Kerala High Court
Noorul Islam Trust vs The Chairman on 6 October, 2010
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24884 of 2010(I)
1. NOORUL ISLAM TRUST, REG.NO.198/1998,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHAIRMAN,
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.MAJEED
For Respondent :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :06/10/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) Nos. 24884/2010-I, 24956/2010-T, 24957/2010-T,
24975/2010-V, 25144/2010-P & 26008/2010-A
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010.
JUDGMENT
All these writ petitions raise common issues and therefore they are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. These writ petitions have been filed seeking to quash the communications issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) declining approval for establishment of new technical institutions, as sought for by the petitioners. In all cases, except in W.P.(C) No.26008/2010, a common interim order was passed by this Court on 16.8.2010 while admitting the writ petitions, to grant provisional approval to the petitioners' institutions. As far as W.P.(C) No.26008/2010 is concerned, when the said writ petition came up for admission learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in W.A. No.1432/2010 filed against the interim orders, the Division Bench has withdrawn similar cases to be heard by the Division Bench and accordingly it was ordered to be posted before the Division Bench.
WPC 24884/2010, etc. 2
3. All the writ petitions were thus heard along with W.A. Nos.1432/2010, 1439/2010 and 1435/2010. The impugned orders in each one of the writ petitions were set aside. The Council was directed to communicate to each of the writ petitioners the precise grounds on which the approval in each one of these cases is declined, within a reasonable period of time. It was also directed that upon such communication, it shall be open to each of the applicants to take such measures as they deem appropriate and communicate to the Council seeking a further inspection in order to enable the Council to record its satisfaction of the compliance of all the norms laid down by the Council in the case of each of the applicants. The Council thereafter shall grant necessary approval in all those cases which are found eligible. These writ petitions were posted back for considering the consequential relief of direction compelling the Council to grant necessary approval, in the light of the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing in the cases that in their cases a further inspection or a further assessment as indicated in para 11 of the order is uncalled for, as the applicants complied with all the stipulations necessary for obtaining the approval from the Council. Accordingly, they have been reposted for hearing.
WPC 24884/2010, etc. 3
4. On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavits have been filed and the petitioners have also filed reply affidavits.
5. Heard Shri N. Nandakumara Menon, Shri Kurian George Kannanthanam, Shri K.P. Dandapani and Shri George Thomas Mevada, learned Senior Counsel, Shri K. Jaju Babu and Shri K.I. Mayankutty Mather, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S. Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the AICTE and learned Govt. Pleader.
6. In all these writ petitions, except in W.P.(C) No.26008/2010 the petitioners are seeking for approval for establishing Engineering Colleges, whereas in W.P.(C) No.26008/2010 the application is for establishing a College for conducting Management Courses.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that all formalities with regard to the application, viz. scrutiny and re-scrutiny by Scrutiny Committee, visit by Expert Committees and revisit by Expert Committees, consideration of appeal by the Appellate Committee and recommendation by the Regional Committee, have all been followed scrupulously in these cases in terms of the stipulations contained in the Approval Process Hand Book. After the recommendations were thus made, they were directed to make Fixed Deposit as specified in the Hand Book, viz. Rs.35 lakhs in the case of WPC 24884/2010, etc. 4 Engineering Colleges and Rs.15 lakhs in the case of the applicant in W.P. (C) No.26008/2010. Their names have found a place in the list of approved institutions published by the AICTE in their Website. Thus, it is pointed out that no deficiencies remain to be complied with by them.
8. Since the arguments mainly centered around the question whether any of the procedural formalities have to be complied with in respect of the applicants, a reference to the procedures prescribed in the Hand Book is relevant. The application is in two parts, viz. Part A and Part B. A time schedule has been prescribed and published by AICTE for submitting applications and other various stages with regard to the processing of the same culminating in the final stage.
9. Para 5.1 relates to the submission of application in Part A. The said application in the prescribed format along with the enclosures including Detailed Project Report in the format prescribed, has to be submitted online at AICTE web-portal. A unique identification number will be allotted to each application for further reference. Importantly, it is mentioned in para 5.1 that "by using this number the applicant Society/Trust will be able to track the status of the application at various stages of processing the application using AICTE web-portal." The processing fee for various types of institutions varies from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- WPC 24884/2010, etc. 5 which will have to be paid through E-Banking facility.
