B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24th August, 2003 (Annex. 3) passed by the Bar Council of India, hereinafter called the 'BCI', by which it has rejected the application of the petitioners permitting them to open a new law college at Muriyari town (District Ghazipur) for the reason that it does not have a judicial District Head Quarter.
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner No. 1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Petitioners applied for approval of affiliation/permission of opening a new law college in town Muriyari in district Ghazipur. The Government of Uttar Pradesh as well as the University granted the affiliation and no objection certificates for opening the new college. The BCI sent an inspection team and after having local inspection, the said team made a recommendation in favour of the petitioners. However, by the impugned order, the BCI disapproved the said recommendation and refused permission on the ground that the town Muriyari is not a Judicial District Headquarter. Hence the present petition. Shri V.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Shri K.S. Tewari, for the petitioners, has raised large number of issues including that application has been rejected in a whimsical/arbitrary manner without application of mind and discriminating the petitioners as it permitted other institution to come up in town Bhauraha Pandeypur, which is at a longer distance than of the petitioners from the District Head Quarter Ghazipur. If the BCI has adopted a formula for this purpose, being a statutory body, it has to apply it uniformly and not in such a discriminatory manner. The provisions of Section 18 (d) (1) Part IV Section A of the Bar Council of India Rules, hereinafter called the 'Rules' which provides that the inspection team before recommending approval of a new college should inter -alia make a specific recommendation as to why such a law college required to be started keeping in view the total number of existing law colleges in the place/area in particular and the state in general, is also under challenge. More so, the said clause does not refer to the District Head Quarter, nor District but only the place/area. Once the recommendation has been made by the inspection team for granting the permission to the petitioners for running a new law college. Rule 4(1) Section B of the Rules provide that law college shall ordinarily be located at a place where at least a District Court or Circuit District Court is located or within such distance thereof as the Bar Council of India permits. Therefore, deciding that law college shall be located only at the District Head Quarter, is not required at all. Thus, there was no occasion for the BCI to reject the said application and, thus, the petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) ON the contrary, Shri P.C. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that various factors have to be examined before granting the permission. The BCI had passed a resolution not to open many law colleges and not more than one law college in a district. Opening of law college can be permitted provided the Courts are there so that the appropriate training may be given to the students. The Bar Council has absolute power to control imparting of legal education and keep up its standard under Section 7 (1) (h) read with Section 7 (1) (a to I) and Section 49 (1) of the Bar Council of India Rules framed under the Advocates' Act, 1961, hereinafter called the 'Act', and if the provisions are read together, the BCI has statutorily been conferred the powers to do all things which are related to or have any direct effect on the maintenance of standard of legal education and recognition of the degrees for the Advocates etc. Therefore, the order passed by the BCI does not require any interference at all is liable to be dismissed straight away.;