All the four civil rules raise the common question of law and fact and as such they have been heard together and this common judgment will cover all the civil rules. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are existing Law Colleges and affiliation was granted to them by the Dibrugarh University for law course and law degree and that degree also recognised by the Bar Council of India. But later on the Bar Council of India excluded the name of the petitioners colleges from their list of affiliated Law Colleges and further the State Bar Council refused the students passing from these colleges from enrolling their names as Advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961. The facts are basically same, but there are some variation in each of the case. That shall be taken care later on. The prayers made in the application are the action of the Bar Council of India excluding the names of the colleges from the list of affiliated colleges be quashed with further direction to include the college in the list of affiliated colleges and to allow the degree holders from the colleges to be enrolled as Advocates by the State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961. 2.I have heard Mr. PK Gos Wami, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners in all the cases, Mr. BK Das, learned Senior Advocate for the Bar Council of India and Mr. BM Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate for the State Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Tripura. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed either by the Bar Council of India or by the State Bar Council nor any affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Dibrugarh University. 3. Civil Rule No. 2701 of 1996 has been filed by DHSK Law College. This college was established in the year 1965 and it was affiliated to the Gauhati University and the first batch of students obtained law degree from the college in the year 1967. In 1973 when Dibrugarh University was established this college was affiliated to Dibrugarh University and came under the control and supervision of that of University. The college has its own permanent building over 10 bighas of land with 14746 Sq feet of plinth area and is manned by qualified and experienced teaching staff. In 1973 when Dibrugarh University was established this college was affiliated to Dibrugarh University and came under the control and supervision of that of University. The college has its own permanent building over 10 bighas of land with 14746 Sq feet of plinth area and is manned by qualified and experienced teaching staff. There is a set of rules known as B are Council of India Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961 and we are concerned with the rules under section (b) which provides for three years degree course. The rules were published in the Gazette of India on 6th September, 1975 and thereafter it' was amended from time to time, Rule 12 provided as follows: “12. (1) No college started after the coining into force of these Rules shall impart instruction in a course of study in law for enrolment as an Advocate unless its affiliation has been approved by the Bar Council of India. (2) An existing law college shall not be competent to impart Instruction in a course of study in law for enrolment as an Advocate if the continuance of its affiliation is disapproved by the Bar Council of India.' After the college was started for the first time the Bar Council of India on3.1.83 made inspection and that inspection report is enclosed to the letter dated 17.5.83 by the Secretary of the Bar Council of India; That report is at page 26 of the writ application which inter alia states as follows: (i) It is functioning normally, (ii) The college has no dearth of accommodation, (iii) There is a fairly big library. Text books are there. There is a fairly big reading room, (iv) This college has qualified and experienced teaching staff with read and man power to develop the college. It was further observed that if obstacles are removed and given guidance, this college is likely to develop into a fairly good law college. Text books are there. There is a fairly big reading room, (iv) This college has qualified and experienced teaching staff with read and man power to develop the college. It was further observed that if obstacles are removed and given guidance, this college is likely to develop into a fairly good law college. Thereafter there was another inspection and a letter was sent by the Secretary of the Bar Council of India vide Annexure 2 enclosing the report dated 20.7.88, That report is at page 29 and 30 of the writ application which inter alia states as follows: “DHS Kanoi Law College: Copy of the proforma sent by this Council to the Law College was duly filled up and handed over to us which is being looked into and copy of the same is attached with this report. From the statement made in the proforma it appear that college is trying to follow the norms prescribed by this Council. Administration of the Law College is under able control or Mr. LP Dutta, Principal and the Secretary of that college. Accommodation available to the Law College is quite sufficient for class rooms, teachers common room, common room for the students and also for the library. As has been stated, at present the college is being held at the Kanoi Commercial College and sufficient accommodation has been provided for the below College in the said Commercial College Building. The Law College building is under construction over about 10 bighas of land and almost the ground floor of the Building has been completed.” Teaching staff of the college is quite up to the standard. Out of the total No of 12 teachers 4 of them including the Principal - are whose title teachers and the rest are part time teachers. We met the teachers at a meeting after inspection of the College and we discussed with them about the present position of teaching in the college and made out suggestions for improvement thereof. We have seen the library of the college located at a separate portion of the building. There are more than 2,500 text books in the library. There is library fund of Rs. 10,000 in Fixed Deposit. The maturity value of the same will be more than Rs. 21,000. We have seen the library of the college located at a separate portion of the building. There are more than 2,500 text books in the library. There is library fund of Rs. 10,000 in Fixed Deposit. The maturity value of the same will be more than Rs. 21,000. In our opinion college is functioning well and within a period of two years when the college will be shifted to its own building it will be able to function in a better way. The financial position of the college is undoubtedly good. Recommendations: 1. College Building should be completed expeditiously as early as possible and the college must be shifted to the new building as soon as Building will be completed. 2. Number of full time teachers must be atleast 50 percent of the total number of teachers. Salary of the teachers both full time and part time must be paid in accordance with the scale prescribed by the UGC. Teachers having LLM Degree and having experience should be appointed as full time teachers. 3. There must be some recurring grant annually for the library and number of text books should be sufficient for boys of the college. 4. Arrangement for taking final year students to the District Courts for professional training should be undertaken. 