KRANTH SANGRAM PARISHATH Vs. N JANARDHAN REDDY
LAWS(APH)-1992-9-67
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 18,1992

KRANTH SANGRAM PARISHATH,SISTLA SRINIVAS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,N.JANARDHAN REDDY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

R. VS. SUSSEX JUSTICES,EX PARTE MC CARTHY [REFERRED TO]
A. V. B. [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP JAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
B.PRABHAKAR RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SRI SACHIDANAND PANDEY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. CHAMPAKAM DORAIRAJAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. BOMBAY EDUCATION SOCIETY [REFERRED TO]
BUDHAN CHOUDHRY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
R M D CHAMARBAUGWALLA MIS SHARMA MAGAZINE A FIRM HIND SHABDA RACHANA HARIFAI SHRI CHAMAN LAL KHANNA BANNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GULLAPPALLI NAGESWARARAO CHENNUPATI SATYANARAYANA V SOMASANKARA SASTRY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SANT RAM VS. GENERAL OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION THE STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF UNION PETITIONERS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ALL INDIA STATE BANK STAFF FEDERATION VS. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL:NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANK DISPUTES :NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANK DISPUTES [REFERRED TO]
M R BALAJI THE MYSORE STATE CHATHADA VAISH NAYA ASSOCIATION MYSORE ARYA VYSYA MAHASABHA BANGALORE VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA IN BOTH THE APPEALS STATE OF ORISSA IN BOTH THE APPEALS H R S MURTHY VS. M A TULLOCH AND CO :MISRILAL JAIN:M A TULLOCH AND CO [REFERRED TO]
R CHITRALEKHA VENKATESUBBA REDDY VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANS PORT CORPORATION HYDERABAD VS. SATYANAYANA TRANSPORTS PRIVATE LTD [REFERRED TO]
KATRA EDUCATION SOCIETY ALLAHABAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MINOR P RAJENDRANMISS NIRMALA DEVI; MISS NISTHARINI K M SATHAKATHULLA VS. STATE OF MADRAS:DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
A K KRAIPAK VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BALLABHADAS MATHURDAS LAKHANI VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE MALKAPUR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. LAVUNARENDRANATHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA SAKHARKHERDA EDUCATION SOCIETY SAKHARKHERDA VS. LOK SHIKSHAN SANSATHA:THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHI MILLS LIMITED BIHAR COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K RAMADAS SHENOY VS. CHIEF OFFICERS TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL UDIPI [REFERRED TO]
MAMLESHWAR PRASAD VS. KANHAIYA LAL DEAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. N M THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
FATEHCHAND HIMMATLAL MAHADEO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. A.RAJAPPA [REFERRED TO]
S MOHAN LAL VS. R KONDIAH [REFERRED TO]
M KARUNANIDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JAGADISH SARAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION REGD SINDRI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL BHARATIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH RAILWAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. KUMARI NIVEDITA JAIN [REFERRED TO]
SUKHWINDER PAL BIPAN KUMAR GANGA BISHAN SUBH KARAN INDER MAL GOPI RAM VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
S P GUPTA V M TARKUNDE J L KALRA IQBAL M CHAGLA MISS LILY THOMAS A RAJAPPA UNION OF INDIA D N PANDEY R PRASAD SINHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
P NALLA THAMPY THERA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KAUSALYA DEVI BOGRA SYED YUSLJFUDDIN SYED ZIAUDDIN VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AURANGABAD:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
J MOHAPATRA AND CO VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
K C VASANTH KUMAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
CHATTANYA KUMAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SEVASHRAM SANGH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL DR MAHESH MADHAV GOSAVI VS. MAHESH MADHAV GOSAVI:SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL [REFERRED TO]
D C WADHWA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI RAJ SHETTY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
A SUNDARAMBAL VS. GOVERNMENT OF GOA DAMAN AND DIU [REFERRED TO]
ASIF HAMEED STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR RAJEEV MAHAJAN JYOTI KUMARI VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR:RAJEEV MAHAJAN:STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR:STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ST STEPHENS COLLEGE VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
MOHINI JAIN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
A Annamalai VS. State of Madras [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA KESARI EDUCATION SOCIETY ONGOLE VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
P NARSIMLOO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC VIGILANCE VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAJAKKISHNA MENON VS. SUNDARAM PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
SAKHARKHERDA EDUCATION SOCIETY SAKHARKHEDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
VISAKAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE MOTOR TRANSPORT LTD., VISAKAPATNAM VS. G. BANGARURAJU AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]





JUDGEMENT

V.Sivaraman Nair - (1.)This batch of 24 writ petitions - six of them-W.P.Nos.8817, 9221, 9231, 9824, 9825 and 10058 of 1992 filed by Associations of Students, six - W.P. Nos.9661, 9731, 9843, 9852, 9946 and 10264 of 1992 filed by individual students, six - W.P.Nos.8592, 8698, 9187, 9809, 9972 and 10687 of 1992 filed by aspirants for permission and the rest by individuals or Organisations interested in the cause of education, raise questions of concern about what the petitioners call crass commercialisation of professional education. Counsel for some of the respondents prefer the phrase 'privatisation of higher education'. They claim this to be the natural corrolary of liberalisation of Indian economy from the shackles of excessive control by the State, which is constrained by acute lack of resources for further development of institutions of technical and professional education. Weheardthe matter at length and are now delivering two judgments in two parts comprehending all the complex questions which were raised before us. Some of the petitioners have raised only aspects of validity of Section 3-A of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act 5 of 1983, which was introduced by State Act 12 of 1992 and the Rules made thereunder. The other petitions involve challenge against the actions taken by the State and the educational agencies pursuant to that Act and the Rules. Three writ petitions are filed by persons/ Societies which would have filed applications for establishing Medical/ Engineering Colleges, but could not do so because there was hardly reasonable time to comply with the jonerous conditions insisted upon by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.198 and G.O.Ms.No.250 and therefore, seek orders to quash those and other consequential orders. Three other writ petitions are filed by unsuccessful applicants. In this part of the judgment, we deal only with 9 Writ Petitions in which the separate questions apart from the validity of the statute and the Rules arise for consideration.
(2.)Petitioners in W.P.Nos.9824 and 9825 of 1992 have sought to quash the orders granting permission to open 12 Medical Colleges and 8 Dental Colleges. They produced only an unnumbered Government Order dated 27-7-1992 along with the Writ Petitions. The Advocate General has produced all the relevant orders. Except the numbers - G.O.Ms.321 to 340 and the names of the educational agencies - the orders are virtually the same.
(3.)Three aspirants for establishing Medical and Dental Colleges and two for Engineering Colleges are before us. Only two of them for Medical Colleges in Hyderabad/R.R. District and one for Engineering College in Nellore District had filed applications.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.