Punjab-Haryana High Court
St. Soldier Institute Of Pharmacy & ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 May, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Civil Writ Petition No. 10332 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 10332 of 2013
Date of Decision: May 14, 2013
St. Soldier Institute of Pharmacy & Polytechnic, Bassi Road,
Village Chhabewal, District Hoshiarpur through it chairman and
Authorised representative-Sh. Anil Chopra.
........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others
.........Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (Oral)
The short but important issue involved in the present writ petition is, whether All India Council for Technical Education ("AICTE" for short) is bound to consider even the incomplete applications, seeking its approval for setting up new Technical Institution.
The necessary facts for disposal of the present writ petition, which are hardly in dispute, are that the petitioner applied for approval of AICTE, for setting up the Technical Institution from the academic session 2013-14. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that AICTE conducted the scrutiny of the documents on 10.02.2013. As per the Civil Writ Petition No. 10332 of 2013 2 report of the Scrutiny Committee dated 10.02.2013 (Annexure P-3), necessary documents were not even presented before the Committee, on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, deficiencies were noted and pointed out. The case was not recommended for visit by the Expert Committee. The case was put up before the Re-scrutiny Committee, which submitted its report dated 19.02.2013 (Anenxure P-4). It seems that on the assurance of the petitioner that deficiencies would be removed, case of the petitioner was recommended for visit by Expert Committee. However, during the visit of Expert Committee, it was found that very many deficiencies were still there, including that the building was under construction. Pointing out the numerous deficiencies, report dated 28.02.3013 was submitted by the Expert Visiting Committee. Consequently, impugned letter of rejection dated 19.03.2013 (Annexure P-6) was issued to the petitioner. It seems that immediately thereafter, petitioner filed its appeal before the Standing Appellate Committee. Petitioner was requested to appear before the Standing Appellate Committee on 24.03.2013, whereby it was given opportunity of being heard but finding no case for interference, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. In this regard, the petitioner has placed on record website report dated 10.04.2013 Civil Writ Petition No. 10332 of 2013 3 (Annexure P-7). Petitioner also moved a representation dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure P-8) to AICTE, requesting for re-visit by the Expert Committee.
On the basis of above said pleadings, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of respondent-AICTE, while rejecting the application as well as the appeal of the petitioner was illegal. He further submits that the deficiency pointed out by the Expert Visiting Committee had been removed by the petitioner, before issuing the impugned letter of rejection dated 19.03.2013 (Annexure P-6). AICTE was duty bound to direct its Expert Visiting Committee to carry out another inspection. He next contended that petitioner submitted all the requisite documents before the Standing Appellate Committee, who failed to appreciate the same, while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. Finally, he prays for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion Civil Writ Petition No. 10332 of 2013 4 that no interference is called for, at this stage, at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
A bare perusal of the record of the case would show that petitioner submitted an incomplete application. In this regard, clause 1.6 of Chapter I of the AICTE norms (Annexure P-2), reads as under:
"Applicants are advised to apply only if the Building for the purpose of application is complete as per the Infrastructure requirements without any deficiency at the time of filling the application form on the AICTE Web-Portal www.aicte-india.org".
A combined reading of the reports i.e. Annexures P-3 to P-5 submitted by the Scrutiny Committee, Re- scrutiny Committee and Expert Visiting Committee, respectively, would show that even at the time of visit by the Expert Visiting Committee, building of the petitioner was under construction. Consequently, serious deficiencies were found, which were pointed out by the Expert Visiting Committee, as per its report dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P-
5). On the basis of the report of Expert Visiting Committee, Civil Writ Petition No. 10332 of 2013 5 impugned letter of rejection dated 19.03.2013 (Annexure P-
6) was issued by the AICTE. In the given fact situation of the present case, no illegality can be attached to the impugned letter of rejection(Annexure P-6), which deserves to be upheld.
