STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus ADHIYAMAN EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1075 · Decided: 24-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
v. 
ADHIYAMAN EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH 
INSTITUTE AND ORS. 
MARCH 24, 1995 
(P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Emry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III 
Schedule VII-Subjects covered by Entry 66-Always remained within the 
pu1View of Parliament even before and after Forty Second Amendment-Entry C 
25 List Ill-State legislation in conflict with Central legislation including sub-
ordinate legislation-Held: To the extent it is in conflict it is void and inopera-
tive. 
Article 254-Subjects covered by List III-Repugnancy between State 
and Central legislation-State legislation would be inoperative unless saved D 
by Article 254(2)-Pre-Constitutional law of Provincial Legislature--Post-
Constitutional law of Parliament-Repugnancy between-Held: Law made by 
the Provincial Legislature shall stand impliedly repealed to the extent of 
repugnancy. 
Education : All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987: 
Technical Education-Subject covered by the statut&-Within the scope 
of Entry 66 of List l and Entry 25 of List III. 
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 : Technical 
Educatio~rovisions of the Act in conflict with Central Act-To the extent 
of inconsistency Act voi~Standards and requirement laid down by 
Stat&-Cannot be higher than those laid down by the Central Act-Applicants 
not qualified according to such higher standards-State cannot deny situa-
tions/seats to such applicants-State also cannot derecognise or disaffiliate 
an institution on this ground. 
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 : Rule 
E 
F 
G 
' 
2(b )-Not applicable to technical Colleges-However, mle can be amended 
and made applicable to technical Colleges. 
Madras University Act, 1923: Pre-Constitutional law-Repugnant to the H 
1075 
•
1076 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 2 S.C.R. 
A Central Act-University Act stands impliedly repealed to the extent of repug-
B 
nancy-Conditions presoibed by University for grant of affiliation-Will have 
+ -· 
to be in conj onnity with the nomis and guidelines presoibed under Central 
Act. 
Words & Phrases: "Coordination''-Meaning and scope of 
"College''-Meaning of 
The State Government had permitted private management to start 
new Engineering Colleges under the Self-financing scheme without any 
financial commitment to the Government, but subject to the fulfillment of 
C certain conditions. The first respondent - Trust was granted permission 
by the Government to start a private Engineering College. The Trust was 
granted provisional affiliation by the University subject to the fulfilment 
of certain conditions. 
D 
In the meanwhile, the State Government appointed a High Power 
Committee to inspect the College which stated that the Trust had not 
fulfilled certain conditions imposed by the State Government. Thereupon, 
the State Government issued a show cause notice to the Trust as to why 
permission granted by it should not be withdrawn. The University also 
accepted the report of the High Power Committee and passed a resolution 
E cancelling the provisional affiliation. 
F 
The Trust filed a writ petition before the High Court for prohibiting 
the Government from taking further action in pursuance of the Show 
Cause notice and also for quashing the resolution passed by the Univer-
sity which was allowed. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the 
appellants preferred the present appeals and SLPs. 
_ ---( 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that Entry 66 of List I 
of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution did not debar the State 
Legislature from prescribing higher standards; that the University had the 
G power to affiliate or disaffiliate the College; and that if the College were to 
close down for want of adequate infrastructure the Government might have 
to bear the burden in taking over the College. 
Dismissing the appeals and the SLPs, this Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1. Repugnancy may arise between a legislation made by 
-I 
} 
STATE OFT.N. v. ADHIYAMAN EDNL. AND RES. INSTT. 
1077 
Parliament and a legislation enacted by the State legislature on a subject A 
falling in the Concurrent List. Article 254 takes care of this repugnancy. 
Repugnancy may also arise between a pre-Constitutional law made by the 
then Provincial Legislature which continues to be in force by virtue of 
Article 372 and a post-Constitutional law made by Parliament in which 
case, the law made by the Provincial Legislature shall stand

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