B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE proceedings dt. 23-4-2001 on the file of the first respondent-Bar Council of India is impugned in this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-Society is running a law College by name Pendekanti Law college. The college started functioning from the academic year 1990-91 initially at premises bearing No. 3-6-215, himayatnagar, Hyderabad, where other institutions of the Academy were also located. ( 3 ) AS at present, the college is being run in a rented premises from December, 1998 onwards. The building belongs to the A. P. State Chamber of Panchayat Raj. It is stated that it has 8 lecture halls, one big Moot-Court hall, 2 Staff rooms, one Principal s room, one office room and one big hall exclusively used for Library. It is claimed that this college is one of the few law colleges paying U. G. C. scales and allowances to the Lecturers and has a well qualified Principal and sufficient supporting non-teaching staff. ( 4 ) IT is not necessary to refer in detail about the brilliant performance of some of the students at the examinations conducted by the University. ( 5 ) THE Inspection team of Bar Council of india inspected the premises/college at himayatnagar and expressed its opinion that the building in which the College was located was not satisfactory and suggested that a suitable location be found for the college. The Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 18th and 19th April, 1997 considered the report submitted by the Inspection Team of the Bar Council of India and accordingly decided to continue the approval of affiliation to the College for imparting 3 year as well as 5 year law course. A copy of the report of the Inspection Team was directed to be sent to the college for compliance of the suggestions. ( 6 ) THE Secretary of the petitioner-society accordingly addressed letter dt. 22-9-1998 to the Secretary of the Bar Council of India undertaking on behalf of the Academy to relocate the college "in its own land and building within a period of 3 years. For that purpose, an amount of Rs. 1 crore is set apart bv the Academy. " ( 7 ) THE petitioner-society shifted the college to its present premises at himayatnagar. For that purpose, an amount of Rs. 1 crore is set apart bv the Academy. " ( 7 ) THE petitioner-society shifted the college to its present premises at himayatnagar. The said building was inspected by the Inspection Team on 19-7-1998 and found that the college is situated in a good locality and has sufficient space for holding class rooms, a good library, Principal room, Staff room, separate toilet rooms for Ladies. It is further observed that the building is quite sufficient to run the law college. Having noticed that the College authorities have kept in deposit rs. 1 crore towards the building fund the inspection Team recommended, by giving necessary approval of affiliation for the academic year ending with 2000. It is observed by the team that after the inspection of the building by the Bar council of India, the question of granting further affiliation to the college can be considered. ( 8 ) THE Bar Council of India vide its letter dt. 3-2-1999 requested the College to furnish information as to whether the College has been relocated in its own building within the period allowed. The college vide its letter dt. 12-3-1999 informed the Bar council of India that it has started functioning in the present premises i. e. , the rented premises from December, 1998 and it would abide by its undertaking dated 22-9-1998 for shifting the college into the new premises. The Legai Education committee having considered the report of the inspection of the College in its meeting held on 12th and 13th December, 1998 observed that from the inspection report, it is not clear as to whether the college is enjoying affiliation after 1996-97 and it is also not clear whether the college has been relocated in its own building within the period allowed. The same was intimated to the College requesting it to furnish the requisite information vide its letter dated 3-5-1999. ( 9 ) THE College vide its letter dt. 17-5-1999 and 5-8-1999 reiterated that it had already given an undertaking to shift the college to its own premises within three years and a sum of Rs. 1 crore has been set apart for that purpose and it is hopeful of shifting to its own premises within the time undertaken and requested that permission be granted for a further period of 2 more academic years. 1 crore has been set apart for that purpose and it is hopeful of shifting to its own premises within the time undertaken and requested that permission be granted for a further period of 2 more academic years. The Bar Council of India accordingly informed the second respondent-University that it has approved affiliation to the petitioner for the year 1999-2000 and instructed the second respondent to include the name of the petitioner college also for allotment of students for the year 1999-2000. ( 10 ) THE first respondent, having considered the request of the petitioner college granted approval of affiliation for the year 2000-2001 in respect of three year day course with two Sections of 80 students and for five year day course with one section of 80 students. However, it was observed that inspection is required to be made, since the college has shifted to the new building and accordingly the College was asked to deposit the inspection fee within three months. ( 11 ) THE Inspection Team accordingly inspected the College again on 18-12-2000. The report of the inspection is not furnished to the College nor to the Academy. The legal Education Committee at its meeting held on 30-3-2001 considered the said report of the Inspection Team of the Bar Council of india and made the following recommendations:"the Legal Education Committee considered the inspection report of pendekanti Law College, Hyderabad submitted by the Inspection Team of the Bar Council of India. Inspection report shows that the Management of the College has wrongly stated that they have shifted to the new building. But so far they have failed to shift the college to the new building. Management of the college may be informed that if they fail to shift to the new building within a period of three months, the approval of affiliation to the college shall not be furnished