991 & W.A.No.1014 of 1991, common judgment, dated 13.07.1993 11 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 “48. When an application is made by any educational agency to the State Government for the grant of permission for establishing an educational institution, the State Government may follow the principles underlying sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act in considering the application for the grant of permission though the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 20 strictly speaking, do not apply for such consideration and they apply only where an application is made to the concerned authority pursuant to a notification issued by a competent authority calling for applications from the educational agencies desirous of establishing educational institutions. While the State Government considers the applications, it can take into account not only the need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality, it can as well take into account the educational needs of the entire State, if the State Government considers it necessary, for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Act. It is for the State Government to decide whether the educational needs of a locaiity or area or of the entire State shall be taken into account in considering the applications and such a decision has to be arrived at on the basis of all the relevant factors. 49. If the State Government takes a policy decision in the exercise of the statutory power vested in it under Section 18 as regards the establishment of educational institutions in the State on the basis of relevant considerations referred to above, and such a policy decision is not opposed to either fundamental rights or principles of natural justice and it is not found to be otherwise unreasonable or arbitrary, such a policy decision shall not generally be interfered with by the Courts. It will not be possible to lay down precise principles for testing the validity of a policy decision taken by the State Government. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case subject to the general principles referred to by us supra. 50. The need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality, contemplated under Section 20 (3) (a) (i) has to be understood in the context of the educational needs of the locality identified by the competent authority under sub-section (1) of Section 20. Even in a case where the educational needs of a locality have been identified by a competent authority, the need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality shall be subject to the policy decision, if any, taken by the State Government in that regard in exercise of its power under Section 12 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 18 of the Act. If a competent authority has either not been appointed or after appointment it has not issued any notification calling for applications for establishing educational institutions as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 20, even then, it is open to any educational agency to apply to the State Government for the grant of permission for establishing an educational institution in such a case, it is for the State Government to pass appropriate orders on the application submitted to it, on the basis of the principles underlying sub-section (3) of Section 20 and the policy decision, if any, taken by it as regards the need. But, the State Government has to take appropriate decision having regard to the relevant criteria, whether the educational needs of the locality or of the area or of the entire state shall be taken into account. 51. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel appearing for the proposed institutions that if a competent authority had already identified the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction and issued a notification calling for applications for establishing educational institutions, where is the need for the applicant to again satisfy the authority concerned about the need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality. We have to bear in mind that the authority vested with the power to grant permission for establishing an educational institution is different from the competent authority. The identification of the educational needs of the locality by a competent authority is not conclusive proof of the need. It is the satisfaction, about the need, of the authority concerned which disposes of the application for the grant of permission that is necessary. Unless such authority is satisfied, no permission can be granted.” 17. Considering the ratio of the judgment rendered by the full Bench supra, we have no doubt that it was not necessary that first a survey ought to have necessarily been conducted by the competent authority in terms of Section 20 of the Act, 1982, before considering the grant of permission in favour of an applicant to establish a college. 13 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 18. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the present petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs 14 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 249 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.P.(PIL) No.129 of 2024 Dt: 06.08.2025 kbs