TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-society applied to the 2nd respondent-university seeking grant of affiliation for a new law college which the former proposed to establish. Despite a recommendation from the academic council and syndicate of the university supporting the grant the state government declined to proceed in the matter till the petitioner secured the approval of the bar council of india. Aggrieved by the order issued by the government the petitioner filed writ petition No. 4247 of 1997 in the case of miranda education society (registered), Bangalore v state of Karnataka and others, in this court, and while the same was pending moved an application before the bar council seeking its approval. An inspection team deputed by the council declined to recommend affiliation and so did the legal education committee. The exercise elded in the rejection of the petitioner's request for approval which was chal lenged in writ petition No. 13820 of 1997 in the case of miranda education, supra, filed by the petitioner. Both the writ petitions |were dlsposed of by raveendran, j. , by a common order dated 18th of august, 1997 the court held that the circular issued by the state government as also the communication received from the b. c. i, insisting upon the council's approval before the grant of affiliation were unsustainable and contrary to the scheme of the rules framed under the advocates act the circulars and the communications from the b. c. i, were accordingly quashed with a direction to the state government to consider the reports/reslutions received by it under Section 53 (5) of the Karnataka stara universities Act, 1976. The respondent-university was in turn directed tl act in accordance with recommendations within the time frame stipulated for that purpose. Liberty was at the same time reserved to the bar council of India to issue a notice as contemplated under Rule 13 (i) of Section b, part iv of bar council of India rules, after affiliation was panted to the institution set up by the petitioner. The court clarified that the petitioner shall not make any admissions or commence imparting instructions until the university granted affiliation and the b. c. i approved the same. ( 2 ) IN compliance with the above directions, the governmemt by an order dated 8th january, 1998, recommended grant of affiliation to the proposed institution subject to the conditions stipulated in the order. ( 2 ) IN compliance with the above directions, the governmemt by an order dated 8th january, 1998, recommended grant of affiliation to the proposed institution subject to the conditions stipulated in the order. shortly, thereafter, the b. c. i, by a notice dated 6th April 1998 called upon the petitioner to show cause why the approval of afiliaytilon granted to the petitioner's college be not declined in the light of the detects and deficiencies mentioned in the inspection report submitted by its inspecting team. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply which was upon consideration by the bar council found unsatisfactory resulting in the refusal of approval to the affiliation granted by the university aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in which apart from challenging the correctness of the order issued by the b. c. i, it has assailed the constitutional validity of Section 7 (l) (m) of the advocates Act, 1961 and rules 12 and 13 of Section b of chapter iv of the bar council of India rules. A mandamus directing the first respondent to approve the affiliation has been claimed besides a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, by way of compensation for the injury allegedly suffered by the petitioner as a result of the impugned order. ( 3 ) MR. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner did not pursue his challenge to Section 7 (l) (m) of the advocates Act, 1961. He confined his submissions to the validity of rules 12 and 13 of the rules mentioned above and argued that the same were ultra vires of the Provisions of the advocates act. Reliance was in support placed by him upon the decision of the Supreme Court in V. Sudeer V. Bar Council of India and another that was a case where the court was considering the validity of the bar council of India training rules, 1995, as amended by resolution of the bar council of india, dated 19th of july, 1998 prescribing pre-enrolment training and apprenticeship for new entrants to the profession. The rules were assailed on the ground of being in excess of the Rule making power vested in the bar council besides being unreasonable, and arbi- trary, hence violative of article 14 of the constitution. The rules were assailed on the ground of being in excess of the Rule making power vested in the bar council besides being unreasonable, and arbi- trary, hence violative of article 14 of the constitution. The court framed the following three questions for examination: (1) whether the impugned rules are ultra vires the Rule making power of the bar council of india, as available to it under the Provisions of the act? (2) if the above be answered in negative and in favour of the bar council of india, whether the impugned rules are arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the guarantee of article 14 of the Constitution of india? (3) if the impugned rules are legal and valid, whether the respondent in bar council of india's appeal, who has got his law degree prior to the coming into force of these rules, can be required to comply with these rules if he applies for being enrolled as an 'advocate' under the Act, after the rules came into force? ( 4 ) ANSWERING the first question in the affirmative, the court declared that a conjoint reading of sections 23, 29 and 33 of the advocates Act, left no room for doubt that once a person is found to be qualified for admission as an