5. Affiliation of the college may be extended by a period of 2 years more and in the meantime college must fulfil the conditions refer to herein above and a fresh inspection may be done when the question of further affiliation will be considered.” Thereafter the Bar Council extended affiliation to the college for a period of two years till the end of November, 1^90 and on 21.11.90 the Principal vide Annexure 3 wrote to the Secretary to the Bar Council of India as follows : ”Sir, I have the honour to send herewith a statement showing the extend of fulfillment of conditions laid down in the Report of inspection under reference, for favour of your record and also for doing the needful in matters of further inspection.” In the, statement which was enclosed to this letter, particulars were given regarding fulfillment of the recommendations. Thereafter on 30.11.94 a letter was written by the Secretary of the Bar Council of India to the Principal of this college which is Annexure 4 and that letter reads as follows: “Please note that your college has been permitted to run the law course for 2 years from 1988. We have not heard from you regarding further inspection, please note that the degree awarded by the Bar Council of India cannot be recognized for the purpose of enrolment as an Advocate if further permission of affiliation is not granted by the Bar Council of India.” In that letter the Secretary wrote that the degree is awarded by the Bar Council of India. But the Bar Council of India never awards the degree. That is the function of the University. On receipt of this letter on 24.12.1994 vide Annexure 5 the Principal of the college wrote back to the Bar Council of India as follows: We receipt of this letter under reference in compliance to which are we have the honour to state that we have fulfilled all the conditions imposed upon us by the Bar Council of India while granting permission in 1988 and accordingly we had intimated your good self vide our letter dated 21st Nov 1990. A xerox copy of the said letter is enclosed herewith for your ready reference. We feel that we are always open for inspection by the Bar Council of India and we are pretty sanguine that on inspection your Council would find all the said conditions fulfilled by our college authority. Under the circumstances we would request you kindly to cause an early inspection to accord us permanent permission and thereby oblige.” A copy of this letter was sent to the Registrar, Dibrugarh University for favour of report and necessary action. Nothing was done on this letter and it appears that on 2.12.94 the Bar Council of India issued a circular and in that circular the name of this college was excluded from the list of affiliated Law Colleges and even this circular was not sent to the college and the college came to know it front a letter written by the Secretary of the State Bar Council. That letter is at Annexure 6. That letter is at Annexure 6. That is quoted below : “I am directed to inform you that the Bar Council of India by its circular dated 2.12.94, has excluded the name of your Law College from the list of affiliated Law College as your Law College was given temporary affiliation for 2 years from the year 1988 which has expired on 1990. Subsequently, the Bar Council of India by its circular dated 8.12.94 has directed the Council not to enroll as an Advocate under this Council any person passing LLB from colleges which are riot approved to impart legal education by the Council and, not affiliated to any University Thanking you.” It may be stated herein that DHSK Law College was always affiliated to Dibrugarh University and there is no and such affiliation cannot be disapproved by the Council without following rules denial of that position. Thereafter the matter was taken up by the Dibrugarh University vide letter dated 25,1. 95 vide Annexure 7. In Paragraph 2 of that letter it was highlighted as follows: “2. (a) These seven Law colleges namely (1) Golaghat Law College, (2) Jorhat Law College, (3) Sibsagar Law College, (4) Dr. RK Baruah Law College (formerly Dibrugarh Law College), (5) DHSK Law College, Dibnjgarh, (6) Tinsulda Law College, and (7) North Lakhimpur Law College are duly affiliated to the Dibrugarh University. (b) No State Govt permission for affiliation is mandatory for these Law Colleges (c) The Bar Council of India has also granted affiliation to these law Colleges except NL Law College, Lakhimpur after due inspection.” Along with this letter copies of the orders granting affiliation to these Law Colleges by the Dibrugarh University were also enclosed. It was also stated that the University authority is satisfied with the management and conduct of legal education as per guidelines of the Bar Council of India. The University authority also in that letter requested the Bar Council of India to arrange for immediate inspection of these colleges to satisfy the Council that the colleges are being managed properly and are imparting legal education as prescribed by the Council. On 14.2.95 and 15.2.95 the Secretary of the Bar Council of India vide Annexures 9 and 10 wrote the following letters which are quoted below : “The Bar Council of India Annexure 9 The Registrar, Dibrugarh University Dated 14th Feb' 95 Dibrugarh. On 14.2.95 and 15.2.95 the Secretary of the Bar Council of India vide Annexures 9 and 10 wrote the following letters which are quoted below : “The Bar Council of India Annexure 9 The Registrar, Dibrugarh University Dated 14th Feb' 95 Dibrugarh. Sir, Ref: Your letter dated 25.1.95 Colleges mentioned in your above letter at Sl. No. 1-6 were given affiliation for 2 years in the year 1988 i.e. from 1988-1990. They have not applied for farther affiliation. Hence, the names of these colleges have been taken out from the list of the Law Colleges which were given permanent affiliation. They have to apply again to the Bar Council of India for inspection. Further, Rs. 15,0007- have to be deposited as fees towards inspection. This is for favour of your information and necessary action. Individual letters are also being sent to the Law Colleges regarding inspection. Yours faithfully Sd/-Officiating Secretary The Bar Council of India Annexure 10 The Principal & Secretary, Dibrugarh HS Kanoi Law College, PO Dibrugarh (Assam) Dated 15.2.95 Sub: Request for permission to start new Law College/Renewal of the permission already granted. Sir, This is with reference to your letter No. Dated requesting this Council to grant permission for renewal. In this regard I am herewith sending a copy of the questionnaire which may be returned to this office duly filled in through the University, to which you seek affiliation, with its recommendation. You may send 4 advance copies of the answers to the questionnaire to the Bar Council of India to enable the office to process the application. You are also required to pay a sum of Rs. 15,0007- (Rs fifteen thousand only) towards inspection fee by way of Demand Draft payable to the Bar Council of India at New Delhi. On receipt of your answers to the questionnaire with the recommendation of the University and the requisite fee, the Bar Council of India will arrange an inspection of the proposed college and thereafter the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India will consider the inspection report to see whether permission for renewal can be granted or not. This is for your information and compliance. Your faithfully, Sd/-Officiating Secretary.” 4. In the letter at Annexure 9 the Secretary has stated that the names of these colleges have been taken out from the list of the Law Colleges which were given permanent affiliation. This is for your information and compliance. Your faithfully, Sd/-Officiating Secretary.” 