10. Para 6.1 provides that a print of the complete application and enclosures as uploaded to the AICTE web-portal, printed thereon, shall be submitted to the following on or before the date as mentioned in the time schedule: (1) Affiliating University; (2) Concerned State Government/UT; and (3) Concerned Regional Office of AICTE. It should be appended by the documents mentioned in sub para (a) to (e) therein. Para 6.2 provides that the State Government/UT and the affiliating university will forward to the concerned Regional Office of the Council by the date as mentioned in the time schedule, their views on the applications. The evaluation of the application is provided in para 7. The detailed procedure provided therein shows the following:
(a) The application shall be evaluated by a Scrutiny Committee constituted by the Chairman, Regional Committee by selecting members using automated selection process provided by the AICTE web-portal;
(b) The Scrutiny Committee will invite all applicants for presentation of their proposals along with: (i) Originals of all scanned documents 1 to 14 (and 15) of 5.1, and a to e of 6.1; (ii) Proof of submission of copy of application to concerned affiliating WPC 24884/2010, etc. 6 University; (iii) Proof of submission of copy of application to concerned State Government/UT; and (iv) A video CD of all facilities created for new Institutions. Based on the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee, the Regional Officer concerned will communicate deficiencies, if any, to the applicant Society/Trust by the date as stated in the time schedule. (Para 7.3).
) The applicant Society/Trust may rectify the deficiencies and submit compliance by the date as stated in time schedule for reconsideration by the Scrutiny Committee. The list of deficiencies will also be posted in the AICTE web-portal for information. The last date for reconsideration of such applications by the Scrutiny Committee will be as stated in time schedule. (para 7.4).
(d) Only in those cases who are found to be in order in all respects by the Scrutiny Committee, the application will be processed further for issuance of Letter of approval. The list of such applications will also be posted in the AICTE web-portal for information. (para 7.5) Thus, the first stage with regard to Part A application will be completed by the conclusion of the above procedures. The applicants who were WPC 24884/2010, etc. 7 recommended by the Scrutiny Committee will get information from the AICTE web-portal from the list published.
11. Para 7.6 onwards is the next stage, viz. submission of Part B application and other steps for processing it. Para 7.6 provides that all applicants recommended by the Scrutiny Committee shall fill Part B of application in the prescribed format and upload the enclosures listed as items (a) to (x) therein on AICTE web-portal, which includes video clip with date and time of shooting indicating the complete physical infrastructure/facilities and highlighting the various aspects provided therein which includes details of the building, internal portions of rooms, etc. and other facilities. If any of the applications are not recommended by the Scrutiny Committee, they will be informed by the Council about the non approval of the proposal (para 7.7.).
12. The next stage is the visit of the Expert committee (para 8.1). They are expected to verify the following: (i) Preparation with respect to Appendix 5, i.e. Computer, Software, Internet, Printers, Laboratory Equipments and Books, Journals, Library facilities for Technical Institution;
(ii) preparation with respect to Appendix 6 i.e. Additional Essential and Desired requirements for Technical Institution; and (iii) progress related to appointment of Principal/Director and faculty with respect to the norms, WPC 24884/2010, etc. 8 standards and conditions prescribed by the Council. The dates of their visit are also mentioned in time schedule. They will have access to the report of the Scrutiny Committee. The applicants will have to make available the documents listed in para 8.1 including video CD indicating the complete physical structures and facilities highlighting five items specified which includes the exterior of the entire building and every interior parts, rooms, toilets, cafeteria, entrance lobby, passages, stair cases, etc. etc. with date and time of shooting. They will have to arrange for video recording with date and time of the entire proceedings of the Expert Committee visit which will form part of the Expert Committee report and Laptop/desktop with internet facility. The Expert Committee will have to upload its report in the format prescribed on the web-portal of AICTE on the same day of the visit and the video recording of Expert Committee visit and the attendance sheet in the format prescribed which should be duly signed/digitally authenticated by the Expert Committee members and the representatives of applicant Society/Trust present during the visit.
13. The next stage is evaluation by the Regional Committee (para 9). They will have to evaluate the uploaded report along with the report of the State Government/UT and affiliating University and recommend further for issuance of Letter of Approval or otherwise by the date as mentioned in WPC 24884/2010, etc. 9 time schedule. The Regional Officer thereafter will inform the applicant institution whose applications are recommended for grant of approval by the Regional Committee by the date as mentioned in time schedule for submission of a Fixed Deposit along with an affidavit in the same respect.
14. One of the important process to be completed by the Regional Officer is the forwarding of a certificate with regard to the completion of all procedures. It is provided that the Regional Officer concerned, at the time of forwarding the recommendations of the Regional Committee to AICTE's headquarters, for placing before the Executive Committee or Council, shall certify that all the processes and parameters as prescribed in regulations and approval process hand book were followed by the Scrutiny Committee, the Expert Committee and the Regional Committee. In case it is not the case, the Regional officer concerned shall point out the deviations in the process or in the prescribed norms and standards. Para 10 provides for grant of approval by the Council.
