Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Akal Group Of Technical And Management ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 1 June, 2012

Author: Rajiv Narain Raina

Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina

CWP No. 11434 of 2012                                                -1-


           IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
                         CHANDIGARH


                                 CWP No. 11434 of 2012
                                 Date of Decision: 01.06.2012


Akal Group of Technical and Management Institution Village Mastuana
District Sangrur, Punjab

                                                         ......... Petitioner

                           Versus

All India Council for Technical Education & others
                                                     ............ Respondents

                           *****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:    Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

                  ****

      1.    To be referred to the reporters or not?
      2.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite recommendations by the Regional Office of AICTE no action has been taken to finalize the case of the petitioner for approval to run Master of Business Administration and Master of Computer Application courses. Two sessions have gone by. In case the situation continues it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner since it deposited Rs. 30,00,000/- for each course with the AICTE in the year 2010 to process its case for approval.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that academic session 2012-13 would commence from July, 2012. He prays that a direction be issued to respondents No.1 & 2 to consider and decide the petitioner's case for approval within some specified period. CWP No. 11434 of 2012 -2-

3. In view of the nature of the request, there would be no necessity to call for written statement from the respondents and it would suffice to issue direction to respondents No.1 & 2 to consider and decide the petitioner's case for approval within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

4. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

5. Order dasti.




01.06.2012                                (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
   'sp'                                           JUDGE