extended. " ( 12 ) THE said recommendation was considered by the Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 31st March and 1st April, 2001 and accepted the same. The College is accordingly informed to submit compliance report. The fact remains that the College failed to shift the college to its own premises as on today. " ( 12 ) THE said recommendation was considered by the Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 31st March and 1st April, 2001 and accepted the same. The College is accordingly informed to submit compliance report. The fact remains that the College failed to shift the college to its own premises as on today. ( 13 ) IT is not necessary to notice in detail the efforts alleged to have been made by the petitioner-society to secure the suitable piece of land for construction of its own building to relocate the College in its own building. It is however, stated that a sale deed is likely to be executed in favour of the institution shortly after completing all the formalities including obtaining of income tax clearance from the authorities. ( 14 ) IN the meanwhile, the Legal education Committee of the first respondent in its meeting held on 29-5-2001 and 30-5-2001 had recommended to respondent No. 1 not to continue the affiliation of the College and the first respondent at its meeting held on 23-6-2001 had allegedly approved the said recommendation and had written to the second respondent not to include the name of the College in the list of approval colleges for which admissions for the academic year 2001-2002 are to be made. ( 15 ) IT is under those circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. ( 16 ) IT is contended by Sri D. V. Sitaramamurthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Legal Education Committee of the first respondent based its decision on inaccurate factual statements and mistake of facts. It is submitted that the Management never claimed that it has shifted to its own building. The Management merely informed the first respondent that they have shifted to a new rented building. The allegation that the Management did not shift to its own building as per its undertaking dt. 22-9-1998 within two years is factually incorrect. The Management had given undertaking dt. 22-9-1998 that it would shift into its own building within three years period. It is submitted that the same has been accepted in terms of the undertaking; the institution has time at its disposal till 22-9-2001. 22-9-1998 within two years is factually incorrect. The Management had given undertaking dt. 22-9-1998 that it would shift into its own building within three years period. It is submitted that the same has been accepted in terms of the undertaking; the institution has time at its disposal till 22-9-2001. It is also contended that the report of the Inspection Team of the bar Council of India held on 19-12-2000 contains several incorrect statements relating to accommodation and location of class-rooms and run counter to its own earlier report. ( 17 ) THE whole case of the Bar Council is that the petitioner failed to relocate the college in its own building in three years in terms of its own undertaking. Precisely for the said reason the petitioner s college is not entitled to get the approval of affiliation of the Bar Council of India. It is contended that there is no likelihood of its being shifted in near future. Even if it is to be accepted that the petitioner s college has time till 22-9-2001, it is submitted that the existing building consists of 4 class rooms at the second floor and two class rooms at the third floor. The accommodation is not sufficient to run a good law college. ( 18 ) ADMITTEDLY as on to-day the petitioner academy could not relocate the college in its own building. However, serious attempts appear to have been made by the petitioner society to secure suitable land for construction of its own building. Finally it could identify and secure the land admeasuring 1366 Sq. yards in chikkadpalli, Hyderabad costing Rs. 1. 5 crore. It is stated that this information is made available to the inspection committee consisting of Mr. Karvendran and mr. Adish C. Agarwal members of the Bar council of India. This aspect of the matter is not controverted in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. It would only reveal that the members of the Inspection team were also informed about the efforts made by the petitioner society to secure suitable extent of land for the purpose of construction of its own building. For whatever reason the inspection team appears to have not incorporated the same in its report submitted to the Legal education Committee. ( 19 ) IT is also required to notice that the college immediately after receiving the letter dt. For whatever reason the inspection team appears to have not incorporated the same in its report submitted to the Legal education Committee. ( 19 ) IT is also required to notice that the college immediately after receiving the letter dt. 23-4-2001 addressed a letter dated 19-5-2001 to the first respondent setting out the true and correct facts and accordingly requested the first respondent to give ten more months time to construct its own building and locate the law college in that building. There is no response from the first respondent. In the circumstances, the college addressed another letter dated 12-6-2001 to the first respondent informing that it has already entered into an agreement of sale with the owners of the land and enclosed a copy of the agreement of sale and also a copy of the cheque dated 8-6-2001 for a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs paid as advance to the vendor and accordingly requested to grant time to construct and shift to a new building and grant approval of affiliation for 2001-2002 and communicate it to the Convenor. Lawcet for necessary action. The request of the petitioner is not obviously placed, though the matter has been included in the supplementary agenda for the meeting of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar council of India scheduled on 31st May and 1st June, 2001. The reason given by the Bar council is that the item could not be reached for want of time. In the circumstances, there "is absolutely no difficulty to conclude that the first respondent totally ignored the letter dated 