advocate, upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions of eligibility laid down by sub-section (1) of Section 24, he will be entitled as of right to practice in any court including the Supreme Court. Their lordships held that the bar council could not in exercise of its rule making power impose any condition or qualification for enrolment over and above what was prescribed under Section 24 of the act. The court declared that Section 7 (l) (h) of the Act, which empowers the bar council to promote legal education through the universities imparting such education also, did not entitle the bar council to prescribe any pre-enrolment training or examination to be taken by those wanting to enrol themselves once they satisfied the requirement and the conditions for such enrolment as laid down by Section 24 (1 ). Questions 2 and 3, with which we are not directly concerned in the present writ petitions were also answered although the court held that it was unnecsssary to go into the said questions in view of the finding recorded on question 1. Questions 2 and 3, with which we are not directly concerned in the present writ petitions were also answered although the court held that it was unnecsssary to go into the said questions in view of the finding recorded on question 1. ( 5 ) A careful reading of the decision, would show that the question that fell for consideration before their lordships was totally different from what arises for consideration in the present writ petition. The question there was whether the Rule prescribing pre-enrolment training was in conflict with Section 24 of the advocates act. In the instant case, the rules in question have nothing to do with pre-enrolment training. rules 12 and 13 deal with instructions in a course of studj- in law inter alia provide that no college shall after coming into force of the rules impart such instructions unless its affiliation has been approved by the bar council of india. The rules also empower the b. c. i, to cause a law college affiliated to a university to be inspected by a committee to be appointed by it for the purpose. The procedure which the inspection team has to follow and the matters to be kept in view have been prescribed. it is not therefore a case where the rules provide for something which the statutory Provisions contained in the Act, do not support. As a matter of fact, the rules in question when read in proper context, are aimed at ensuring 'maintenance of the standards in legal education in the country'. If the argument advanced by Mr. Joshi, counsel appearing for the b. c. i, were to be accepted, the rules in question which provide for the syllabus and the qualification of teachers, their salaries, the workload to be assigned to them etc. , have all been framed in consultation with the universities in the country. Rules 12 and 13, appearing in Section b, part iv of the said rules are in particular meant to advance the object underlying the Provisions of the act. That is because the bar council of India is in its capacity as the apex body under the act charged with the duty of maintaining and prescribing standards for legal education in the country. That is because the bar council of India is in its capacity as the apex body under the act charged with the duty of maintaining and prescribing standards for legal education in the country. The power to lay down the standards of legal education as envisaged by Section 7 (h) of the act is wide enough to include the power to prescribe the conditions subject to fulfillment whereof such education can be imparted. Inasmuch as Rule 12 provides that no college shall impart instructions in a course of study in law except after the affiliation is approved by the b. c. i. , it ensures that the quality of legal education does not suffer because of the poor conditions or infrastructure provided by the institution. So also Rule 13 prescribes the procedure and the norms by reference to which the b. c. i, shall have the request for approval verified and determined. Rules 12 and 13 of the rules therefore do not transgress the Rule making power of the bar council hence do not suffer from the vice of being in excess of the power vested in the council. ( 6 ) THE merits of the challenge apart, the petitioner cannot in my opinion urge the ground now set up for two precise reasons. Firstly because even though the petitioner had the opportunity no question the validity of rules 12 and 13 in the previous round of litigation, it did not choose to do so. Principles of constructive res judicata should prevent it from urging a ground which was available and ought to have been taken but was not taken in the earlier round of litigation. Secondly, this court had while disposing of the earlier writ petitions, clearly held rules 12 and 13 to be Provisions aimed at fixing standards of legal education. this is evident from the following passage:"the intention and purpose of these Provisions (rules 12 and 13) will also give an indication as to whether 'approval' should be read as 'prior approval', b. c. i, is not a parallel body granting affiliation. Rules 12 and 13 are made in the context of fixing standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law for admission as advocates. Rules 12 and 13 are made in the context of fixing standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law for admission as advocates. The purpose of approval of affiliation is to ensure that the students admitted to such colleges are given proper instructions in accordance with the standards of legal education and become fit to be enrolled as advocates. Hence, what is required and contemplated is approval and not prior approval". the challenge to the vires of rules 12 and 13 accordingly fails. ( 7 ) COMING then to the merits of the decision, it is evident from a closer reading of the report submitted by the inspectors deputed by the