4. In the letter at Annexure 9 the Secretary has stated that the names of these colleges have been taken out from the list of the Law Colleges which were given permanent affiliation. It is not the case of the Bar Council of India that these colleges were given affiliation for a period of 2 years. Vide Annexure 10 this college was treated as new Law College and that is why it was stated that an amount of Rs. 15,000 may be paid towards the inspection fee by way of Demand Draft and on receipt of answers to the questionnaire with recommendation of the University and the requisite fee, the Bar Council of India will arrange an inspection of the proposed college and thereafter the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India will consider the inspection report to see whether permission for renewal can be granted or not. The Bar council had the wrong notion that if can give affiliation to a college. The inspection was done and the report was sent. That report at page 43 which is annexed to Annexure II, the h inspection report quoted below: “Inspection report of DHS Kanoi Law College, Dibrugarh (Assam) DHS Kanoi Law College was established in the year 1965. The college was last inspected in the year 1988 and the approval for affiliation was extended for two years. The college did not bother for further extension after 1990. At the same time DHS Kanoi Law College was granted affiliation by the Dibrugarh University. It was a in the year 1994 that Bar Council of India reminded them that the degree awarded by the University cannot be recognized for the purpose of enrolment as Advocate if further extension was not granted by the Bar Council of India. After this warning the inspection fees was deposited in April, 1995. Consequently, a team of the Bar Council of India inspected the said college on 27.12.1995. DHS Kanoi Law College is the oldest law college in the whole area of Dibrugarh. The college is managed by a Governing Body consisting of 9 members. Besides other recommendations the last inspection team recommended that there must be some recurring grant annually for the library and that full time teachers must be atleast 50% of the total number of teachers. The college is managed by a Governing Body consisting of 9 members. Besides other recommendations the last inspection team recommended that there must be some recurring grant annually for the library and that full time teachers must be atleast 50% of the total number of teachers. Salary of the teachers both full time and part time must be paid in accordance with the scale prescribed by the University Grants Commission. Candidates with LLM Degree and Advocates with sufficient experience at the Bar should and must be appointed as full time or part time teachers. The college has its own building in a 10 bighas land. There are total number of 212 students in the college in 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year respectively. Except the good building, the college is least interested in the norms, rules and regulations of the Bar Council of India. There are four full time teachers and six part time teachers in the college. The full time Principal is getting Rs. 900 per month and the full time teachers are getting from Rs. 350 to Rs. 700 per month. All the part time teachers are getting per month Rs. 350 as their salary. The Principal of the college is not a qualified person to be appointed as Principal. We came to know from various sources that there is no systematic teaching in the college and there are no regular classes and the whole set up of teaching in the college is without any time schedule. The role of the Dibrugarh University is highly and excessively deplorable and pathetic. It has extended the affiliation with the full knowledge and information that the college is not at all observing the norms and conditions as laid down by the Bar Council of India or the University. Two members of the State Bar Council of Assam being to this place. They are very much disturbed and agitated with the poor quality of legal education in this college. They approached the Vice Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University so many times but nothing has been done to improve the standards of legal education in the law colleges. What we could find that legal education in DHS Kanoi Law College at Dibrugarh is in very bad shape. They approached the Vice Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University so many times but nothing has been done to improve the standards of legal education in the law colleges. What we could find that legal education in DHS Kanoi Law College at Dibrugarh is in very bad shape. The judicial system is part of the legal education and the quality of legal education is very much dependent upon the personnel who teach and impart the legal education to the students. Dibrugarh University is conferring LLB Degree to its students with total Nelson's eye as far as quality and standards of legal education is concerned. It is unfortunate that Dibrugarh University has not appreciated adequately the importance of legal education for maintaining the quality of legal education. It is essential that a law college must impart legal education to its students with minimum daily four hours systematic teaching on all working days through lecture method, case method, tutorials, problems based method, moot courts, mock trials etc and that marks are awarded on the basis of participation of students and law teachers in these activities. Previously there was a University Law College at Dibrugarh which was closed down and private law colleges were encouraged to open law colleges in the area of Dibrugarh. If the State Govt and the University of Dibrugarh are not serious about the legal education in their State, the Bar Council of India cannot be a silent spectator and will not tolerate and allow total sub-standard legal education in the law colleges. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation and option in declining and rejecting the approval and extension of affiliation to DHS Kanoi Law College at Dibrugarh (Assam). We also recommend that the students who have passed their LLB Final Examinations in the years 1994 and 95 should be enrolled as Advocates after their apprenticeship under Advocate of at least 15 years of practice at the Bar.” It is stated at Annexure 12 at page 44 that the inspection was done by Shri OP Sharma and Ashok Kumar Deb. It was further stated in that letter that the Legal Education Committee has accepted the recommendation of the inspection team with regard to the refusal of extension of approval of affiliation of the Law College. It was further stated in that letter that the Legal Education Committee has accepted the recommendation of the inspection team with regard to the refusal of extension of approval of affiliation of the Law College. It has been further stated in that letter that this recommendation was placed before the Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 10th and 11th Feb, 1996. This report was never furnished to the college or to the University before the decisions were taken vide Annexure 12. Annexure 12 for its proper appreciation is quoted below. That is the impugned order. 'The Bar Council of India BCI :D/645:1996(LE/mtg) dated 27th Feb, 96 The Principal, DHS Kanoi Law College, Red Cross Road, Dibrugarh-786 001 (Assam) Sir, The Legal Education Committee its meeting held on 9th Feb, 96 considered the Inspection Report of your Law College submitted by the Inspection Team consisting of S/Shri OP Sharma and Ashok Kumar Deb. The Legal Education Committee has accepted the recommendation of the Inspection Team with regard to the refusal of extension of approval of affiliation of your law college. This recommendation was placed before the Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 10th & 11th Feb,1996. The Council accepted the recommendation of the Legal Education Committee refusing the extension of approval of affiliation of your law college. Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter.” 5. On 14.3.96 the Registrar of Dibrugarh University sent a copy of the report to the college authority. From the report quoted above it will be seen that the Bar Council of India received the inspection fee and admittedly it was deposited in the month of April, 1995, but the inspection was made on 27.12.95 after a gap of more than 8 months. It is admitted in the report that this college is the oldest Law College in the whole area of Dibrugarh. The college is managed by a Governing Body consisting of 9 members. After this report there is Governing body consisting of 13 members. In the report there was a finding that the whole time teachers are not 50 percent of the total strength of teachers and that the salary of the teachers have not been fixed/paid in accordance with the scale prescribed by the UGC, that persons with LLM degree and Advocate with sufficient experience at the Bar should be appointed as full time or part time teacher. It may be stated herein that the appointment of teachers with LLM degree is not the requirement even under the Rules of Bar Council of India. 