The Expert Visiting Committee noted in its conclusion, in the report dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P-5), that the building was under construction. The management promised that they will finish the construction within a period of two months. However, it seems that the petitioner immediately filed its appeal after issuing the impugned letter of rejection dated 19.03.2013 (Annexure P-6), because AICTE requested the petitioner to appear before the Standing Appellate Committee on 24.03.2013, along with all the necessary documents and evidence in original in support of the removal of deficiencies pointed out by the Scrutiny Committee, Re-scrutiny Committee and Expert Visiting Committee.
When the petitioner promised before the Expert Visiting Committee, only on 28.02.2013 that construction will complete within two months, it does not appeal to reason as to why the petitioner insisted on hearing of its appeal, within a period of just one month after the letter of rejection dated 19.03.2013. It seems to be the reason that Civil Writ Petition No. 10332 of 2013 6 petitioner could not satisfy even the Standing Appellate Committee, placing before it relevant documents showing that the construction had been completed and all other deficiencies had been removed. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner was showing unwarranted haste on its part and the impugned letter of rejection issued by AICTE does not suffer from any illegality.
This is not the first case of its nature. It has been the experience in the recent past that applicants like the petitioner had been moving incomplete applications contrary to the provisions of law. During the process of scrutiny, re- scrutiny and the visit by the Expert Visiting Committee, it was found that the application of the petitioner was incomplete. Very many deficiencies were pointed out and while deficiencies were yet to be removed, the applicant's request for re-visit by the Expert Visiting Committee was not justified. That is how, it becomes the vicious circle. Public time as well as public money would be wasted. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that AICTE is not bound to entertain the incomplete application, seeking its approval for setting up new Technical Institution.
With a view to avoid the wastage of public money as well as public time, AICTE through its Chairman, is Civil Writ Petition No. 10332 of 2013 7 directed to look into this aspect and take an appropriate policy decision giving a complete and time bound schedule right from the submission till the final decision on these type of applications, making it clear to all concerned that no incomplete application will be entertained and the same shall be rejected outrightly.
It is so said because if the application itself is incomplete, why the Scrutiny Committee, Re-scrutiny Committee and Expert Visiting Committee should be asked to waste their time, because the irresistible conclusion was bound to result in rejection of the application. Neither it is understandable nor appeals to reason as to why the members of these different three Committees, who are the public servants, should be forced to waste their public time as well as public money, while entertaining the incomplete application, conducting the scrutiny, re-scrutiny and visit by the Expert Visiting Committee, on the request of an unscrupulous applicant who is, as usual, in unwarranted haste.
Coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear from the perusal of the record that application of the petitioner was incomplete. Building was under construction even at the time of visit by the Expert Visiting Committee. On the other hand, factually incorrect averments have been Civil Writ Petition No. 10332 of 2013 8 taken by the petitioner that petitioner applied to AICTE after completing all the necessary formalities. However, this stand taken by the petitioner has been falsified, by the report dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P-5), submitted by the Expert Visiting Committee.
Further, petitioner has not placed before this Court even those particulars or documents, which were submitted on behalf of the petitioner, before the Standing Appellate Committee of AICTE, so as to ensure that the petitioner had, as a matter of fact, removed all the deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Visiting Committee. The unnecessary and unwarranted haste on the part of the petitioner is also clear.
Even the order passed by the Standing Appellate Committee of AICTE, has not been placed on record by the petitioner, except placing reliance on Annexure P-7, which is only a computer generated document, pointing out only the status of Annexure P-6 i.e. letter of rejection. Except the self serving averments taken by the petitioner, neither it has placed on record of this case, copy of its appeal filed before the Standing Appellate Committee, nor the documents submitted. It is not even clear as to whether Annexure P-7, at all pertains to appeal of the petitioner because in front of the column of current status, only Civil Writ Petition No. 10332 of 2013 9 information given is "letter of rejection issued", which was Annexure P-6.
No other argument was raised.
Under the totality of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the instant petition is misconceived, bereft of any merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
However, before parting with the order, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chairman of All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi (AICTE) for compliance of the directions issued, hereinabove.
So far as the present writ petition is concerned, it stands dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE May 14, 2013 ANJAL