SPA/230/2010 of PT. PURNANAND TIWARI LAW COLLEGE Vs UNION OF INDIA and OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALSPECIAL APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2010

Pt. Purnanand Tiwari Law College

…….Appellant.

Versus

Union of India and others. ………..Respondents.

Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel for the Union of India / respondent no. 1. Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 4.

Coram: Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.

Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)

The name of the appellant is Pt. Purnanand Tiwari Law College, but the counsel for the appellant is contending that it is not college. We are aghast by such submission. If it is not College, what it is has not been attempted to be made known to us. The fact remains that this College has obtained the privilege of respondent no. 2 University. According to the appellant, it imparts education to students enrolled with it in order to enable them to obtain LL.B. degree. In terms of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, it is only University, which can grant such degree. In order to obtain such degree, colleges as that of the appellant are required to have affiliation of the Universities and in the instant case, appellant, itself, has obtained affiliation or privilege of respondent no. 2. It is surprising that while it is being submitted that appellant is not college, appellant has not annexed with the body of the petition the application that it had made originally for seeking affiliation of respondent no. 2 and there, how it had described itself. The purpose of approaching the writ Court was that respondent no. 2 is granting affiliation year to year. The judgment under Appeal has upheld the same. In the Appeal, it is being contended, as was submitted before us, that the question, whether the appellant is or is not college has

not been decided by the judgment under Appeal and if the appellant is not college, then it is outside the purview of the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission. We reject this contention. Unless the appellant is college, it is not entitled to seek and obtain privilege or affiliation of the University. Appellant is college and, therefore, it has been granted affiliation / privilege by respondent no. 2. There is nothing further to be decided in the Appeal. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

(V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 23.04.2014 Rathour