Judgment :- PinakiChandra Ghose : - This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 19016 of 2012. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition before the Hon'ble Single Judge seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus todeclare the action of the 2nd respondent herein, in issuing G.O. Rt. No. 336, Higher Education (C.E.II.2) Department, dated 16.6.2012 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') and the rules made thereunder. The writ petitioner questioned the issuance of the said G.O. Rt. No. 336,dated 16.6.2012 through which the authorities permitted respondent No. 5 to shift Nalanda Degree College from one leased building to another leased buildingand also to transfer the management of the said college to theappellant-4th respondent by relaxing sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules,1987 (for short' the Rules') issued vide G.O. Ms. No.29, Education dated 5.2.1987 read with G.O. Ms. No.35,Education, dated 25.4.2007 and G.O. Ms. No. 211, Education, dated 8.11.2007.The writ petitioner filed the writ petition challenging G.O. Rt. No.336, dated16.6.2012 on the ground that the said G.O. was issued in violation of the Rules. According to the writ petitioner, the appellant-respondent No.4 havingfailed in its attempt to establish a new degree college in Yellareddypet Mandal, has designed a new method to achieve the same indirectly and accordingly approached the 2nd respondent with an application to grant permission to shift the existing degree college being run by the 5th respondent from Rajkal Mandalto Yellareddypet Mandal and alleged that such shifting of an education alinstitution from one locality to another locality is strictly prohibited under sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of the Rules. It is relevant to extract sub-rule 3 and4 of Rule 14 of the Rules, which reads thus: "Rule-14(3): No institution for which permission to establish has been granted to meet the educational needs of a particular locality shall be permitted to beshifted to another locality. However, shifting institution from one building to another within the same locality shall be permitted when the intention is toprovide better accommodation of shifting into own building, with the prior permission of the Government. However, shifting institution from one building to another within the same locality shall be permitted when the intention is toprovide better accommodation of shifting into own building, with the prior permission of the Government. Any unauthorised shifting of the institution shall render lapse of permission/recognition/ affiliation granted to the institution automatically without any further notice or orders. Rule-14(4): Educational agency for which permission to establish an in stitution has been accorded shall not transfer the institution to another education alagency under any circumstances. In case educational agency which has been permitted to establish institution is unable to manage it, it may approach the Government to consider its request for taking over of the institution provided it has completed at least 10 years of existence." It is also pointed out by the writ petitioner that as per Section 20(1) of the Act, the competent authority has to conduct a survey, has to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction, and notify in the prescribed manner through the local newspapers calling for applications fromthe educational agencies desirous of establishing educational institutions. Before filing such application, the burden lies on such educational agency, which applies for permission to satisfy that there is need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality. But, it appears, in the notifications which were issued for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, Yellareddypet Mandal was not included. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner pointed out before the Hon'ble Single Judge that the appellant-unofficial respondent has no right to get the said exemption under Section 100 of the Act. The writ petitioner further submitted that the word 'locale' is different from locality and the appellant was granted permission to shift the degree college from Rajkal Mandalto Yellareddypet Mandal contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Indian Edition), (Eleventh Edition, revised), the meaning of 'locality' is defined as 'the position or site of something; an area or neighbourhood.Further in the Chambers 21st Dictionary(2001 reprint), the meaning of 'locality' has been defined as 'a district orneighbourhood; the scene of an event; the position of a thing'. In Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Indian Edition), (Eleventh Edition, revised), the meaning of 'locality' is defined as 'the position or site of something; an area or neighbourhood.Further in the Chambers 21st Dictionary(2001 reprint), the meaning of 'locality' has been defined as 'a district orneighbourhood; the scene of an event; the position of a thing'. In the 'Law Lexicon', The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary with Legal Maxims, Latin Terms, Words & Phrases, 2nd Edition Reprint 2009, the word 'locality' is definedas 'a place with an area which is sufficiently small and compact, so that namingit amounts to a notice to all inhabitants of that area'. The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hajari vs. The State ofMadhya Pradesh(A.I.R. 1976 Madhya Pradesh 76(1)), has interpreted the word 'locality' in the light of above extract. Rule 14(3) of the Rules has specifically stated that no institution for which permission to establish has been granted to meet the educational needs of a particular 'locality' shall be permitted to be shifted to another 'locality'. It has been further stated that the shifting of an institution from one building to another within the same 'locality' shall be permitted. Therefore, from the said Rule, it is quite clear that the meaning of locality, as we can read is right on the point in question. Therefore, we find that the exemption which has been granted to the appellant to shift the college from Rajkal Mandal to Yellareddypet Mandal by G.O. Rt. No.336, dated 16.6.2012 is in violation of Rule 14(3) of the Rules. The rules for establishment of a new educational institution must equally apply to shifting of an institution even if the Government thought it fit to grant exemption to a particular education alinstitution by relaxing sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, it must be done within the parameter of the meaning of the said Rule. The rules for establishment of a new educational institution must equally apply to shifting of an institution even if the Government thought it fit to grant exemption to a particular education alinstitution by relaxing sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, it must be done within the parameter of the meaning of the said Rule. Further, the Hon'ble Single Judge after relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (A.I.R (39) 1952 SC 16) and Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others(A.I.R. 1978 SC 851), has correctly held that a statutory functionary cannot justify its decision by assigning reasons by way of affidavits in the absence of reasons in the impugned order but this is what is being tried to be done in the instant case by the Government and the same cannot be accepted by the Court. Therefore, the official respondents also cannot justify their actions for issuance of G.O. Rt. No. 336, dated 16.6.2012. Further, when the application filed by the appellant for establishment of a new degree college has alreadybeen rejected by the Government earlier, the respondent-authorities ought not to have granted permission to the appellant to shift the degree college being runby the 5th respondent from Rajkal Mandal to Yellareddypet Mandal and such exemption was only granted to give route to the appellant to reach its' goal. Inour opinion, the law is well settled that an official act, prescribed to be performed in a particular manner, if such action is performed otherwise, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law and should be struck down by the Court. Inour opinion, as has been held by the Hon'ble single Judge that Section 100 ofthe Act is couched in such mandatory terms that unless specifying reasons and publication of the notification in the Gazette are satisfied, the Government cannot exempt any educational institution from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Hence, as we find that the exemption which has been granted by the 2ndrespondent for shifting of the institution in question, namely, Nalanda Degree College from one leased building to another is contrary to the provisions of Rule 14(3) of the Rules, in our opinion, that part of the G.O. should bequashed. Hence, as we find that the exemption which has been granted by the 2ndrespondent for shifting of the institution in question, namely, Nalanda Degree College from one leased building to another is contrary to the provisions of Rule 14(3) of the Rules, in our opinion, that part of the G.O. should bequashed. It is unnecessary for us to deal with the other part of the G.O. since it does not affect the rights of the writ petitioner nor it is necessary for us to deal with the same in the present scenario. Hence, the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge is modified to the extent indicated above. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.