TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (10) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h are relevant for appreciating the ground urged by the appellants are as follows. Section 3 mandatorily requires a private education- al institution to obtain the permission of the competent authority for the purpose of running it. The Manager of such an institution has to, as required by s. 4, make an application for permission in the prescribed form accompanied by a fee. Section 6 lays down the power of the competent authority to deal with such an application in the following terms: "6. Grant of permission--On receipt of an application under Section 4 the competent authority may grant or refuse to grant the permission after taking into consideration, the particulars contained in such application: Provided that the permission shall not be refused under this Section unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of making his representation: Provided further that in case of refusal of permission the applicant shall be entitled to refund to one-half of the amount of the fee accompanying the application. The competent authority is empowered under s. 7 to cancel the permission in certain circumstances. One of the conditions for exercise of power is contravention of an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the teaching staff and the educational qualifications of each such member; (v) the equipment, laboratory, library and other facilities for instructions; (vi) the number of students in the private educational institution and the groups into which they are divided; (vii) the scales of fees payable by the students; (viii) the sources of income to ensure the financial stability of the private educational institution; (ix) the situation and the description of the buildings in which such private educational institution is being run or is proposed to be prescribed; (x) such other particulars as may be pre- scribed." 5. The point dealing with legislative delegation has been considered in numerous cases of this Court, and it is not necessary to discuss this aspect at length. It is well established that determination of legislative policy and formulation of rule of conduct are essential legislative functions which cannot be delegated. What is permissible is to leave to the delegated authority the task of implementing the object of the Act after the legislature lays down adequate guide lines for the exercise of power. When examined in this light the impugned provisions m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. The maintenance of any particular standard of these heads are not in contemplation at all, although certain other aspects, not so important, have been dealt with differently in several other sections including s. 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11. Section 4(2)(b) mandatorily requires the applicant to pay the "prescribed" fee; s. 5 gives precise direction regarding the name by which the institution is to be called; and s. 9 about the certificates to be issued by it; and s. 11 makes it obligatory to maintain accounts in the "prescribed" manner. But, there is no indication, whatsoever, about the legislative policy or the accepted rule of conduct on the vital issue about the maintenance of academic standard of the institution and the other requirements relating to the building, library and necessary amenities for the students, as the Act is absolutely silent about the criteria to be adopted by the prescribed authority for granting or refusing permission. The rules which were made under s. 27 in 1968 and called the Tamil Nadu Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Rules, 1968, are not called upon to lay down any norm on these issues and naturally do not make any reference....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under s. 22. Such an unguided power bestowed on the State Government was struck down as offending Article 14 in the case of the State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, [1952] SCR 284. A similar situation arose in Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala and Another, [1961] 3 SCR 77, where, under s. 4 of the Travancore-Kochin Land Tax Act, 1955, all lands were subjected to the burden of a tax and s. 7 gave power to the Government to grant exemption from the operation of the Act. The section was declared ultra vires on the ground that it gave uncanalised, unlimited and arbitrary power, as the Act did not lay down any principle or policy for the guidance of exercise of the discretion in respect of the selection contemplated by s. 7. 9. Similar is the position under ss. 6 and 7 of the present Act. The learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that by reference in s. 4 to the particulars to be supplied. in the application for permission, it can be easily imagined that the competent authority has to take into account all that may be validly relevant for the grant or refusal of permission. We are afraid, the section cannot be saved by recourse to this argument i....