15. Herein, one more aspect will have to be pointed out. The respondents had provided a remedy of appeal after the visit of the Expert Committee to the applicants in whose cases deficiencies were noted, evidently to give an opportunity for curing the same and satisfying it before the Appellate Committee. The notification issued by the AICTE in this WPC 24884/2010, etc. 10 regard has been produced as Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No.24884/2010. The same is dated 15.6.2010. Para 1 is in relation to extension of approval/introduction of new course/s, additional divisions, etc. which is not applicable herein. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are important for the purpose of these cases, which are extracted below:
"All institutions must comply/rectify deficiencies and submit the report in the form of hardcopy documents, in the FORMAT available, a AICTE website www.aicte-india.org to the respective Regional Office between 15/06/2010 to 19/06/2010, failing which, it will be presumed that such institution has not been able to rectify deficiencies. Institutions to fill the data are notified in the format available on the web portal.
All cases not approved by AICTE of New Institute applicants will have to present themselves before the Appellate Committee with relevant documents based on the deficiencies notified in the Expert Committee Report appended to the respective Institute portal ID strictly as per the Schedule given on the AICTE Web Portal to be conducted on 17/06/2010, 18/06/10 and 19/06/2010."
Going by the facts of these cases, there was a time schedule prescribed for verification by the Scrutiny Committee, re-scrutiny, visit of the Expert Committee and that of the Appellate Committee. In all these cases the scrutinies were over on 18/19-4-2010 and re-scrutiny by 4/5th of May, 2010. The Expert Committee's visits were on 25/26-5-2010. The Appellate WPC 24884/2010, etc. 11 Committee's deliberations were on different dates, viz. from 17/6/2010 to 19/6/2010. After completing all these procedures, the Regional Committee's recommendations were made on 23.6.2010, going by the documents produced.
16. The petitioners made the Fixed Deposits, after they were given information from the web-portal itself that their status has been cleared. In some of the writ petitions, a copy of the same along with other instructions, have been produced. It is also their case that in tune with the instructions, they made appointment of Principal and other faculty members, staff, etc. and have produced documents as required by the instructions and the details along with the documents required, have been forwarded. Ultimately, their names found a place in the list of institutions approved by the AICTE for the academic year 2010-2011, which was published in the web-site and copies of print outs have been produced in all the writ petitions.
17. Thus, the stand taken by the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that all the procedures have been satisfactorily completed by them and all necessary steps have been taken to carry out the instructions with regard to the clearance of Parts A and B applications, deficiencies, furnishing of F.D, appointment of staff and getting approval/NOC from the State Government. It is therefore pointed out that the stand taken by the Council is un- WPC 24884/2010, etc. 12 understandable and without any application of mind and without considering the relevant proceedings of various Committees culminating in the recommendation by the Regional Committee.
18. Importantly, it is also submitted that the same procedures have been adopted, followed and undertaken in respect of the institutions whose names have been published, as approved along with that of petitioners. Thus, it is pointed out that if there was a failure, lapse/inadequacy in respect of any of the steps taken by the different Committees, it would have affected all those institutions. It is therefore submitted that the stand taken against the petitioners is discriminatory.
19. Shri S. Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the AICTE raised the following submissions: It was submitted that the respondents are prepared to issue appropriate communications to the petitioners showing the deficiency to which they can submit objections and the same will be considered by the respondents and thereafter Expert Committee will again be deputed. It is further pointed out by referring to the averments in the counter affidavit that after the visit of the Expert Committee, the deficiencies/defects in full have not been cleared before the Appellate Committee. The deficiencies related to the construction/infrastructure facilities. Under clause 12 of the Approval WPC 24884/2010, etc. 13 Process Hand Book, there is a remedy of appeal also to the applicants. With regard to the publication in the website of the petitioners' institution along with approved institutions, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the same is an inadvertent mistake.
20. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Kurian George Kannanthanam, Shri K.P. Dandapani and Shri N. Nandakumara Menon, submitted that the said stand taken in the counter affidavit and in the arguments really does not reflect the correct picture. It is pointed out that the averments in the counter affidavit that the deficiencies have not been cleared, are belied by the proceedings issued by the Appellate Committee and the Regional Committee. It is pointed out that wherever the Appellate Committee wanted a revisit by the Expert Committee, the same was also ordered, which have also been complied with by the petitioners. It is pointed out that the experts who were included in the first Expert Committee and the re-visit Expert Committee are different. The Appellate Committee was headed by a Vice Chancellor. It is further pointed out that the indication that is made in the counter affidavit that the applicants have not produced all the materials before the Appellate Committee for their consideration, is totally incorrect and contrary to the admitted facts. It is pointed out that the applicants were required by the notification dated 15/6/2010 published by the AICTE itself, WPC 24884/2010, etc. 14 to appear before the Appellate Committee, within the time schedule mentioned therein (Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No.24884/2010). The notification itself directed the applicants to comply/rectify deficiencies and submit the report in the form of hardcopy documents, in the format available and all cases which are not approved by the AICTE, the applicants/representatives will have to personally present before the Appellate Committee with all relevant documents. It is submitted that these documents are also supported by the photographs and videos which have been uploaded in the web-portal. It is therefore submitted that the stand taken that all details were not produced before the Appellate Committee, is totally misconceived.
