PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC STUDENTS UNION Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-9-16
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 08,1992

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC, STUDENTS UNION Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

R. VS. SUSSEX JUSTICES,EX-PARTE MC CARTHY [REFERRED TO]
GOLLAPALLI NAGESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
APSRTC VS. SATYANARAYANA,TRANSPORT [REFERRED TO]
S P. GUPTA VS. PRESIDENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
FERTILISER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KRAIPAK VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SACHIDANAND PANDEY AND ORS STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
B. PRABHAKAR RAO VS. STATE OF A.P [REFERRED TO]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
K RAMADAS SHENOY VS. CHIEF OFFICERS TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL UDIPI [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL BHARATIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH RAILWAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUKHWINDER PAL BIPAN KUMAR GANGA BISHAN SUBH KARAN INDER MAL GOPI RAM VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
P NALLA THAMPY THERA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
J MOHAPATRA AND CO VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
CHATTANYA KUMAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [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]
LAXMI RAJ SHETTY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
A Annamalai VS. State of Madras [REFERRED TO]
P NARSIMLOO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAJAKKISHNA MENON VS. SUNDARAM PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
VISAKAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE MOTOR TRANSPORT LTD., VISAKAPATNAM VS. G. BANGARURAJU AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sivaraman Nair, J. - (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 crats 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. We heard the 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 3A 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 onerous 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 unsuccesiful 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.