A.N. PARASURAMAN ETC. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 05-10-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A.N. PARASURAMAN ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
OCTOBER 5,1989 
[L.M. SHARMA AND T.K .. THOMMEN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14--Tamil Nadu Private 
Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1966-Whether violative of 
Tamil Nadu Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 
1966: Sections 2(c), 3(a), 3(b), 6, 7, 15, 22 and 28-Whether invalid 
and ultra vires. 
Administrative Law: Delegation of power-Determining legisla-
tive policy and rule of conduct=-E:ssential functions of Legis/ature-
Whether could be delegatei 
The appellants are interested in running educational institutions 
which are covered by the expression "private edncational institution" 
within the meaning of Section_ 2(1) of the Tamil Nadn Private Educa-
tional Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1966. The vires of the Act espe-
cially sections 2(c), 3(a), 3(b), 6, 7, read with sections 15, 22 and 28, was 
B 
c 
D 
. challenged before the High Court, by way of a writ petition. 
E 
The High Court struck down section 28 and upheld the other 
sections. This appeal by certificate is against the High Court's judgment 
upholding the validity of the said sections. As regards the striking down 
of section 28, it has not been impugned by the respondent-State. 
F 
The appellants contended that the Act does not lay down any 
guideline for the exercise of power by the delegated authority and so the 
decision of the competent authority is hound to be discriminatory and 
arbitrary. It was also contended that the Act imposed unreasonable 
restrictions on the appellants in the running of tutorial institutions, and 
such regulations were violative of Artilce 29( 1 )(g) of the Constitution of G 
India. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was stated that sufficient 
guidance is available to the authority concerned, by vlrtne of sub-
section (2)(c) of Section 4 an_d hence the appellants' contentions were 
not justified. 
H 
371 
A 
B 
c 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. I S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1.1. 1t is well established that determination of legislative 
policy and formulation of rule of conduct are essential legislative func-
tions which cannot be delegated. What is permissible is to leave to the 
delegated authority the task of implementing the object of the Act after 
the legislature lays down adequate guidlines for the exercise of power. 
Examined in this light, the impugned provisions of the Tamil Nadu 
Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1966 miserably fail 
to come to the required standard. These sections are held to be invalid. 
They are inextricably bound up with the other parts of the Act so as to 
form part of a single scheme, and it is not possible to sever the other 
parts of the Act and save them. Hence, the entire Act is declared ultra 
vires. [3760-E; 379G) 
l.2. There is no indication, whatsoever, about the legislative 
policy or the accepted rule of conduct on the vital issue about the 
maintenance of academic standard of the institution and the other 
D 
requirements relating to the building, library and necessary amenities 
for the stndents, as the Act is absolutely silent about the criteria to be 
adopted by the prescribed authority for granting or refusing permis-
sion. Even the rules which were made under Section 27 in 1968 and 
called the Tamil Nadu Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) 
Rules, 1968, are not called upon to lay down any norm on these issues 
E and naturally do not make any reference to these aspects. The result is 
that the power to grant or refuse permission is to be exercised according 
to the whims of the authority and it may differ from person to person 
holding the office. The danger of arbitrariness is enhanced by the unre-
stricted and unguided discretion vested in the State Government under 
Section 2(c) of the Act in the choice of competent authority. [377E-G] 
F 
2.l. Section 6 which empowers the competent authority to grant 
or refuse to grant permission for establishing and ruqning an institution 
does not give any idea as to the conditions which it has to fulfil before it 
can apply for permission under the Act, nor are the tests indicated for 
refusing permission or cancelling under Section 7 of an already granted 
G 
permission. [376H; 377 A) 
2.2. The only safeguard given to the applicant institution is to be 
found in the first proviso to Section 6 which says that the permission 
shall not be refused unless the applicant has been given an opportunity 
of ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.