6. Rule 8 of the Bar Council of India Rules provides as follows : “Full time teachers of law including the Principal of the college shall ordinarily be holders of a Master's degree in law and where the holders of Master's degree in law are not available, persons with teaching experience for a minimum period of five years in the law may be considered. Part time teachers other than one with LLM degree shall have a minimum practice of 5 years at the Bar.” This deficiency found with regard to the qualification of the teachers is against the own rules of Bar Council of India and no particulars have been furnished with regard to this in the report. The report on this count is absolutely a vague one. Further, as I have quoted above in the earlier report it was pointed out that the teachers are quite efficient and qualified. So, this report of the Bar Council of India suffers from perversity, non application of mind and this report is made in a mechanical manner. Such a report may cause severe damage to an institution and as such it must adhere to certain norms. In the subsequent report when making the remarks by the Inspection Team it did not consider the earlier' report. Further, this Inspection Committee is a statutory body under the Rules of Bar Council of India and it must adhere to the minimum requirement of natural justice. I shall further deal with the matter when I consider the report in detail later on. Further, this Inspection Committee is a statutory body under the Rules of Bar Council of India and it must adhere to the minimum requirement of natural justice. I shall further deal with the matter when I consider the report in detail later on. This inaccuracy in the report of the committee was highlighted in the letter dated 6.4.96 written by the Principal of the college to the Registrar of the University vide Annexure 13 and even the University in its letter vide Annexure 14 it was pointed out in this report that the authority has power to look to the qualification of the teachers and not the Bar Council of India and if the Bar Council of India wants to impose the condition with regard to the qualification and with regard to the appointment of teachers as LLM, this Rule 8 quoted above must be amended and/or modified and without that such a direction cannot be given and thus the University authority pointed out this is itself violative of Rule 8 as quoted above. In the report it has been stated that the salary given to the teachers are meager amount and it was further stated that the Principal of the college is not a qualified person to be appointed as Principal. But this Inspection Committee failed to take a note as earlier 1983 the Bar Council of India Inspection Committee did find the Principal to be an efficient person and from 1983 he continued for further period of 12 years and after 12 years he cannot be considered as being not qualified to be appointed as Principal. It is really pity that this Inspection Committee instead of making factual assessment relied on the opinion of some person. Annexure 14 is quoted below : “Dibrugarh University Annexure 14 BK Gogoi, Registrar Ref: No. DU/RG/BCI/96/ Date May 29,1996. To, Sri CM Balaraman Officiating Secretary Bar Council of India 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. Ref: No. BCI: D: 504:1996 (LFVMTG) dated 24 February 1996. Sir, We acknowledge the receipt of the said memo along with the inspection reports and the decision of the Bar Council of India. To, Sri CM Balaraman Officiating Secretary Bar Council of India 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. Ref: No. BCI: D: 504:1996 (LFVMTG) dated 24 February 1996. Sir, We acknowledge the receipt of the said memo along with the inspection reports and the decision of the Bar Council of India. In reply of your suggestion that the University is desired to state if and when any steps would be taken up to start/establish either a constituent Law College/ Colleges or University Department of Law fulfilling all the prescribed norms of the Bar Council of India. I have to inform you that up to now the University does not have any plan and proposal to take up any such step. In fact the University hopes that the Bar Council of India would see reasons to and find it convenient to grant a conditional extension of affiliation for another period of two years to all the Law Colleges under Dibrugarh University with specific instructions for fulfilling the requirements in respect of which the respective colleges are found to be lacking within the extended period of two years and thus doing the needful for giving a fill up to the legal education under Dibrugarh University. We are of the opinion that your decision as contained in your above communication cannot be taken to be final, in so far as it does not conform to the provisions of the Bar Council of India Rules Part IV sent to us vide your letter No. LE(Cir No. 3/1966) dated 15th April as shown below: (i) as per Rule 13 (e) of Section B Part IV the unfavourable reports of the inspection team should have been first sent to the Registrar, Dibrugarh University for his comments and explanations, if any. (ii) as per Rule (f) the comments of the Registrar should have been placed before the next meeting of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India. (iii) as per Rule (g) only after the above two steps being meticulously followed the Legal Education Committee should have recommended to the Bar Council of India the approval/disapproval of affiliation or continuance of affiliation as, the case may be. (iii) as per Rule (g) only after the above two steps being meticulously followed the Legal Education Committee should have recommended to the Bar Council of India the approval/disapproval of affiliation or continuance of affiliation as, the case may be. (iv) In the instant case the Bar Council of India seems to have taken the final decision to terminate the affiliation to all Law Colleges under Dibrugarh University without following a procedure laid down by the Bar Council of India itself. (v) This is a case of denial of natural justice also as far as the University is concerned in so far as the University was not given a chance to give its own comments or explanations as provided in Rule 13 (e), (f), (g), referred to above. (vi) as per Rule 13 (i) the Bar Council of India was required to serve a show cause notice on the colleges and on the Registrar before making final orders. But except in case of Jorhat Law College, no such show cause notice was served on the remaining Law Colleges under the Dibrugarh University and on the Registrar, Dibrugarh University. In this manner also natural justice was denied to the concerned colleges and the University. (vii) The inspection reports and the decisions of the Bar Council of India are evasive also because of not spelling out the date of effect relating to the adverse decisions of the Bar Council of India. It is not clear as to from which date the affiliation will be discontinued and as to which of the three batches of students will actually be adversely affected. This cannot be arbitrarily fixed in the light of Rule 13 (j) unless the batches to be affected are specifically pointed out by the Bar Council of India. (viii) Because of the procedural lapses as pointed out above, the decision taken by the Bar Council of India with regard to the extension of affiliation to the concerned Law Colleges will lose all its strength and become inoperative if it is decided to seek justice from the appropriate appellate authority, and we believe that there is a stronger case in our favour also because of the following reasons: We have gone through the inspection reports and we have also collected opinion of the colleges (barring the Jorhat Law College) on the said reports. We are much annoyed and aggrieved to see that the reports are full of inaccurate and contradictory observations. Some examples are cited below : (i) In the inspection reports relating to Jorhat Law College it is said that thecollege is permanently affiliated to Dibrugarh University. This is not a fact. (ii) In the Minute of the Legal Education Committee meeting held on 9.2.96, it is stated that show cause notice is to be served on Jorhat Law College and in the same breath it is also stated that the affiliation