council that the college exists only in papers. The inspectors have reported that the proposed college does not have any building of its own. the society proposes to use an existing school building on the basis of a certain arrangement entered into between the school and the society. no document creating either a lease or a licence in favour of the society was produced to show that the latter had acquired the right to make use of the building. Besides, there was according to the inspection team, no library, apart from a collection of 234 assorted books including the all India reporter for the year 1994. Bills showing purchase of law books were produced before the inspectors which they dibelieved having regard to the fact that the same had been issued only a day before the date of inspection. In the absence of any proof of payment, the inspectors felt that the purchase was a make believe and the books shown to them collected only for demonstration. The impression of the team is summarised in the following words: in short, there is no building of their own, no campus, no true library and no regular faculty for the proposed law college. It seems the management is under a false notion that they need to set up all these only after the bar council of India granting approval of affiliation for the college. If this is accepted then in future no inspection will be required for new law college because everything will be arranged and set up only after getting the bar council of india's approval for the affiliation. If this is accepted then in future no inspection will be required for new law college because everything will be arranged and set up only after getting the bar council of india's approval for the affiliation. In the above circumstances I am of the opinion that since the management of the pruthvi law college, Bangalore has not complied with the mandatory requirements stipulated by the bar council of India rules and directives, approval for the affiliation of the above college should not be granted and their application should be rejected". ( 8 ) THE bar council has while considering the explanation submitted by the society dealt with each issue separately. It has referred to the explanation offered to the various questions which asked to answer the following questions and the answers given by the society are for our purposes relevant:" (Q) (1) whether the proposed law college has already set up a library, if so, please state? (a) (1) a well-equipped library would be immediately set up soon after permission of the bar council of india, but before starting of the college. (q) (2) whether the library has adequately been equipped with law reports, textbooks, periodicals and reference books meet the the requirements of the course of instruction given under the rules (a) (2) library would be adequately equipped with law reports textbooks, periodicals as per this standard requirements soon af ter permission of the bar council. Initially, textbooks worth rs. 1,35,000/- is proposed to be purchased for the 1st year lis| enclosed (Annexure-R ). (q) (3) whether multiple copies of prescribed and recommended readings are. Available? (a) (3) yes. Would be made available immediately after affiliation (q) (4) whether the library is under the charge of a qualified librarian? (a) (4) a qualified librarian is being appointed. (q) (5) whether the law college has its own building and if so whether it is available for the exclusive use of the course i (a) (5) as of now, the college has no building of its own. Applied for ca sites from bda. Own college building would be acquired. . until then college would be run in the proposed spacious premises (q) (6) how many class rooms are available? Please state the size of the rooms? (a) (6) size of the proposed each class room size is about 25' 30 feet. Applied for ca sites from bda. Own college building would be acquired. . until then college would be run in the proposed spacious premises (q) (6) how many class rooms are available? Please state the size of the rooms? (a) (6) size of the proposed each class room size is about 25' 30 feet. (q) (7) whether the college building has been properly furnished (a) (7) yes, would be furnished. (q) (8) if the college has no its own building, whether the college has set apart any building fund? (a) (8) as of now, the college has no building of its own. own building would be secured. Building fund would be sen part form the commencement of the college". ( 9 ) IT is obvious from the above that apart from the ambition of setting up a law college and collection of a sum of Rs. 75,000/- by 15 trustees said to have contributed Rs. 5,000/- each there has been no serious effort to satisfy the essential infrastructural requirements. There is nothing before me to suggest that there has been any improvement after the inspection by the inspecting team, nor was any such importvement claimed by Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. The argument that the bar council of India could not have relied upon the inspection conducted prior to the grant of affiliation has not impressed me. It is not disputed that the inspection was conducted at the request of the society and pursuant to the application for approval made by it. It is also not disputed that at no stage after the previous inspection and before the decision of the bar council, did the petitioner make my request for a fresh inspection. Even in the writ petition, the petitioner-society has not claimed that any improvement in regard either to the acquisition of a proper building, setting up of a proper library or appointment of staff, has taken place after the previous inspection. It is therefore futile to argue that a second inspection made after the grant of affiliation would have made any material difference. ( 10 ) IT was next argued that since the report of the inspecting team