21. The above arguments have been reiterated by learned Senior Counsel Shri George Thomas Mevada, and learned counsel Shri Jaju Babu and Shri Mayankutty Mather.
22. It is pointed out that in all these cases after the visit of the first Expert Committee, when the Regional Committee considered their report, they have only noted in their reports that the deficiencies are "minor deficiencies". It is therefore submitted that the deficiencies pointed out are not of serious nature which were duly rectified by the applicants and the demonstration before the Appellate Committee was therefore to their satisfaction and that is why they have accepted the same. It is submitted WPC 24884/2010, etc. 15 that even after the revisit, the Expert Committee members have duly certified the clearance of deficiencies and have not noted any deficiency as remaining to be cleared in respect of any of these petitioners. Hence, it is pointed out that the stand taken is really unwarranted.
23. Apart from the same, Shri George Thomas Mevada, learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel Shri Mayankutty Mather submitted that in a matter like this, on the basis of minor and trivial defects, the Letter of Approval cannot be denied. It is pointed out that as far as the entitlement of an applicant is concerned, it will have to be decided based on appropriate infrastructure, financial stability, appointment of staff and such factors. It is further submitted that the same is clear from the findings rendered by the Division Bench in para 9 of the order, wherein the Division Bench observed that such an entitlement is required to be decided on the basis of number of factors such as "the existence of appropriate infrastructure, availability of competent teaching staff, financial stability of the educational agency to run the institution, etc."
24. It is pointed out that all the institutions have completed the buildings, libraries, laboratories and other facilities by making investment running to crores. They have obtained permission/NOC from the Government and have made available the Fixed Deposit amount also to the WPC 24884/2010, etc. 16 AICTE. Therefore, it is pointed out that by asking to them wait for another year, all these will become waste and will cause acute loss to the applicants and others. These arguments were supported by learned counsel appearing for the other petitioners. It may be mentioned herein that in all these cases, the respective Appellate Committees have heard the petitioners on the deficiencies to be cleared which resulted in ordering a revisit by the Expert Committees, in W.P.(C) Nos.24884/2010, 24956/2010 and 25144/2010, whereas in W.P.(C) Nos.24957/2010, 24975/2010 and 26008/2010 no such revisit has been ordered by the Appellate Committee as they were satisfied about the clearance of deficiencies, by recommending the applications.
I will now come to the facts in respect of each individual cases. W.P.(C) No.24884/2010
25. The application is for establishment of an Engineering College in Idukki District. The petitioner appeared before the Scrutiny Committee, viz. in Viswesharayya Engineering College, Bangalore. The report of the Scrutiny Committee is produced as Ext.P3. All the deficiencies noted were cured and the details were re-verified by the Scrutiny Committee which fact is evident from the subsequent report Ext.P4. Thereafter, Part B application was submitted through the website and the Expert Committee visited the campus on 26.5.2010. Ext.P5 is the copy of their report wherein certain WPC 24884/2010, etc. 17 deficiencies were noticed. Ext.P6 is the report of the Regional Committee wherein, in the relevant column it is noted as "not recommended. Minor deficiencies as per EC Report." The report of the Appellate Committee is produced as Ext.P8, wherein "documents verified and accepted/not accepted" have been given in detail in separate columns. Ext.P9 is the report of the revisit by the second Expert Committee. All the columns in Ext.P9 shows that they have been cleared. Ext.P12 is the report of the Regional Committee containing the recommendation as "recommended". It further contains the recommendation for intake, i.e. 60 each in five disciplines. Ext.P11 is the publication in Malayala Manorama inviting applications for appointment of staff and Ext.P13 evidences the fact that the petitioner has forwarded a Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.35 lakhs valid for eight years, with a covering letter. Ext.P15 is the copy of the relevant pages of the website which shows that the institution has been approved. Ext.P16 is the recommendation of the M.G. University to the State Government recommending the same. Ext.P17 is the NOC granted by the State Government for starting the college. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner also, it is reiterated that the new Expert Committee consisting of an entirely new team, personally verified all the items including the two items in which deficiency was noted by the Appellate Committee. It is WPC 24884/2010, etc. 18 pointed out that no deficiency is remaining to be cleared and the contention otherwise made is incorrect. Going by the documents, the first visit of the Expert Committee was on 26.5.2010. The presentation before the Appellate Committee was on 18.6.2010 and the revisit of the Expert Committee was on 21.6.2010. The report of the Regional Committee thereafter, recommending the same is dated 23.6.2010. W.P.(C) No.24956/2010
26. The application is for starting an Engineering College at Nattakom in Kottayam District. Ext.P3 is the report of the Scrutiny Committee held on 19.4.2010. The Scrutiny Committee's re-verification was on 4.5.2010 and after curing the defects, the petitioner filed Part B application. The Expert Committee's visit was on 25.5.2010 and the report is produced as Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is the report of the Appellate Committee dated 18.6.2010. As per Ext.P5, a revisit was ordered and Ext.P6 is the report of the Expert Committee as per re-visit on 21.6.2010. The said report shows that apart from accepting the three items shown in Ext.P5, all other columns have been cleared. Ext.P7 is the report of the Regional Committee recommending the same on 23.6.2010. After the recommendation thus made, in the website, against the column 'current status', it is noted as 'FDR Requested'. This is evidenced by Ext.P8. WPC 24884/2010, etc. 19 Accordingly, the FDR for Rs.35 lakhs and affidavit were forwarded as per Ext.P9. The list showing appointment of Principal and staff have been produced as Ext.P10. The list published by the AICTE containing the name of the petitioner has been produced as Ext.P11 (serial No.124). Copy of the press release made by the first respondent in Mathrubhumi, Kerala Kaumudi and Malayala Manorama, have been produced as Exts.P11(a), P11
(b) and P11(c). Ext.P12 is the proceedings showing provisional affiliation by the Mahatma Gandhi University and Ext.P13 is the Govt. Order granting administrative sanction for executing agreement for starting the college for an intake of 300 students for five branches. Ext.P14 is the copy of the agreement and and Ext.P15 is the copy of the NOC granted by the State Government.
27. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner denied the averments in the counter affidavit and has pointed out that the Expert Committee who have revisited, have verified all the items and on being satisfied that the deficiencies were rectified, they scored off the respective columns which is evident from Ext.P6. This has not been considered by the Executive Committee or the Council.
W.P.(C) No.24957/2010
28. The petitioner is an applicant for establishing an Engineering WPC 24884/2010, etc. 20 College in Mukundapuram Taluk and has constructed a building having 57000 sq. ft. spending more than Rs.10 crores. Before the Scrutiny Committee the presentation was made on 19.4.2010 and the defects noted were cleared in the re-scrutiny committee's meeting on 4.5.2010, as evident from Ext.P3. The Expert Committee only noted minor deficiencies and the papers were presented before the Appellate Committee as per the notification and the report of the Appellate Committee is produced as Ext.P4. All the defects cured, have been noted as accepted and the recommendation made is positive which is followed by Ext.P5 recommendation of the Regional committee. As directed by the Regional Committee, Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.35 lakhs has been made available (Ext.P7). Ext.P8 is the copy of the news item appeared in Mathrubhumi Daily showing the names of institutions approved by the AICTE which included the name of the petitioner's institution also. Along with the additional affidavit, Ext.P9, true copy of the report of the Expert Committee has also been produced.
W.P.(C) No.24975/2010
29. The petitioner is an applicant for establishing an Engineering College in Mukundapuram Taluk. On 19.4.2010 the Scrutiny Committee verified the documents and noted certain minor deficiencies. After curing WPC 24884/2010, etc. 21 the defects, a re-scrutiny was made by the re-scrutiny committee and Ext.P3 is the copy of their report. Certain minor deficiencies were pointed out in the visit of the Expert Committee and the report of the Appellate Committee showing that the deficiencies have been cleared, has been produced as Ext.P4. It also shows that the application has been recommended and Ext.P5 is the recommendation made by the Regional Committee also. In Ext.P6, the petitioner's name has been included and Ext.P7 is the copy of the FDR. Ext.P8 is the copy of the news item appeared in Malayala Manorama showing that the college has been granted approval. Along with the additional affidavit, Ext.P10 has been produced which is the copy of the report of the Expert Committee.