of all the Law Colleges under Dibrugarh University have been (already) discontinued. This is a case of self contradiction. (iii) While the Bar Council of India itself admittedly granted permanent affiliation to the Jorhat Law College (Vide p.2 of the Inspection Report), there is no justification for being indignant over the University's granting the college an (imaginary) permanent affiliation. (iv) It is a fact that like the other law colleges, the Sibsagar Law College also paid a sum of Rs. 15,000 as inspection fee and the Secretary of the Governing Body of the college also came upto Jorhat for escorting the inspection team to his college at Sibsagar. Yet the inspection team did not personally visit the college. J How can there be an inspection report without any inspection? If as precipitous a decision as that for de-recognising a college of 24 years' standing can be taken simply on the basis of a proforma filled up by the college concerned, does it not mean a gross violation of Rule 13 of the Section B of Part IV where the term 'inspection by a committee' is clearly mentioned? Where is the justification for the inspection team to make the observation: 'The pattern of every law college under Dibrugarh University is the same. They are not at all observing the norms, rules and conditions as laid down by the Bar Council of India. This college is also not an exception” (PI) when the team itself has failed to observed the rules. (v) In the Inspection Report on the Rohini Kanta Barua Law College, Dibrugarh, it is stated that "The proforma filled by the college is totally false. There is no qualified Principal as well as teacher in the college. (PI) This is a very sweeping remark. (v) In the Inspection Report on the Rohini Kanta Barua Law College, Dibrugarh, it is stated that "The proforma filled by the college is totally false. There is no qualified Principal as well as teacher in the college. (PI) This is a very sweeping remark. The inspection team itself will be liable to be accused of including in falsity it can be proved that the proforma may be particularly false, but not totally false. And it is really not totally false, because, all the teachers including the Principal are fully qualified as per the Bar Council of India Rules, Section B Rule 8. The latest modified Rules are more rigorous with regard to previous experience. These teachers who have been appointed before the latest modifications cannot be now disqualified on the basis of the latest modified rules unless such provision is made along with the principal rule. When in 1988 the Bar Council of India inspection team visited the college, no question has been raised about the qualification of the Principal. How can the same Principal be now said to be disqualified after working for eight more years in the same capacity ? (vi) In the Inspection Report of the DHSK Law College, Dibrugarh, it is stated that "candidates with LLM Degree and Advocates with sufficient experience at the Bar should and must be appointed as full time or part time teachers." As an autonomous institution the University perhaps, has the right to question as to whether the University, and for that matter a college affiliated to the University, should be guided by the Rule 8 of Section B of Part IV of the BCI Rules in letter and spirit or by the dictate of an inspection team. If the Bar Council of India is of the opinion that the appointment of a Master Degree holder is mandatory then it should get the Rule 8 referred to above duly modified with information to all concerned. The stricture given in the inspection report is highly violative of the concerned Rule of the BCI Rules. (vii) It is further observed in the Inspection Report that “The Principal of the college is not a qualified person to be appointed as Principal”. As early as in 1983 the BCI inspection team did not disqualify this Principal. Now with an experience for long 14 years how can the Principal be said to be disqualified? (vii) It is further observed in the Inspection Report that “The Principal of the college is not a qualified person to be appointed as Principal”. As early as in 1983 the BCI inspection team did not disqualify this Principal. Now with an experience for long 14 years how can the Principal be said to be disqualified? (viii) With regard to the DHSK Law College the remarks of the Inspection Team have observed: "We come to know from various sources that there is no systematic teaching in the college and there are no regular classes and the whole set up of teaching in the college is without any time schedule." In this connection we should like to know from the Bar Council of India if such unidentified sources also can have any say over such vital issues like the affiliation and disaffiliation of a Law College affiliated to a University and the Bar Council of India. (ix) It is further stated in the same context that 'Two members of the State Bar Council of Assam belong to this place. They are very much disturbed and agitated with the poor quality of legal education in this college. They approached the Vice Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University so many times but nothing has been done to improve the standards of legal education in the Law Colleges.” We are constrained to observe that this is an absolutely concocted story. This is highly motivated and deplorable on the part of the two particular persons to indulge in this sort of anti-propaganda. And we have the fear that, perhaps, the decision of the Bar Council of India is not based on objective examination of the state of affairs in the Law Colleges concerned, but on the contrary, it is based on doubtful extraneous elements only. (x) It is further stated in the same report that "Previously there was a University Law College at Dibrugarh which was closed down and private Law Colleges were encouraged to open Law Colleges in the area of Dibrugarh." In the context of the inspection of Law Colleges already affiliated to the Bar Council of India, this observation is totally uncalled for. It is the prerogative of the University either to have their own college/department or to grant permission to private colleges. It is the prerogative of the University either to have their own college/department or to grant permission to private colleges. We would have refrained from questioning the relevance of this observation if the Bar Council of India would have given us to learn that they have taken a policy of discouraging functioning of all private law colleges. We must not, however, fail to appreciate the concern of the Bar Council of India for the future of legal education under Dibrugarh University as evidenced by your suggestion for establishment of 'either constituent Law College/colleges or University Department under Dibrugarh University fulfilling all the prescribed norms of the Bar Council of India' Vide your letters to Registrar, Dibrugarh University (No. BCl:D:504: 1996{LE/Mtg)dated 24.236, to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam (No. BCI: D: 503:1996 (LE/Mtg) dated 24.2:96) and to the Hon'ble Law Minister of Assam (No. BCI: D: 501 : 1996(LE/Mtg) dated 24.2.96). But what happens to be intriguing for us in this context is that Hon'ble Chairman of the Bar Council of India offered this suggestion for establishing constituent college/colleges or a department in Dibrugarh University as an alternative to the existing Law Colleges long before the colleges were actually inspected. This gives us the impression that the Bar Council of India was pre-determined to disqualify the law colleges and the inspection was only an eyewash. Yet we would like to assume that the Bar Council of India is genuinely interested in the healthy growth of legal education in the Upper Assam area falling under the academic jurisdiction of Dibrugarh University and hence we would also like to crave the indulgence for offering this suggestion that the most pragmatic, practical and constructive course of action would be to give a chance to b the existing Law Colleges for fulfilling all the norms within a period of two years from now without fail and thus to contribute towards the most desirable