Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 832 (AP)

CSR Sarma College v. State of AP

2025-07-08

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2025
JUDGMENT : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 27.06.2025, passed in W.P.No.15613 of 2025. 2. The cause of action to file the petition accrued to the petitioner when the proceedings, dated 19.06.2025, came to be issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, seeking a detailed written justification for poor admissions made in the institution of the petitioner along with original documents and supporting institutional credentials along with the relevant documents regarding approvals, infrastructure details, faculty records and admission registers. 3. It appears that the petitioner institution has been granted permission to run as many as 10 UG courses with varying intake capacities. However, as against the sanctioned intake, the figures regarding enrolment of candidates in various courses is abysmally low as can be seen from the figures which were submitted by the institution to the official respondents. 4. In the BSc course, there has been no enrolment of any candidate for the sessions 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25. In the B.A course, the enrolment appears to be 11 in 2022-23 which came down to 6 for the year 2023-24 and 10 in 2024-25. In B.Com course, as many as 19 candidates had appeared in the examination for the year 2022-23 which came down drastically in the year 2023-24 to 2 out of which only one candidate passed, whereas in 2024-25 four candidates had appeared in the examination out of which only two passed. 5. It is in that context that the impugned proceedings, dated 19.06.2025, were issued by the authority concerned seeking an explanation and information from the petitioner institution. The impugned notice states that the petitioner institution has recorded less than 25% of the admission out of the sanctioned strength for three consecutive academic years and, therefore, proceeded to get the relevant information. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said proceedings approached the learned single Judge, who, by virtue of the judgment and order impugned disposed of the same by observing that the impugned proceedings were in the nature of a preliminary enquiry which was otherwise permissible in terms of the judgment rendered by Apex Court in Chowtupalli Satyanarana v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Kowur [1998 SCC Online AP 475] as also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Societies, Kowur [1998 SCC Online AP 475] as also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Ismail [ 1996 (4) ALT 502 ]. The learned single Judge also held that if, after the preliminary enquiry is conducted, if the authorities were of the opinion that there was requirement of initiating any punitive action against the petitioner, they would frame issues in respect of the same in accordance with law, communicate the same to the petitioner and call for its explanation before passing any order adverse against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner (appellant herein) would submit that the learned single Judge committed an error in disposing of the petition with the directions aforementioned without appreciating the fact that the power to seek any such information from the petitioner only on the basis of decline in the enrolment of the student was not envisaged in terms of the various Acts including the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988 or for that matter the UGC (Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of the First Degree through Formal Education) Regulations, 2003 and that the action initiated by virtue of the impugned proceedings was without jurisdiction. 8. We are, however, not inclined to accept the argument which is advanced by learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that in terms of Section 21 of the Education Act, power is vested with the respondent authority not only to grant recognition but also to withdraw recognition of the institutions imparting education like the appellant herein in case there are any deficiencies which are found in the functioning of the institution. The deficiencies are more appropriately dealt with in Section 21(2) of the said Act. Section 21(3) further envisages that where the Government is of the opinion that the recognition granted to any local authority educational institution or private educational institution should, in the public interest, be withdrawn, they may, after giving one month’s notice to the Manager of such an institution to make any representation, withdraw, by notification, the recognition granted to such an institution. There are, therefore, sufficient safeguards provided in the scheme of the Education Act which enables a fair hearing to the institution before any such adverse action is envisaged to be taken against such an institution. 9. There are, therefore, sufficient safeguards provided in the scheme of the Education Act which enables a fair hearing to the institution before any such adverse action is envisaged to be taken against such an institution. 9. Be that as it may, the right to cancel or withdraw the recognition granted to an institution carries with it the right to first find out the causes and the reasons for poor enrolment in the said institution in various courses. 10. Certainly, if the institution is working with the best of faculty, infrastructure and other facilities, the number of students enrolled would certainly go up on a yearly basis. However, there has been a progressive decline in the enrolments which is a cause of concern especially with the official respondents who seek to look into the whole issue and, therefore, have sought for the relevant information from the petitioner institution. 11. We are in agreement with the opinion expressed by the learned single Judge that the enquiry in question is in the nature of a preliminary enquiry and this has not been denied before us by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 12. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no provision in any of the three Acts mentioned hereinabove which would justify the issuance of the proceedings, dated 19.06.2025 and that the same was without jurisdiction, to us, is an argument which is not sustainable inasmuch as the wording of the impugned proceedings only refers to the reasons as to why the notice was being issued as the enrolment had fallen even less than 25% of the sanctioned capacity. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the judgment and order impugned warrants no interference. 14. The Writ Appeal is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed. The time for submitting the relevant information in terms of the impugned proceedings which was otherwise extended by the learned single Judge is further extended by a further period of two weeks from today. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.