W.P.(C) No.25144/2010
30. The application was to set up a new Engineering College and presentation was made before the Scrutiny Committee on 19.4.2010. The only requirement was to forward an audited statement of accounts which was forwarded and the application was found to be in order. Thereafter, on satisfaction by the Regional committee, Part B application was forwarded to the AICTE and the Expert Committee visited the college on 25.5.2010. In Ext.P2 the Regional Committee noticed minor deficiencies. The Appellate Committee as per Ext.P3 report, recommended re-visit and the WPC 24884/2010, etc. 22 revisit was held on 21.6.2010 by the new Expert Team and their report is produced as Ext.P4. All the items have been cleared according to the petitioner, and thereafter the Regional Committee forwarded their recommendation as per Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is the copy of the print out of the web page wherein against 'current status', it is noted as 'FDR requested'. The petitioner had forwarded the FDR along with an affidavit, as per Ext.P7. Ext.P9 is the copy of the print out of the instructions to be complied with by the institutions so recommended, regarding the documents to be uploaded and submitted to the concerned Regional Office. Ext.P9 directed the petitioner to appoint all the faculty and technical staff and also to furnish details including their joining reports, biometrics of the right thumb etc. Ext.P10 is the copy of the relevant portion of the list of approved institutions published by the AICTE, wherein also the petitioner's name has been included. As per Ext.P11 some additional requirements were directed to be complied with, which was notified in the website as general instructions to be complied with by the institutions. It is pointed out that all the instructions were given through the web-portal of the college and the web site of the AICTE. Ext.P12 is the copy of the communication issued by the Director of Technical Education recommending the Government to issue formal approval. WPC 24884/2010, etc. 23 W.P.(C) No.26008/2010
31. Herein, the application is for establishment of a new degree level technical institution for conducting Management Courses. Ext.P2 is the copy of the application. Ext.P3 is the copy of the report of the Scrutiny Committee. The minor defects pointed out by the Scrutiny Committee, were cleared before the Re-scrutiny Committee and their report is produced as Ext.P4. The Expert Committee conducted the visit on 26.4.2010. They noticed certain deficiencies which were taken before the Appellate Committee. The Appellate Committee recommended the application after rectification of the deficiencies, as per Ext.P6. Ext.P14 is the copy of the report of the Regional Committee based on the Expert Committee's report showing "not recommended. Minor deficiencies as per EC report." Herein also, no revisit was ordered by the Appellate Committee. Ext.P12 is the list of institutions which were granted approval wherein the petitioner's name is included and Ext.P13 is the news item published in the newspaper showing the decision of the AICTE.
32. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not against any visit by an Expert Committee, but it is pointed out that the same cannot be taken as a ground to deny the Letter of Approval and that the stand taken by the 1st WPC 24884/2010, etc. 24 respondent Council in the counter affidavit is un-understandable. It is further pointed out that only after getting LETTER OF APPROVAL (LOA), permanent affiliation will be granted and students will have to be admitted thereafter. Therefore, any further delay will only jeopardize the institutions. It was suggested that after issuing provisional LOA as directed by the interim orders or the LOA itself which has to be in force for one year, if any revisit is required, the same can be done. It is pointed out that the same will protect the institution, as otherwise they will be denied the facility to run the college even after completing all the formalities to the satisfaction of the AICTE as evident from the various documents. In fact, Shri Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel submitted that naturally the petitioners have to file an appeal under clause 12 of the Approval Process Hand Book and a visit by an Expert Committee will have to be made for finding out any deficiency and the processes of such visit should be followed by other steps provided in the Hand Book. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that such an argument cannot be countenanced in the light of the fact that there is no procedural irregularity.
33. The emphasis made by the learned Standing Counsel is mainly on one aspect. Out of the total deficiencies noted by the WPC 24884/2010, etc. 25 Expert Committees in the first visit in respect of the petitioners, all of them have not been brought before the Appellate Committee. The sustainability of this argument has to be considered in the light of the various procedures complied with by the petitioners.
34. It is clear from the documents produced that the AICTE itself has granted a facility to appear before the Appellate Committee after the first visit of the Expert Committee, to clear the deficiencies pointed out. The notification extracted already itself reveals that the institutions were required to comply/rectify deficiencies and submit the report in the form of hardcopy documents in the format available at AICTE website, to the respective Regional Office between 15.6.2010 to 19.6.2010, failing which, it will be presumed that such institution has not been able to rectify deficiencies. It is also notified that "instructions to fill the data are notified in the format available on the web portal". It was also directed that applicants will have to present themselves before the Appellate Committee with relevant documents based on the deficiencies notified in the Expert Committee Report appended to the respective institute portal ID on the various dates, viz. 17/18/19-6-2010. As explained by the learned counsel for the petitioners, all the details for clearing the deficiencies have been WPC 24884/2010, etc. 26 uploaded by them in compliance with the instructions in the notification (Ext.P7 produced in W.P.(C) No.24884/2010). During arguments before me a full set containing copies of such documents were produced for perusal which included photographs and videoclips and the seal of the authority concerned. It is pointed out that a complete set of all the documents with every one of the details to clear the deficiencies were made available as per the mandatory requirements of the notification, before the Appellate Committee, as without them their cases would not have been considered. It is therefore submitted that there is no scope for an argument otherwise. I find much force in the above submission.
35. Going by the system/procedure which was enforced by the AICTE for clearing the deficiency, it can be seen that the applicants cannot withhold the details for the consideration of the Appellate Committee. As pointed out by Shri N. Nandakumara Menon, learned Senior Counsel, and supported by other learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is not a case where a party is expected to file an appeal memorandum as envisaged in the Code of Civil Procedure and other enactments. Every one of the completed documents will have to be uploaded which will be verified by the Appellate Committee, headed by well-known personalities, herein, a Vice Chancellor. Thus, the argument raised in the counter affidavit that the WPC 24884/2010, etc. 27 petitioners have not cleared all deficiencies, i.e. by placing all the documents/details for clearing the deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Committee on the first visit, really falls to the ground. As noticed already, after the visit of the first Expert Committee, what was noticed by the Regional Committee is only "minor deficiencies in respect of the applicants". It evidences one important fact that with regard to the major components for running a college, viz. infrastructure including land and building, teaching staff, financial stability, etc. there were no disputes in the form of deficiencies. On going through the reports of the Expert Committees also, it can be seen that the opinion of the Regional Committee that there were only minor deficiencies, is correct.
