Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B.R.Educational Society vs The Department Of Animal Husbandry on 15 November, 2024
APHC010528582022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No:
N 32180/2022
BETWEEN:
B.r.educational Society ...Petitioner
AND
The Department Of Animal Husbandry & others ...Respondent(s)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY
2. Y V ANIL KUMAR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India for the following relief/s:
... to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ
of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in
rejecting the representation made by the Petitioner
rejecting to grant affiliation to the Petitioner institution vide
letter No.1606468/AH.II(3)/2021, dated 01.08.2022 and
thereby not adding the Petitioner Institution in AGRI
POLYCET - 2022 despite the Petitioner Institution
secured qualifying marks and met the required parameters
in the inspection conducted by the authorities way back on
20.02.2020 and despite the fact that the Government has
proposed to establish at least one Animal Husbandry
Polytechnic College in the District as being arbitrary, illegal
and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the
Constitution of India besides being in contravention of the
University Grants Commission norms and consequently
direct the Respondents to grant necessary recognition/
permission to the Petitioner Institution to run the Animal
Husbandry Polytechnic course from the academic year
2022-23, and issue such other writ or order or direction as
deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of case....
2. The 2nd respondent university has invited applications for
establishment of Polytechnics in private sector vide notification
dated 10.08.2018 by fixing some parameters for establishment of
the institutions.
3. The petitioner herein has applied for the establishment of
Animal Husbandry Polytechnic College at Visakhapatnam and the
request of the petitioner for establishment of institution was not
considered as he has not fulfilled the parameters contemplated in
the notification. This is the 3rd Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner-
Institution in rejecting the representation made by the petitioner
for grant of affiliation to the petitioner-Institution vide proceedings
dated 01.08.2022, observing that basing upon the Committee
Report, the Government will take a policy decision by placing
before the Council of Ministers on development of
agriculture/horticulture/ veterinary education policy in Andhra
Pradesh including establishment of Animal Husbandry
Polytechnics under private section in the State and further course
of action will be initiated as per due procedure.
4. The said proceedings were assailed on the ground that the
petitioner is having all relevant credentials and documents and
they are having the necessary infrastructure for establishment of
the College and not granting affiliation for the petitioner for
establishment of Animal Husbandry Polytechnic Institutions is
arbitrary and illegal and in violation of Article 19 1(g) of the
Constitution of India and sought a direction to the respondents to
grant affiliation/permission for establishment of the Animal
Husbandry Polytechnic College.
5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent has filed counter
affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the impugned order,
by referring paragraph No.15 which transpires that the
Government will take a policy decision by placing the matter
before Council of Ministers and it will take considerable time for
examination of the proposal of BR Educational Society along with
other proposals for various educational institutes in the State for
recognition/permission to run the private Animal Husbandry
Polytechnic Colleges and further course of action will be initiated
as per rules and procedure in force.
6. The court asked the petitioner's counsel about the right to
direct the government to consider his case for establishing a
college, for which the counsel argued that it violates Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
7. The setting up of an educational institution could be
regarded as a business, profession or vocation under Article
19(1)(g) has come for consideration before Hon'ble Apex Court.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and
others vs. State of Karnataka and others1. The relevant para is
quoted here under:
Though a question was raised as to whether the setting up
of an educational institution could be regarded as a
business, profession or vocation under Article 19(1)(g),
this question was not answered. Jeevan Reddy, J.,
however, at page 751, para 197, observed as follows:-
.....While we do not wish to express any opinion on the
question whether the right to establish an educational
institution can be said to be carrying on any "occupation"
within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g), - perhaps, it is -- we
are certainly of the opinion that such activity can neither be
a trade or business nor can it be a profession within the
meaning of Article 19(1)(g). Trade or business normally
connotes an activity carried on with a profit motive.
Education has never been commerce in this country....."
8. If the State Government takes a policy decision as regards
the establishment of educational institutions in the State, such a
(2002) 8 SCC 481
policy decision is not opposed to either fundamental rights or
principles of natural justice and if it is not found 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 each case.
9. All applications submitted by the educational agencies for
the grant of permission for establishing educational institutions
shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law in
force on the date of consideration of such applications including
the policy decision, if any, taken by the State Government in that
regard and in force on the date of such consideration. In this
regard this Court relies on the judgment of a division bench of
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Society of St. Ann's
and The Rayalaseema ... vs The Secretary To Government,
Education2.
10. Without delving into the merits or demerits of the case and
considering the views expressed in the impugned order and the
counter, the issue relates to the policy decision of the
1993 (2) ALT 610
Government, which will be presented to the Council of Ministers
for further action. Accordingly, the Court directs the 1 st
respondent to issue necessary instructions to the Committee
formed under G.O.Ms.No.659 dated 12.10.2021 to submit a
report. Basing upon the report of the Council, further action
should be taken as delineated in the impugned order dated
01.08.2022. And it is to be understood that the process shall be
completed within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in
this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 15.11.2024
HARIN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
W.P.No. 32180 OF 2022
Date: 15-11-2024
Harin
