JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief:- "(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the official respondents to carry out the inspection of petitioner institution forthwith for the course namely B.A.L.L.B. (integrated) 5 years, B.B.A. L.L.B. (Integrated) 5 years and L.L.B. 3 years. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby the official respondents may be directed to send its inspection team forthwith but in no case later within one week from the receipt of this notice and thereupon to give its inspection report finally to the petitioner institution. (iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby the official respondents may be directed to immediately sent the inspection team forthwith as per the provisions of Bar Council of India Rules (supra). (iv) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners. (v) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioners." 2. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is revealed that the applicant is a Raffles School of Law which is going to conduct B.A.L.L.B. (Integrated) 5 years, B.B.A. L.L.B. (Integrated) 5 years and L.L.B. 3 years courses under Raffles University, Neemrana, which has been established vide Gazette Notification No. F.4(ix)/Vidhi/2/10 dated 6th December, 2010 issued by the Government of Rajasthan. Raffles School of Law, Raffles University, Neemrana applied to the Secretary Bar Council of India, New Delhi vide application dated 29th December, 2010 for approval to open Raffles School of Law starting B.A.L.L.B. (Integrated) 5 years, B.B.A. L.L.B. (Integrated) 5 years and L.L.B. 3 years courses. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid application, the respondent no.2 needed some more information, which was sent by him but despite having fulfilled the requisite formalities in the requisite application format, for the purpose of grant of approval of affiliation, the respondents have not sent the inspection team to give its inspection report. 4. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid application, the respondent no.2 needed some more information, which was sent by him but despite having fulfilled the requisite formalities in the requisite application format, for the purpose of grant of approval of affiliation, the respondents have not sent the inspection team to give its inspection report. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further canvassed that the new academic session of 5 years (Integrated) law courses has commenced from 1st July, 2011 but despite sending the reminders and observing requisite formalities, no inspection has been carried out by the respondents till date. Hence, the respondents may be directed to send the inspection team within a week's time, so as to carry out inspection of the petitioner institution within this period and grant approval in accordance with the Bar Council of India (Legal Education) Rules, 2008. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on account of certain problems, the inspection team could not be sent for the purpose of inspection. Now, the order of the Court shall be carried out within a week's time. 6. It is most unfortunate that Bar Council of India being the highest body in the legal field and fully equipped, does not send the inspection team for the purpose of inspection of the institutions, which intends to be affiliated with the University. In the instant case, the petitioner is found to have deposited the requisite inspection fees for the purpose of conducting inspection and the new session has commenced from 1st July, 2011, yet the inspection team of Bar Council of India has not approached the institution to carry out the inspection. The crucial question, which emerges for consideration in such cases, is as to why does Bar Council of India not evolve such a full-proof system, which may automatically function as per the need of the hour? Why the educational institutions are forced to run hither and thither and finally rush to knock the doors of the court leaving them to strand and spend their time, money and energy unnecessarily. Why does the respondent function under the orders/directions of the court only, which they themselves are required to do under the statutory provisions? Should they wait for the orders of the court and discharge their duties only when the court directs them to do so? They can do it of their own also, as the law envisages. Why does the respondent function under the orders/directions of the court only, which they themselves are required to do under the statutory provisions? Should they wait for the orders of the court and discharge their duties only when the court directs them to do so? They can do it of their own also, as the law envisages. I am sanguine that such things shall not repeat in future. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, I deem it proper that one week's time be granted to the respondents to send the inspection team to inspect the institution of the petitioners and to submit its report to the appropriate authority for approval. It is expected of the appropriate authority to pass appropriate orders in the matter of approval in accordance with the aforesaid Rules as expeditiously as possible. 8. In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.Petition allowed. *******