healthy growth of legal education as stated above. As many as six colleges already have the required infrastructure. To close down all these colleges at a time will create a far greater chaotic condition having far reaching consequences than what is now obtaining with regard to the State of legal education under Dibrugarh University according to your estimation. As many as six colleges already have the required infrastructure. To close down all these colleges at a time will create a far greater chaotic condition having far reaching consequences than what is now obtaining with regard to the State of legal education under Dibrugarh University according to your estimation. In view of the above we once again make an appeal to the Bar Council of India for reviewing the issue of granting extension of affiliation to the Law Colleges under Dibrugarh University and grant extension for two more years conditionally and oblige. Further, we appeal to the Bar council of India not to seal the fate of these law graduates who had passed out from the law colleges under Dibrugarh University in the year 1994 and 1995 by withholding their licence to practice in the Bar any further. Yours faithfully, Sd/- BK Gogoi Registrar, Dibrugarh University.” 7. There are certain general remarks in the report which are also based not on objective assessment as required by such Inspection Committee. This is in the interest of norms, rules and regulation of the Bar Council of India. No particulars were given. No details were given and the some sweeping general remarks have been made by the Inspection Committee and found fault with this college. Further it will be seen how mechanical is the Bar Council of India. It is stated in the letter that the college was inspected by Sri OP Sharma and Sri Ashok Kumar Deb, but as a matter of fact the college was inspected by Sri OP Sharma and Sri TS Chahar. Sri AK Deb was not a member of the Inspection Committee at all. This is pointed out in the letter of the Principal and finds place at page 47 of the writ application (Annexure 13). In the letter of the Principal there is categorical assertion to the effect that the recommendation made in the earlier report are all fulfilled save and except one i.e. payment of salary according „ to UGC scale. As a matter of fact the payment of salary in the UGC scale has not been made almost through out the country. In the letter of the Principal there is categorical assertion to the effect that the recommendation made in the earlier report are all fulfilled save and except one i.e. payment of salary according „ to UGC scale. As a matter of fact the payment of salary in the UGC scale has not been made almost through out the country. The University authority in its letter vide Annexure 14 wrote as follows : “As per Rule 13 (e) of Section B Part IV the unfavourable reports of the inspection team should have been first sent to the Registrar, Dibrugarh University for his comments and explanations, if any. Rule (f) provides the comments of the Registrar should have been placed before the next meeting of the Legal Education Committee or the Bar Council of India.” But the letter and report of Council were received after passing of the impugned order at Annexure 12 as the date of Annexure 12 is 27.2.1996. That is the brief facts of this case. 8. In civil Rule No. 2740 of 1996 the brief facts are as follows : The report of the Inspection Committee is dated 27.12.95. The matter was placed before the Legal Education Committee on 9.2.96 and the report of the Legal Education Committee was placed before the Bar Council of India on 10- 11.2.96 and the decision in the meeting was taken. It may be stated and as is evident the report of the Inspection Committee was not sent to the Registrar of the Dibrugarh University for his comment before placing it before the Legal Education Committee. The decision was taken behind the back of the college and the University. 9. Civil Rule No. 2740 of 1996 has been filed by the Governing Body of Dr. RK Baruah Law College at Dibrugarh. This college was established in the year 1976 and it was affiliated to Dibrugarh University. This college was inspected in the month of March, 1988 by the Inspection Committee of the Council and the affiliation of the college was extended for a further period of 2 years. Other things are common. But some thing must be said with regard to this Inspection Report dated 27.12.95 with regard to this college which are available from the letter of the Registrar mentioned in the other civil rule. 10. Other things are common. But some thing must be said with regard to this Inspection Report dated 27.12.95 with regard to this college which are available from the letter of the Registrar mentioned in the other civil rule. 10. It may be stated herein that the letter of the Registrar itself will show that before receipt of the letter the impugned order was passed vide Annexure 12 quoted above inasmuch as the authority collected the opinion/report from all the colleges on the said report and thus on receipt of material the Registrar wrote back to the authority placing the fact. In the Inspection Report with regard to this college it is stated that the proforma filled up by the authority is absolutely false and that there is no qualified Principal as well as teachers in the college. The University pointed out this is a very concocted report and false on some aspect. There may be inaccuracy but that it is not false. The University authority categorically pointed out that the teachers including the Principal are duly qualified as per Bar Council Rules. Section (4) of Rule 8 deals with rules as pointed out by the University. The appointments were made before the Rules and now with the change of rules they cannot be deemed to be disqualified. In the Inspection Report submitted in the year 1988 no objection was raised with regard to the qualification of the Principal and the qualification of the teachers and the University authority pointed out that it is really strange affairs how the same Principal now can be said to be disqualified after working eight years in the same capacity. 11. Civil Rule No. 2739 of 1996 has been filed by the Governing Body of Sibsagar Law College which was established in the year 1972 and affiliated to Dibrugarh University. There was an inspection in the year 1988 and the affiliation was extended for a period of two years. Thereafter by the same order which has been mentioned above this college was also disqualified by the same impugned order at Annexure 12 in the first civil rule. There was an inspection in the year 1988 and the affiliation was extended for a period of two years. Thereafter by the same order which has been mentioned above this college was also disqualified by the same impugned order at Annexure 12 in the first civil rule. With regard to the report of this college, University authority in their letter mentioned above has made some damaging statement as against the B are Council of India, and in spite of the letter regarding the Inspection Report in the letter of the University, the Council has not filed affidavit. Be that as it may, in this case also it suffers from same deficiency as pointed out in the other civil rule. 12. Civil Rule No. 2738 of 1996 has been filed by the Governing Body of Golaghat Law College. This college was established in the year 1979. This college was affiliated to Dibrugarh University. There was an inspection of the college in the year 1988. The same impugned order has been challenged in this case also. 13. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners makes the submission that the entire action of the Bar council of India is violative of Rule 13 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Rule 13 is quoted below : “13. The Bar Council of India shall cause a law college affiliated or sought to be affiliated to a University to be inspected by a committee to be appointed by it for the purpose, when : (a) An application for approval of affiliation of a new college is received by it, or it suo motu decides in order to ensure that the standards of legal education laid down by it are being complied with. (b) The application for approval of affiliation of new college shall be addressed to the Secretary, Bar Council of India, and shall be sent only through the Registrar of the University concerned with his recommendations and the application be accompanied by an inspection fee of Rs. 15,000. (c) The college and/or the University concerned shall furnish all the information to the committee of inspection and the Bar Council of India as and when required, and shall cooperate with them in every possible manner in the conduct of inspection. 