ORDER A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.--The Petitioners in these petitions have come up with a request for transfer to a different college as the third Respondent in which they are presently prosecuting their studies does not have the recognition of the Dental Council of India. 2. The Petitioners are all students pursuing the B.D.S. course in the Respondent No. 3-college and are due to take up their second term examination in the month of September/October, 2002. All of them have been sent up to the college from the C.E.T. Cell. It is their case that throughout they were made to believe by the third Respondent that it is duly recognised by the Dental Council of India ('the DCI' for short) and it is only during July-August 2001 at the time of allotment of seats it had appeared in the newspapers that the college did not have the recognition of the D.C.I. The college continued to hold out promises about recognition even after its removal from the seat matrix. In the meanwhile four students filed Writ Petition Nos. 28567-570 of 2001 for transfer to any other recognised college. The writ petitions were allowed by my learned Brother Thakur, J. on 16th October, 2001 and the Registrar of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, the fourth Respondent herein, was directed to transfer the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 28567-570 of 2001 to other recognised colleges subject to availability of vacancies. By presenting these petitions on the same lines and under similar grounds, the Petitioners are seeking the very same relief in these petitions. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. 4. If the Petitioners had expected a walk-over by the Respondent-college in these proceedings since the institution had already suffered an order at the hands of this Court in a similar matter, they were in for not so pleasant a surprise as the Respondent-institution is stoutly defending its cause notwithstanding the several admitted shortcomings in its infrastructure and wants this Court to decline the prayer of the students for shifting to a different college. Mr. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel fired the first salvo against the Petitioners when he came up with the submission that Petitioners do not have any legal right to claim for a transfer to any other college as such a right is not provided for them under the statute which governs them and the college. Mr. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel fired the first salvo against the Petitioners when he came up with the submission that Petitioners do not have any legal right to claim for a transfer to any other college as such a right is not provided for them under the statute which governs them and the college. In the absence of such a legal right, it is his submission that, this Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot extend any benefit to these Petitioners in these petitions. As regards lack of infrastructure and non-recognition it is his submission that it is a matter between the institution and the DCI and the DCI has extended the time for making good the lack of infrastructure. The lack of infrastructure by itself would not provide any justification for this Court to make an order in favour of the Petitioners permitting their transfer to any other recognised institution. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the college is totally lacking in infrastructure and there is not even a remote possibility that the college would get the recognition of the DCI. In such a situation, if the Petitioners are made to prosecute their further studies in the college there is every likelihood that their degree will not be recognised for the purpose of higher studies or for practice and hence the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought for in these petitions. 6. It is not for the first time that this type of request is made by the students of the third Respondent-college. In fact, such requests have been coming fast and thick from the students of the third Respondent-college for quite some time now. The earliest of such requests was made by the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 28567-570 of 2001 citing the very same reason of total lack of infrastructure. My learned Brother Thakur, J having found that the apprehension of the Petitioners therein, that the college may not be in a position to satisfy the requirements stipulated in the order of the Central Government for getting the permission renewed, was not far-fetched or unfounded, held that the Petitioners could not be forced to suffer the constant uncertainty about their career. The said order was passed on 16th October, 2001. The said order was passed on 16th October, 2001. The present petitions are filed on 26.2.2002 expressing the very same apprehension as those expressed in Writ Petition Nos. 28567-570 of 2001. 7. In the light of the previous decision and the contentions urged in the present petitions this Court has to examine whether the third Respondent-college has brought about a sea-change in the situation as it then existed that prompted the Court to give the directions in favour of the students in the said case and in the altered situation whether there still exist the very same justification for the Petitioners herein to seek similar relief in the light of what has transpired in between these two dates. 8. To be fair to Mr. Sridhar and the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Subramanya Jois they did not even make an attempt at establishing that there is an overall improvement in the ground situation which prompted the decision in the earlier case. As stated earlier, Mr. Subramanya Jois rested his case more on the question of law touching the right of the Petitioners to seek the relief of transfer to a different college. It is his submission that as no such right is provided to the Petitioners, this Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot go to their rescue. It is his case that the right to seek for a transfer to some other college is neither a fundamental right nor a legal right. The argument advanced cannot be sustained, because it is now a well-settled proposition of law that right to education is an essential component of right to live which is guaranteed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in Chameli Singh and others etc. Vs. State of U.P. and another, AIR 1996 SC 1051 had occasion to observe when this right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is secured to a citizen. It reads: In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. It reads: In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilised society. Herein we are concerned with not merely the basic education but education in professional college which is acquired to grow mentally, intellectually and spiritually. All these can be said to be secured to a person only when all facilities essential to develop himself and free himself from restrictions which may inhibit his growth are made available. Life is a long arduous journey and education serves as a constant companion in this arduous journey and helps one to achieve the objects a person may set for himself and this education to be really meaningful and helpful to a person like the Petitioners who invest so much of their time, labour and money in order to acquire a professional qualification, the education must be proper education. The right to seek for transfer to a different college is a mere extension of this right to proper education and where it is denied this Court can in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution enforce the said right. Thus, I find no substance in the contention of learned Senior Counsel on this aspect. 