had been adverse, it was necessary for the bar c ouncil to send a copy of the same to the university to elicit its opinion in the natter. ( 10 ) IT was next argued that since the report of the inspecting team had been adverse, it was necessary for the bar c ouncil to send a copy of the same to the university to elicit its opinion in the natter. Rule 13 (e) of the rules requires the secretary of the bar council to cause a copy of the report if adverse, to be sent to the registrar of the university concerned for its comments and explanation if any. Such comments and explanations have to be submitted by the registrar, within six weeks from the date of receipt of communication. Although the objections filed on behalf of the respondent-bar council of india, state that a copy of the inspecting team's report had been forwarded to the registrar of the university, yet assuming that a copy was not actually forwarded to the registrar, the question would be whether the failure of the bar council would result in vitiating the decision taken by it. My answer is in the negative. Rule 13 does not indicate the consequences of the non-communication of a copy of the report to the registrar all that the provision requires is that the report should be communicated to the registrar whose comments should then be placed before the legal education committee of the bar council of India for examination. In order to verify whether there was any material difference in the eva uation of the in- frastructural facilities by the experts of the b. c. l on the one hand and the inspection team deputed by the university an the other, Mr. N. k. patil, counsel appearing for the university was! Asked to produce the relevant record. The record produced shows that the; university had appointed a local inspection team, which had inspected the proposed institution. The report submitted by the team however, does not materially differ from that submitted by the team deputed by the bar council of india. It is evident from the report of the inspectors deputed by the university, that the society does not have any building or satisfactory arrangement for running the institution. The team appears to have believed the story of the society that the college can be efficiently run in the school building which the school management had promised to make available. It is evident from the report of the inspectors deputed by the university, that the society does not have any building or satisfactory arrangement for running the institution. The team appears to have believed the story of the society that the college can be efficiently run in the school building which the school management had promised to make available. The local inspection team also did not report; that the society had the advantage of a proper library. It also did not report that the college had appointed or made arrangements for appo ntment of qualified teaching staff needed for running the institution. In none of these material particulars, is there any difference between the report of the local inspection team and that of the inspector deputed by the b. c. i, and yet the local inspection team had recommended the grant of affiliation. it is difficult to appreciate how the team could have possibly done so when the institution did not satisfy the minimum requirements prescribed by the bar council of India for setting up of a law college. What is surprising is that the recommendations had been accepted by the academic council and the syndicate. So much so the recommendations eventually reached the government who agreed to the grant of affiliation. a reading of the government order shows as if the government had made its recommendations not on account of its own satisfaction but because of the directions issued by this court. The order creates an impression as though this court had in the previous round of litigation directed the grant of affiliation to the institution. That is however not the true position. The government was at liberty to examine the issue objectively and take a proper decision instead of acting mechanically and creating an impression that it had no choice in the matter. It is indeed regrettable that statutory authorities at the state level should fail to effectively discharge their duties and ensure that institutions which do not have the requisite infrastructural facilities do not set up shop. In retrospect the regulation of new professional institutions : n medical, engineering or other professional courses by appropriate central legislations has been fully justified. It is indeed regrettable that statutory authorities at the state level should fail to effectively discharge their duties and ensure that institutions which do not have the requisite infrastructural facilities do not set up shop. In retrospect the regulation of new professional institutions : n medical, engineering or other professional courses by appropriate central legislations has been fully justified. But for the vigilant attitude adopted by the central agencies, and left to authorities at the state level only, an institution which does not possess even the basic infrastructure like a building, library and staff could take birth and thereby add to the downward slide in the quality of legal education. There is in the circumstances, no room for interference with the decision taken dy the bar council of India in declining approval to the affiliation graited to the institution. If at all something needs to be done it is for the Bangalore university to do some introspection to prevent such affiliations being granted in future. The university would also do well to take steps to recall immediately the affiliation granted by it to the propo sed institution. ( 11 ) WITH the above observations, this writ petition fails ar d is hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 2,000/ -. --- *** --- .