15,000. (c) The college and/or the University concerned shall furnish all the information to the committee of inspection and the Bar Council of India as and when required, and shall cooperate with them in every possible manner in the conduct of inspection. (d) The committee of inspection shall submit a detailed report to the council with a clear recommendation as to whether the affiliation to new college be approved/disapproved or that of an existing college be withdrawn/continued or that certain directions be given for improvements to be carried out within the period to be specified . The report shall incorporate the reasons for the recommendations. (e) If an unfavourable report is received, the Secretary of the Bar Council of India shall cause a copy of the same to be sent to the Registrar of the University concerned for his comments and explanations if any. Such comments and explanations on the report shall be sent by the Registrar of the University within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the communication. (f) The Secretary of the Bar Council of India shall cause the report and the comments/explanation of Registrar of the University concerned to be placed before the next meeting of the Legal Education committee of the Bar Council of India. (g) If the Legal Education Committee is satisfied that the standards of legal education and/or the rules for affiliation or continuance of affiliation provided for in these rules by the Bar Council of India are not complied with and/or that the courses of study, teaching and/or examination are not such as to secure to persons under going legal education, the knowledge and training requisite for the competent" practice of law, the Legal Education Committee shall recommended to the Bar Council of India the approval/disapproval of affiliation or continuance of affiliation as the case may be. The Legal Education Committee may also recommend that certain directions be given for improvements to be carried out within the period to be specified. (h) This recommendation of the Legal Education Committee along with accompanying papers shall be placed before the Bar Council of India for its decision. In case the Bar Council of India disagrees with or modifies the recommendation of the Legal Education Committee; it shall communicate its views to the Legal Education Committee for its consideration before arriving at a final decision in the matter. In case the Bar Council of India disagrees with or modifies the recommendation of the Legal Education Committee; it shall communicate its views to the Legal Education Committee for its consideration before arriving at a final decision in the matter. (i) If the Council is of the opinion that affiliation of a college be disapproved it should give notice of the proposed action to the Principal of the college and the Registrar of the University to show cause within 30 days of the receipt of the notice and the Council shall take into consideration the reply received before making final orders. (j) The decision of Bar Council of India shall be communicated to the Registrar of the University. It shall be effective from the commencement of the next academic year following the date on which it is received by the Registrar of the University.” 14. Mr. Goswami also submits that there is a broad question which can be urged. But in view of the fact that the validity of the Rule has not been challenged in the applications he is not arguing that aspect of the matter. I have not applied my mind to that question and leave it open for the present. In AIR 1999 SC 1167 (V. Sudder vs. Bar Council of India & others) the role and functions of the Bar Council of India have been discussed. The Bar Council of India framed rules with the power to inspect the Law College. A bare look at Rule 13 will show that according to Rule 13 (e) the unfavourable report is to be sent first to the Registrar of the University concerned for his opinion and explanations are to be sent by the Registrar of the University within six weeks from the date of receipt of communication. That was not done in the instant case. The report was sent to the University only after the decision was taken by the impugned order. That is violative of Rule 13 (e) quoted above. Rule 13 (f) provides that comments of the Registrar should placed before the next meeting of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India so that the committee may peruse the explanation of the University to final out whether it will be just and proper to make recommendation with regard to the disaffiliation of the college. Rule 13 (f) provides that comments of the Registrar should placed before the next meeting of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India so that the committee may peruse the explanation of the University to final out whether it will be just and proper to make recommendation with regard to the disaffiliation of the college. In this particular case that was not done as the communication itself was sent to the University after the decision was taken. So that action is violative of Rule 13 (f). Rule 13 (g) provides that only after comments are placed, the Legal Education Committee should recommend to the Bar Council of India the approval/disapproval of affiliation or continuance of affiliation as the case may be and there is a further proviso that the Legal Education Committee may also give certain direction for improvements, to be carried out within the period to be specified. Thereafter the recommendation of the Legal Education Committee along with comments made thereof, the comments/explanations from the Registrar may be placed . before the Bar Council of India for its decision. This comments/explanation from the Registrar in this case were not sent to the Bar Council of India, because that was not communicated before the decision was taken. The most important provisions is Rule 13 (i) Bar Council of India was required to serve a show cause notice on the college and on the Registrar before making a final order. But no such show cause was sent on the colleges under the Dibrugarh University save and except to Jorhat college. The show cause must be served both on the college as well as on the Registrar. That was also not done by the Bar Council of India. So, the whole action of the Bar Council of India appears to be absolutely a mechanical approach in violation of its own Rules; without adhering to its own rules. Rule are framed for being implemented/followed and not to be flouted. 15. Mr. BK Das, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of India submits that though the action appears to be violative of the principle of natural justice as well as fairness and reasonableness, even the post decisional hearing has taken place when also the Registrar received a notice. The Rule has been substantially complied. 15. Mr. BK Das, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of India submits that though the action appears to be violative of the principle of natural justice as well as fairness and reasonableness, even the post decisional hearing has taken place when also the Registrar received a notice. The Rule has been substantially complied. He further urged that post decisional hearing will be sufficient even after the decision was taken. This argument cannot be accepted, as the action is contrary to the rules, certain things which must be done, it was never done Sri Das relies on AIR 1995 Kerala 276 (Premchand R. & others vs. State of Kerala) The facts and circumstances of that case are different. The facts are different in this case. Further a bare perusal of Rule 13 (a) and (b) which have been quoted above will show that application can be only for new colleges and not for existing Law Colleges. As this colleges are existing Law Colleges, no question of realising the inspection fee also arises. 