9. As observed earlier, there is no disputing the fact that the college has not acquired a five acre land till date. They have only entered into an agreement with the proposed seller. This does not satisfy the requirement which is made conditional by the Central Government for extension of the permission. No doubt the Central Government has given further time for fulfilling the requirements but it has also altered the status of the third Respondent-college for the purpose of admission in BDS course during the academic session 2002-2003 as is evidenced by the communication received from the Ministry of Health and F.W. Department of Health (P.M.S. Section) which is dated 11th June, 2002. The college is not permitted to admit any student in BDS course during the academic year 2002-2003. The college is not permitted to admit any student in BDS course during the academic year 2002-2003. This change in the status is effected in pursuance of the joint inspection report of council of inspectors which is also produced in this case by Respondent No. 2. This report speaks volumes about the total lack of infrastructure in the third-Respondent college. It is only because the college is lacking in infrastructure that the permission has been denied. This lacking is not only in respect of the building but it is all pervading. The college does not have proper lab facilities, medical teaching staff, para-medical staff and other essential requirement. The ultimate report is to the effect that on the whole there are deficiencies as per DCI norms. The Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 28567-570 of 2001 were granted the relief on the ground that their apprehension that their degree may not be recognised and they may not be allowed to practice or go for higher studies was something not totally unfounded, the events that have unfolded after the passing of the said order until now, culminating in refusal of permission by the Central Government, leave nothing to doubt that the Petitioners herein if compelled to complete the course in the third Respondent-college would certainly meet with such fate. Thus, here is all the more better reason for grant of the relief sought in these petitions considering that the matter has gone from bad to worse with denial of permission by Central Government. 10. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Subramanya Jois brought to my notice the decision in Director of Settlements, A.P. and Ors. Vs. M.R. Appararao and Anr. 2002 (2) Supreme Today and contended that in order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition. 2002 (2) Supreme Today and contended that in order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition. There cannot be any doubt about the fact that Petitioners do possess such a right and the right to have access to proper education is an ever subsisting one and guaranteed as it is under Article 21 of the Constitution, the third Respondent-college is duty bound to provide such education and on its failure to perform that duty, the Petitioners can always exercise their right to seek for a transfer. The previous decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 28567-570 of 2001 having been rendered after considering the very same questions which arise for consideration in this case, the decision is a binding precedent on the third Respondent-college. 11. Learned Counsel Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil relied on the decision in Nehru Smaraka Vidya Kendra's Sree Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital, Uttarahalli and Another Vs. Suneetha R. and Others, AIR 2001 Kant 337 where the college was permitted to enroll students on the specific understanding that it shall acquire the requisite infrastructure within a period of two years on or before July, 2002. The college acquired 5 acres of land 20 Kms outside Bangalore and started putting up a building. While the building was under construction a student moved this Court for transfer to some other recognised college. The question arose before the learned Single Judge, whether the Respondents should be shifted to some other college till such time the college fully satisfied the requirements under the Regulations and thereby qualifies for the grant of regular permission and consequent recognition of the qualifications that may be acquired by the students. The learned Single Judge answered the question in the affirmative in Writ Petition Nos. 38737-753 of 1999. The college took the matter in appeal before Division Bench and the Division Bench with reference to the request of the Petitioners therein for transfer, observed: We are not convinced with the arguments advanced before us. The Appellant even at present is running its college in a rented building. There is no hostel attached to the college. The proposed building is located 20 Kms. The Appellant even at present is running its college in a rented building. There is no hostel attached to the college. The proposed building is located 20 Kms. away from Bangalore. The hostel which have been established for boys and girls are at a distance resulting in inconvenience to the students from commuting to and fro to the college. The permission granted to the Appellant is conditional and in case their college fails to fulfil the requisite conditions then, the recognition may be refused on a later date. Thus an atmosphere of uncertainty would prevail and the students would not know till they pass out from the college as to whether the required permission would be granted in favour of the college or not. Learned Single Judge in the circumstances has rightly issued the directions in terms of the order earlier passed in Writ Petition Nos. 3837-753 of 1999 which were later on affirmed by the Division Bench to protect and bring certainty to the career of the students. If this be the declared law in relation to a college which had acquired the required five acres of land and began construction thereon, I am at a loss to know how the Respondent No. 3-college which has not even, till date, acquired the five acres of land could come in the way of the Petitioners seeking transfer to a recognised college. The Respondent No. 3 being fully aware of its own shortcoming ought not to have defended its cause so resolutely, this time around, as it has chosen to do. This attitude is deprecable and the college has to be burdened with costs. 12. Learned Counsel for the fourth Respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Medical Sciences has filed a list of recognised colleges where these Petitioners could be accommodated. So, there is no impediment for granting the relief sought for by these Petitioners in these petitions. 13. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed and the Petitioners are permitted to transfer to a college of their liking if there is a vacancy available. Respondent No. 4 is directed to facilitate such transfer. 14. The Respondent No. 3 shall pay Rs.1,000/- to each of these Petitioners as costs.