RATHORE, J. - (1.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered society under the Registration Act. 1958. The petitioner Society is running three education institutions which include one secondary school affiliated with CBSE and one College which is affiliated with University of Rajasthan.
(2.) THE petitioner Society applied for N. O. C. for 300 students in LLB 1st year course to Director. College Education, Jaipur to grant permission for opening new Law College. On the application moved on behalf of the petitioner, inspection was conducted by the inspection team and vide letter dated 7. 8. 2003, NOC was issued on certain conditions. The petitioner society deposited Rs. 50,000/- to the University as per the requirement for fresh affiliation for Law College through banker's cheque No. 317498 dated 20. 12. 2002. Vide order No. 17233 dated 25. 9. 2003, the petitioner society was allotted 120 seats and provisional affiliation was accorded to the petitioner institution which was later on increased upto 160 seats. An application for raising intake capacity from 160 to 200 was moved by the petitioner institution and when the application was under process, the petitioner society under the impression that the University will accord permission, given admission to 40 students excess then the quota allotted to the petitioner institution and the controversy arose from this point of time that the petitioner institution without obtaining valid recognition has given admission to 40 students in excess. This present petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 24. 5. 2004 by which the petitioner institution was directed to submit original papers prior to issuance of permission letter to 200 students and it is submitted that the rider imposed vide order dated 24. 5. 2004 is unwarranted and that the petitioner institution time and again made requests to the university for the inspection and ultimately a team was constituted but till date inspection has not been conducted by the University but accepted the fee and forms for excess 40 students also.
(3.) THIS court on 28. 5. 2004 issued notice to the respondents and on 1. 6. 2004 the respondents were directed to allow the excess 40 students to appear in the LLB examination provisionally and these students appeared in the examination but their result was kept under sealed cover as was ordered by this court vide order dated 1. 6. 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the documents annexed with the writ petition and after referring the documents he tried to make out the case the the petitioner has repeatedly requesting the respondent University to conduct the inspection and grant sanction of 200 students as the petitioner institution fulfill all requisite requirements which are essentially required for the purpose of recognition. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner institution has given admission to 40 students in excess then the quota allotted in favour of the petitioner institution, then at the most the respondents can impose penalty and take appropriate action under the provision of law but looking to the future of the 40 students the institution is ready to give admission to them in the second year without rasing the quota which is fixed i. e. 160 students. As such, in the interest of justice, the result may be declared so that they may avail opportunity to appear in the supplementary examination and to pursue their study in the second year LLB. ;