16. Rule 12 (1) quoted above will show that in case of existing Law Colleges (that is the colleges before the Rules) the affiliation given by the University requires approval by the Council. Rule 12 (2) speaks for disapproval. A bare perusal of Annexure 4 letter dated 30.11.94 (CR No. 2701 of 1996) by the Council will show "if further permission of affiliation is not granted by the Bar Council of India." Rule 12(1) and 12 (2) do not speak of further permission for affiliation, nor does it speak of approval by installments. The meaning of the word approve is to accept, accord allow etc. It is the affiliation given by the University which is to be approved or disapproved. The tussle is between the University and Council and that is further highlighted by Rule 13 quoted above. But it appears from the tenor of things that in the instant case the Bar Council assumed as if the colleges are under their direct control and supervision, that is not the scheme of the Rule and the Act. The Bar council has only a subsidiary role to play, they in the garb of inspection and approval or disapproval cannot do something which is not provided in the scheme of the Act and Rule and overstep the limit. The Bar council has only a subsidiary role to play, they in the garb of inspection and approval or disapproval cannot do something which is not provided in the scheme of the Act and Rule and overstep the limit. However, laudable and object may be, things must be done according to provisions of law and not by adopting its own method and ways. In Black's Law Dictionary the meaning of the word approval is the act of confirming, ratifying, assessing g sanctioning or consenting to some act or thing done by another. Approval implies knowledge and exercise of discretion after knowledge. One statutory body (the Council) is approving or disapproving the action of another statutory body (University) and in such a situation it is of utmost necessity to adopt a very cautions and prudent approach. It should not be assumed by the Bar Council that the University is encouraging the mushroom growth of Law Colleges, such an h assumption is untenable, as that will amount to questioning the wisdom and authority or University, which cannot be done by the Bar Council. 17. In the cases I find and hold as follows : (1) Rule 13 (a) (b) and (c) they apply to inspection of new college and not to an existing college, in the case of an existing college the question of deposit of an inspection fee does not arise. (2) Rule 13 (d) speaks withdrawal of approval of existing colleges or giving some directions for improvement with specified period. The report shall incorporate reasons for such recommendations. (3) Rule 13 (e) requires that the unfavourable reports must be sent by the Secretary of the Council to the Registrar of the University for his comments and explanation giving it time for 6 weeks for such explanation. In the instant cases it was never sent to Registrar, Dibrugarh University before the impugned decision was taken. So, this decision is liable to be struck down for violating this Rule. (4) Rule 13 (f) requires that explanation must be placed before the Legal Education Committee in its next meeting. The report not being furnished to Registrar this also was not done, so the impugned decision is violative of Rule 13 (f) and liable to be struck/quashed on that count also. (4) Rule 13 (f) requires that explanation must be placed before the Legal Education Committee in its next meeting. The report not being furnished to Registrar this also was not done, so the impugned decision is violative of Rule 13 (f) and liable to be struck/quashed on that count also. (5) There was complete violation of Rule 13 (g) as the explanation of the Registrar was not before it and without it made the recommendation for approval/ disapproval and or withdrawal/discontinuance of affiliation. The Legal Education Committee could not also exercise its statutory discretionary duty for giving recommendations for improvements etc in the absence of explanation. (6) There was violation of Rule 13 (h), as the prerequisites, the things to be followed earlier were not adhered to. An action taken by the authority can be valid only when things are done in a manner required to be done. If one takes a decision without following the procedure that decision cannot be a valid decision when non-adherence to procedure/rules cause substantial prejudice to a person. The impugned decision suffers from infraction of rules and is in total disregard of the principles of natural justice. Before arriving at the decision the Council forgot/neglected to follow the schemes, procedure and inbuilt checks and balances. As such decision at Annexure 12 is liable to be struck down. (7) Even in taking the decision it violated its own Rule 13 (j) which provides it shall be effective from the commencement of the next academic year following the date on which it is received by the Registrar of University. So the students passing out earlier to 1997 (it having been received on March, 1996) cannot be debarred, but that is what has been done by Annexure 12. Thereafter this order was suspended by this Court. I am tempted here to quote an old saying he who decides a case without hearing the other side, may decide justly, but is himself unjust. Arbitrariness and failure to adherence to Rules/violation of the Rules give a body blow to the rule of law to which we are all wedded. That will strike in this seat of judgment. 18.1 am conscious of the position that judicial review is limited to three grounds: (i) unreasonableness which can more appropriately be called irrationality, (ii) illegality, (iii) procedural impropriety. I find these cases squarely come within these. That will strike in this seat of judgment. 18.1 am conscious of the position that judicial review is limited to three grounds: (i) unreasonableness which can more appropriately be called irrationality, (ii) illegality, (iii) procedural impropriety. I find these cases squarely come within these. The authority exceeded its powers, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, even it is almost an abuse of power, as the procedures set forth were not complied with. The Court can always look to procedural part of the action as part of judicial review, more so on the face of statutory rules, violation/ infraction of which are brought to the notice of the Court. Frankfurters in Felix vs. Cook, 342 US 126 (1951) held “I am not one of those who think that procedure is just follow or noxious moss.” Earlier to it in 1943 in Felex vs. United States 318 US 332 he held the history of liberty has largely been the history of observance of procedural safeguards. The Apex Court in (1997) 1 SCC 156 (162) (State of MP vs. MV Vyavasuya) held inter alia that judicial review ensures that the decision is arrived at in accordance with the prescribed by laws and in accordance with the principles of natural justice wherever applicable. The Council is a creature of statutes, Rules have been framed, it is found to conduct itself according to Rules decision from them will expose their decision and such decision much be struck down in exercise of the power of judicial review. 19. Accordingly, all the civil rules are allowed. Annexure 12 order dated 27.2.96 shall stand set aside and quashed. It is directed that the students with degree from these colleges shall be enrolled as Advocates subject to section 24 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as enrolment is the function of State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India has got nothing to do with it. It is also made clear that the order passed by the Bar Council of India and State Bar Council which is standing on way of enrolment on this ground shall stand quashed. No costs. 20. Though the judgment was delivered in open Court on 27.8.99, it was typed out very late and I have signed it on 6.10.99. The delay is regretted.