36. Further, any procedural lapse on the part of the various committees cannot also be thought of in the light of the fact that the Scrutiny Committee had conducted verification at two stages and after clearance alone, Part B applications were accepted, which also has to be accompanied by various documents, as mentioned in para 7.6 along with the video clip. The video clip with the date and time of shooting should indicate the complete physical infrastructure / facilities and highlighting the following: (a) Front and back side of the entire institute building; (b) Internal portion of the classrooms, tutorial rooms, laboratories, workshop, WPC 24884/2010, etc. 28 drawing hall, computer centre, library, reading room, seminar hall and all other rooms as mentioned in programme-wise instructional area requirements in Appendix 4; ) Internal portion of the Principal's room, board room, main office, departmental offices, faculty cabins/seating, arrangement and all other rooms as mentioned in Administrative area requirements in Appendix 4; (d) Internal portion of toilet facilities, boys and girls common rooms, cafeteria and all other rooms as mentioned in Amenities area requirements in Appendix 4; and (e) Circulation area details highlighting entrance lobby, passages, escalators, staircases and other common area. These are subjected to physical verification also by the Expert Committee. On the date of their visit, the applicants will have to arrange video recording with date and time of the entire proceedings of the Expert Committee visit, which will form part of the Expert Committee report. Thus, all these were presented and were available otherwise also before the Appellate Committee, evidently. Therefore, obviously the proceedings of the Appellate Committee are of vital nature. It is not as if, as contended by the respondent Council, that before the Appellate Committee, all the deficiencies were not cleared by the respective applicants. When there is checking and cross checking by various committees and officers, it is impossible to conceive as to how such WPC 24884/2010, etc. 29 attempts can be made by the applicants.
37. Therefore, the contention raised in the counter affidavit that there were deficiencies relating to construction/infrastructure facilities which are yet to be completed, cannot at all be accepted. The deficiencies in all the cases were minor only as noted by the Regional Committee.
38. The proceedings of the Expert Committee on the revisit, are really important. It would show that all the columns against each of the requirements have been cleared by them also in respect of W.P.(C) Nos.24884/2010, 24956/2010 and 25144/2010 (Exts.P9, P6 and P4 respectively). As noticed already, in respect of the other three cases, all the deficiencies were cleared by the Appellate Committee itself and there was no direction to have a revisit also. Wherever special verifications have to be made in the revisit of the second Expert Committee, in fact, the Appellate Committees have specified so in the proceedings. That does not mean that the verification is confined to those items only as now contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Council.
39. Evidently, the Experts sent on two occasions are different also. No documents have been produced by the respondents to sustain the plea that deficiencies were not cleared. A common counter affidavit has been filed in these writ petitions, except the portion covering the items of WPC 24884/2010, etc. 30 deficiencies. The documents produced are also not sufficient to conclude otherwise. For example, in W.P.(C) No.24884/2010, along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R1(a), a report said to have been forwarded by the Regional Office, Bangalore, has been produced. The same is dated 9.6.2010. A similar report as Ext.R1(a), has been produced in W.P.(C) No.26008/2010. Evidently, the same is only a shortened version of the visit made by the first Expert Committee. The date therein is important, i.e. 9.6.2010. Obviously, the same was not conclusive as against the parties at that stage. Therein, the status against "Document section" and "Institution level data", is noted as "Not Ready". Thereafter the notification was published in the website dated 15.6.2010 requiring the institutions to rectify the deficiencies and to appear before the Appellate Committee with all relevant documents, between 17/6/2010 and 19/6/2010. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said document has no relevance at all in view of the subsequent reports of the Appellate Committees and second Expert Committees (in three cases) and the recommendation of the Regional Committee. I find force in the said submission, as the same does not reflect the state of affairs after the conclusion of the proceedings. It is clear that the proceedings of the Appellate committee which have been considered by the Regional WPC 24884/2010, etc. 31 Committee later, cannot thus be overlooked.
