WWW.LIVELAW.IN YBG
20-as-wp-10125-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10125 OF 2017 Knowledge Park for Rural Department Versus Bar Council of India & Ors.
..
Petitioner
..
Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION ST.NO.27548 OF 2017 Samarth Samaj Trust, through its President Shivajirao S. Jondhale Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary & Ors.
..
Petitioner
..
Respondents
AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2321 OF 2017 Samarth Samaj Trust Versus Bar Council of India & Ors.
..
Applicant
..
Respondents
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.82 OF 2018 Samarth Samaj Trust Versus Bar Council of India & Ors.
..
Applicant
..
Respondents
Mr.Chaitanya Pendse with Kamlesh Mali for petitioner in W.P.10125 of 2017 Mr. Ravindra Adsure i/b. S.N.Biradar for petitioner in W.P.st.27548 of 2017 and for respondent No.2 in C.A.W. Mr. Amit Kumar Damodar Sale for respondent No.1 in W.P.10125 of 2017 and for respondent No.3 in W.P.st. 27548 of 2017 Mr. R.A.Rodrigues for respondent No.2 in W.P.10125 of 2017 Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for respondent No.1 in W.P.10125 of 2017 and
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 13:22:08 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN YBG
20-as-wp-10125-17
for respondent No.3 in W.P.st.27548 of 2017 - State Mr. Makrand Bakore for respondent No.4 in W.P.10125 of 2017. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE JJ DATE : 16th April 2018 P.C.: The petition arises out of peculiar facts. The petitioner had applied to the competent authority for starting a Law College, which is exclusively for women. It is not in dispute that this is the only law college exclusively for women outside Greater Mumbai.
2]
Though the petitioner had applied for the academic year 2014,
when the petition came up for hearing before us on 3 rd November 2017,
this Court after taking into consideration the peculiar facts
and circumstances ordered that since the permission was already granted by the State Government and provisional affiliation was granted by the respondent University, the petitioner be permitted to participate in the 3rd round of admission.
3]
It further appears that though vide order dated 3 rd November
2017, this Court had directed the petitioner to participate in the third round of admission and though 60 students, needless to state all women, were admitted, the respondent Bar Council of India was not
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 13:22:08 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN YBG
20-as-wp-10125-17
conducting inspection. This Court, therefore, vide order dated 22 nd January 2018 had expressed expectation that Bar Council of India would conduct inspection since by then the permission was already granted by the State Government and affiliation was also granted by the University.
4]
This Court had further observed that since the amount was
already paid by the petitioner, the same shall be adjusted towards the inspection fees, that would be required to be paid to the Bar Council of India.
When the matter is listed before us today, the learned
Counsel for the Bar Council of India appeared and states that since the premises which the petitioners have in their possession, are on leave and licence basis and which leave and licence is expiring in December 2018 and since under Rule 60(2) of the Bar Council of India Rules, the college aspiring permission from Bar Council of India should either own its premises or if the premises is on leave and licence basis the same should be for a period of 10 years, the Bar Council of India did not find it necessary to comply with the orders passed by this Court on 22nd January 2018.
5]
Mr. Pendse, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is having alternate premises which are being constructed at
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 13:22:08 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN YBG
20-as-wp-10125-17
a distance of about 5-6 kms, wherein sufficient space would be made available. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking that the said construction would be completed by 2018, wherein the students from the present leased premises would be shifted.
6]
In this background, we find that the approach adopted by the
Bar Council of India is totally hyper technical. When the petitioner is intending of having a law college in Thane district which is only for women, rather than rendering a helping hand the Bar Council appears to be acting as a hindrance in establishment of the said college.
7]
No doubt that Bar Council of India would have supremacy in
the matter of legal education. However, at the same time it cannot totally ignore the permission and affiliation granted by the State Government and the University respectively. When the petitioner is willing to give an undertaking that the owned premises would be available by the end of 2018 and at present the leased premises are sufficient to cater to the needs of first year students, we find that the approach of the Bar Council in not even agreeing to inspect the premises is not reasonable.
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 13:22:08 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN YBG
8]
20-as-wp-10125-17
We, therefore, direct the Bar Council of India to comply with the
orders of this Court dated 22 nd January 2018. Needless to state thatt the petitioner shall file an undertaking in this Court within a period of three days from today that the new premises which are under construction shall be made ready by December 2018. Needless to state that the Bar Council of India would also take into consideration the said undertaking given by the petitioner while considering the requirement of complying with Rule 60 of Bar Council of India Rules. The Bar Council shall conduct inspection and submit its report in the light of undertaking given by the petitioner and also whether the proposed premises would comply with the requirements under the Rules within two weeks from today.
9]
Insofar as the fees for inspection are concerned, Mr. Sali states
that at the present fees are quantified at Rs.3.50 lakhs. He, however, submits that the fees are regular fees and applicable to colleges where inspection is conducted prior to 31 st December 2017.
10]
In the present case the petitioner cannot be faulted for
inspection not having completed within the prescribed period.
The
grant of permission by the State Government as well as provisional affiliation by the University was in the month of September 2017. In
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 13:22:08 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN YBG
20-as-wp-10125-17
that view of the matter, we direct the Bar Council of India to conduct the inspection on the payment of regular fees. The deficient fees of Rs.45,000/- will be paid by the petitioner to the Bar Council of India within two weeks from today.
(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J)
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018
(B.R.GAVAI, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 13:22:08 :::
