NEDURIMILLI JANARDHANA REDDY versus PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC STUDENTS UNION AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 691 · Decided: 20-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
NEDURIMILLI JANARDHANA REDDY 
A 
v. 
PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC STUDENTS' UNION AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 
[P.B. SAWANT, S. MOHAN AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, Ss. 2(12), 20(1) and (3)(b), 99 
(xi) and (xii)-Andhra Pradesh Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges 
(Establishment, Management andA(lmission) Rules, 1992--Establishment of 
unaided private medical and dental colleges-Power to grant recognition and C 
prescribe adequate financial provision for maintenance of educational in-
stitution vested exclusively in competent authority under the Act-Societies 
granted pennission by State Government to establish medical and dental col-
leges on recommendation of expert committee constituted under the 
Rule~eld, in the absence of constitution of the competent authority the D 
grant of pennission was invalid from inception. 
Administrative Law-l>elegated legislation-Excessive delega-
tion--:.4.ndhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, S.20( 1), 99 (xi) and 
(xii)-Andhra Pradesh Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges (Estab-
lishment, Management and Admission) Rules, 1992-Act providing that no E 
educational institution be established except in accordance with the Act or 
the Rules thereunder-Held, the disjunctive 'or' has to be read as adjunctive 
'and' to save the provision from the vice of excessive delegation--lnterpreta-
tion of Statutes. 
Administrative Law-Non-application of mind by authority-Govern-
F 
ment granting pennission to twenty societies to establish medical and dental 
colleges on expert committee's recommendations-Societies fQnned only a 
few days before framing of Rules-Committee making spot inspections in 
casual manne~o collective application of mind by Committee or by 
minister or Chief Minister-Held, the whole exercise spells out a pre- deter-
G 
mined approach and assumes a dubious nature-Held further, as head of 
Council of Ministers Chief Minister cannot escape attn'bution of the said 
approac~onstitution of India, Article llf-A.P. Government Business 
Rules, Rule 7. 
Based on the recommendations of an expert committee constituted H 
691 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
under the Andhra Pradesh Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges 
(Establishment, Management and Admission) Rules, 1992 ('Rules') made 
under S.99 (xi) an d(xii) of the Andhra Pra<Jesh Education Act, 1982 
('Act'), twenty societies were granted permission by the Government of 
Andhra Pradesh to establish medical and dental colleges. Among these was 
B 
Janapriya Educational Academy ('Academy') a society managed by the wife 
and brother of the Appellant who was, at the relevant time, the Chief 
Minister of And.bra Pradesh. 
Under S.20(1) of the Act, no private educational institution could 
be established "except in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the 
C Rules made thereunder". The power to prescribe adequate financial 
provision for the establishment of an educational institution and grant or 
withdrawal of recognition was vested exclusively in the competent authority 
constituted under the Act. Without first appointing the competent 
authority under the Act, the State Government on May 22, 1992 framed 
D the Rules eleven days after the Academy was formed. Notifications inviting 
~~m~~~oo~~~~~~~~~~ 
submission of applications was June 8, 1992. The Expert Committee was 
constituted under Rule 4 of the Rules on June 6, 1992. After conducting 
spot inspection of the land and other facilities offered by the applicants 
E 
F 
from June 18 onwards, the Committee formulated guidelines on June 28 
and submitted its report containing recommendations on July 26, 1992. 
On the same day the Health Minister signed the file containing a summary 
of the Committee's conclusions without expressiiig any opinion. The Chief 
Minister or July 27, 1992 approved the names of the twenty societies 
recommended for the grant of permission. 
Allowing writ petitions filed by Respondent No. 1, the High Court 
quashed the permission granted to the twenty societies. The High Court 
on examining the records found that there were numerous irreconcilable 
discrepancies between the spot inspection reports and the Committee's 
G recommendations. There was nothing to show whether the guidelines 
formulated by the Committee were seen by the Government or whether the 
Committee had in scrutinising and forwarding the applications, followed 
the guidelines. The Committee had not collectiv

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