40. Shri S. Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the AICTE relied upon the observations made by the Division Bench in the order dated 23.9.2010 and a decision of the Apex Court in All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others {(2009) 11 SCC 726}, to contend that this Court may not be an expert and the matter will have to be left to the AICTE itself, as technical aspects are involved. In fact, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the observations made by the Division Bench in para 10 of the order, cannot preclude this Court from examining whether all the procedural formalities have been complied with by the petitioners and to consider whether a direction can be issued to grant Letter Of Approval as the impugned proceedings have been set aside by the Division Bench itself. It is pointed out that assessments have been made by various committees at different stages to the satisfaction of all and therefore it is not a case where the petitioners are seeking for a direction without satisfying their qualifications and essential facilities for the same, especially in view of the reports of various Expert Committees and by the Appellate Committees. It is pointed out that the respondent Council itself has provided an opportunity WPC 24884/2010, etc. 32 to the applicants to present before the Appellate Committee at the intermediate stage of the processing of the application, to clear the deficiencies. It is therefore submitted that it was open for the petitioners to appraise the Appellate Committee the whole aspects regarding the observations made by the first Expert Committee including the noticing of certain items as deficiencies. It is therefore submitted that it was open for the Appellate Committee to find out whether the deficiencies actually exist or not. I find much force in the above submission. In Surinder Kumar Dhawan's case {(2009) 11 SCC 726}, the question considered was totally different. Therein, initially the High Court was approached for a mandamus. It was allowed permitting a bridge course to those who have passed the entry level examination, 10 + 2 with certain subjects. But by successive directions, the above one time measure was extended for several years and even to those who have passed only 10 + 1 instead of 10 + 2 examination. It is in that context it was held that "the courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education." As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the WPC 24884/2010, etc. 33 petitioners, the said dictum will not apply to the facts of these cases.
41. The proceedings of the Regional Committee and the Appellate Committee at the intermediate stages and that of the Regional Committee at the final stages, recommending the applications based on the various reports, are therefore important. As noticed already, the deficiencies noted by the Regional Committee were only minor deficiencies which fact is not disputed. In W.P.(C) Nos.24957/2010, 24975/2010 and 26008/2010 the Appellate Committee chaired by the Vice Chancellors, have accepted the curing of defects and no revisit by the Expert Committee was also ordered. In other cases, revisits were ordered and their reports have been considered by the Regional Committee. In that view of the matter, the question to be considered is whether there is any procedural lapse as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents now. The narration of facts show that all the procedures have been complied with properly. Obviously, the same procedure was followed in respect of other applicants in whose favour the Letter Of Approvals have been issued and whose names have been published along with the names of institutions of the petitioners. Evidently, therefore, the procedure adopted cannot be found fault with. The various steps envisaged under the new system in the Hand Book is to avoid any lapses on the part of the applicants as well as the officers concerned and WPC 24884/2010, etc. 34 the Committees concerned. The recommendation of the Regional Committee has also to be followed by a certificate to the effect that all the formalities have been complied with properly.
42. Therefore, the drastic action to deny the Letter of Approval, that too in cases where originally only minor deficiencies were reported by the first Expert Committee, was unnecessary. It would have resulted in postponement of opening of the colleges for another one year, for no fault of the petitioners.
43. That all the petitioners' institutions have been directed to comply with the procedure for appointing the required staff and faculty members, has also been pointed out by them. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent Council that the appointment need be made only after approval, going by para 11 of the Hand Book. The instructions issued in the website in that regard has been produced in W.P.(C) No.25144/2010 as Exts.P9 and P11, which are not disputed. This was preceded by the declaration of the current status of the applicants. In Ext.P9, item (1) is Fixed Deposit Receipt; (2) Affidavit; (3) Copy of advertisement released for the appointment of teaching staff, support staff, administrative staff, and Principal / Director; (6) Appointment Letters issued to each faculty; (7) Joining Reports of each faculty; (9) Qualifying Certificate of UG, PG, WPC 24884/2010, etc. 35 Ph.D. of each faculty; (10) Biometrics of right thumb of each faculty; and (11) Photograph of each faculty. The modified instructions Ext.P11 also directs the applicants to upload the documents/information as required in Part B immediately on the web portal which includes the above items also.
44. In the light of the above also, it is contended that the respondents are estopped from denying a Letter of Approval, as all the petitioners have already appointed the staff including the Principal and the denial will result in acute hardship to everybody. I find force in the above submission also. It is only on the instructions in the website and the web-portal that these actions have been done by the petitioners. That the status of the application can be tracked at various stages in the AICTE web-portal, using unique identification number, is one of the instructions given in para 5.1 of the Hand Book. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioners were doing the various activities on their own without waiting for the instructions from the respondents. The importance of the instructions in the Hand Book and the compliance of various procedures show that there cannot be a lapse on the part of anybody concerned, as the applicants can move to the different stages only by satisfactorily complying with the formalities prescribed including the clearance of deficiencies. Therefore, the system is fool-proof to take care of any non-compliance by the parties concerned, as otherwise WPC 24884/2010, etc. 36 they cannot move forward at all. Thus, as evidently the petitioners have satisfied all the conditions prescribed and all the procedures have been complied with in their case, as in the case of approval granted to other institutions listed along with them in the website, the denial of the Letter of Approval cannot be sustained. As the impugned orders have been quashed, there will be a direction to issue Letters of Approval to the petitioners, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petitions are allowed as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/