19-5-2001 addressed by the petitioner society to the first respondent. So also the letter dt. 12-6-2001 also did not receive any attention whatsoever of the first respondent. ( 20 ) THE college has come into existence in the year 1990-1991. On the advice of the bar Council of India it has shifted into a suitable rented building. One of the inspection teams of the Bar Council having inspected the premises where the college is now being run found that "the college is situated in good locality and has sufficient space for holding class rooms, good library, principal s room, staff room, separate toilets for ladies. The building is quite sufficient to run the law college. " Even according to the inspection team, the premises where the college is being run is suitable to run the law college. The building is quite sufficient to run the law college. " Even according to the inspection team, the premises where the college is being run is suitable to run the law college. It is true, the petitioner society is bound by its own undertaking and shift the college into its own building. Admittedly, the petitioner has the time at its disposal till 22-9-2001. The Legal Education committee at its meeting held on 30-3-2000 itself came to the conclusion that the petitioner society failed to shift the college into the new building and proceeded on the assumption as if the college has wrongly stated that they have shifted to the new building. The decision of the Legal education Committee and its approval by the Bar Council is totally vitiated for the reason of non-application of mind. ( 21 ) SUCH a decision of far-reaching consequences which would virtually result in the closure of the institution could not have been taken by the Bar Council without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The report of the inspection committee based upon which the Legal Education Committed passed the impugned resolution is not made available to the petitioner. If only a copy of the inspection report was made available, the petitioner would have submitted their version before the Legal Education committee and the Legal Education committee would not have passed the order on incorrect factual premise. ( 22 ) IT is clear from the record that the legal Education Committee failed to take into consideration, the suitability of the premises where the college is being run for the present. It had proceeded on erroneous assumption as if the petitioner made representation informing the first respondent that it has already shifted into its own building. There is no such intimation at any point of time by the petitioner society. On the other hand, the petitioner has executed an undertaking which has been accepted by the Bar Council that it would shift into its own building by 22-9-2001. The Legal Education Committee took the impugned decision six months before the expiry of the period of undertaking given by the petitioner society to shift the college into its own building. On the other hand, the petitioner has executed an undertaking which has been accepted by the Bar Council that it would shift into its own building by 22-9-2001. The Legal Education Committee took the impugned decision six months before the expiry of the period of undertaking given by the petitioner society to shift the college into its own building. The Legal Education Committee perhaps would not have taken the impugned decision if it was only aware of the undertaking given by the petitioner society and the time at its disposal for shifting into its own building. The impugned decision in the circumstances, suffers from incurable legal infirmity. Failure to consider the representation dt. 19-5-2001 and 12-6-2001 has resulted in serious injustice. Perhaps, the first respondent itself would have changed its decision, had it considered the representation dt. 19-5-2001 and 12-6-2001 made by the petitioner. ( 23 ) IT is also required to notice that the a. P. State Council of Higher Education by proceedings dated 7-7-2000 accorded provisional permission to Pendekanti Law college, Hyderabad for one year for one additional Section in 3 year LL. B. course (day) with an intake of 80 students in addition to the existing one section for the academic year 2001-2002. The Council accorded permission subject to the condition that the management has to complete the construction of the new building for the Law College and shifted to the new building by the end of the academic year 2001-2002 as agreed. There is no dispute whatsoever that the University has no objection whatsoever to continue its affiliation to the college. In the circumstances, there are no legal impediments as such for the society to run the college but for the impugned decision of the first respondent. ( 24 ) HOWEVER, the undertaken given by the petitioner in this Court that it shall shift the College into its own building by the end of Academic year 2001-2002 is made part of the record. ( 25 ) IN the circumstances, it is eminently a fit case where the first respondent is required to reconsider the issue in a proper perspective and in the light of the observations made in this order. ( 25 ) IN the circumstances, it is eminently a fit case where the first respondent is required to reconsider the issue in a proper perspective and in the light of the observations made in this order. An appropriate decision may have to be taken by the first respondent forthwith for the inclusion of the petitioner-college in the list of approved colleges for the academic year 2001-2002 so as to enable the Convenor, lawcet to allot students into the college of the petitioner. ( 26 ) THE Bar Council of India however, shall consider the request of the petitioner for grant of suitable time for shifting the college into its own building. The Bar council of India in its discretion shall grant suitable time to enable the petitioner-college to shift the college into its own building. The Bar Council of India shall bear in mind that the petitioner took positive steps and already secured the land for the purpose to have its own building to run the law college. The inclusion of the name of the petitioner-college in the list of approved colleges for the Academic year 2001-2002 shall be subject to the conditions to be imposed by the Bar Council of India. ( 27 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.