Kerala High Court
Dm Education & Research Foundation vs Union Of India on 31 August, 2015
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/17TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 22519 of 2016 (L)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
DM EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION,
A CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NASSERA NAGAR, MEPPADI P.O,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY &
LAW OFFICER, MR. ZALAZI KALLANGODAN, AGED 37 YEARS.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA,
COMBINED COUNCIL'S BUILDING, TEMPLE LANE,
KOTLA ROAD, AIWAN-E-GHALIB MARG,
P.O. BOX NO 7020, NEW DELHI - 110 002.
3. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
7TH FLOOR, CHANDRALOK BUILDING, JANPATH,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMURTHY,SC, AICTE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 22519 of 2016 (L)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO 183/2015/H & FWD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31-08-2015
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF AFFILIATION
DATED 29-01-2016 ISSUED BY THE KUHAS.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF INSPECTION CONDUCTED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT ON 11TH AND 12TH APRIL 2016,
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE 99TH CORE
COMMITTEE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT CONDUCTED ON
10TH AND 11TH JUNE 2016.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30-03-2016 OF THE
EVC OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15-04-2016 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STANDING
APPELLATE COMMITTEE DATED 15-04-2016
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30-04-2016 OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17-05-2016
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE
CONTRADICTION BETWEEN 1ST EVC AND 2ND EVC.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------
EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST EXPERT VISIT COMMITTEE REPORT
DTD.30.3.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A: FLOOR PLANS PROVIDED BY THE PETITIONER OF THE 1ST AND
3ND FLOORS OF THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL BUILDING,
WHICH HAS BEEN COLOUR-CODED AND MARKED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
Msv/
-2-
-2-
WP(C).No. 22519 of 2016 (L)
---------------------------
ANNEXURE B: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AREA DEMARCATED AND SHOWN AS THE
SECURITY AREA.
ANNEXURE C: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE AREA DEMARCATED AND SHOWN AS THE
CAFETERIA.
ANNEXURE D: THE SKETCH OF THE AREA SHOWN FOR THE CAFETERIA ALONG
WITH THE AREA CALCUATION MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE
MEASUREMENTS, AS PREPARED BY THE ENGINEER MR.VINOY P.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 22519 of 2016
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a trust running a Medical College. They have applied for permission of the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as `the AICTE' for short) for establishing a Pharmacy College. Prior to the same, they have obtained Ext.P1 NOC from the State Government, Ext.P2 affiliation from the Kerala University of Health Sciences and Ext.P4 approval of the Pharmacy Council of India, for the said purpose. Pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner, the Expert Visit Committee of the AICTE inspected the premises of the petitioner and found that the infrastructure provided by the petitioner for the Pharmacy College are not in order. Consequently, the matter was placed before the Standing W.P.(C) No. 22519 of 2016 -2- Appellate Committee of the AICTE. The Standing Appellate Committee considered the report submitted by the Expert Visit Committee and recommended for a fresh inspection of the Expert Visit Committee. Thereupon, there was a fresh inspection by the Expert Visit Committee in the premises of the petitioner. Annexure R3(a) is the report of the said inspection. On the basis of Annexure R3
(a), the approval sought by the petitioner has been rejected by the AICTE holding that the infrastructure required for the college have not been provided by the petitioner. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the AICTE in this connection. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the AICTE. The particulars of the infrastructure which are lacking in the premises of the petitioner have been stated in the statement.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the main defect noted by the Expert Visit W.P.(C) No. 22519 of 2016 -3- Committee which visited the premises of the petitioner initially was that the petitioner has not constructed separate buildings for the Pharmacy College and that they propose to establish the Pharmacy College in a portion of the buildings already constructed for the medical college. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Standing Appellate Committee has overruled the said defect noted by the Expert Visit Committee and despite that, the permission sought by the petitioner is declined on the very same ground. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in so far as the said defect has been overruled by the Standing Appellate Committee of the AICTE, Exhibit P8 decision taken by the AICTE based on the report of the Expert Visit Committee which conducted fresh inspection after the decision of the Standing Appellate Committee, is illegal and unsustainable. It was also contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that all the infrastructure required for the college have been provided W.P.(C) No. 22519 of 2016 -4- and the contrary facts stated in the statement filed on behalf of the AICTE are incorrect.
4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE contended that the rejection of the request of the petitioner was not on account of the reason that the petitioner has not constructed separate building for the Pharmacy College, but for want of infrastructure for establishing the Pharmacy College. The learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE has relied on the specific averments made in the statement filed on behalf of the AICTE concerning the infrastructure which are lacking in the establishment of the petitioner.
5. In the light of the aforesaid controversy, in the course of hearing, an application was filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain whether all the infrastructure required for the college have been made available by the petitioner. When the said application was taken up for hearing, the learned W.P.(C) No. 22519 of 2016 -5- Standing Counsel for the AICTE submitted that if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed for the said purpose, inspection of Advocate Commissioner in the presence of the Expert Visit Committee of the AICTE shall be ordered, so as to enable the Advocate Commissioner to have a precise idea as to the requirements of the AICTE. Consequently, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner for the said purpose directing that the Advocate Commissioner shall inspect the premises of the petitioner in the presence of the Expert Visit Committee of the AICTE.
6. When the matter was taken up for further hearing after the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE has conceded that all the infrastructure required for the Pharmacy College have been made available by the petitioner. The only contention raised by the Standing Counsel for the AICTE then was that since the re-visit of the Expert Visit W.P.(C) No. 22519 of 2016 -6- Committee of the AICTE was ordered by the Standing Appellate Committee, formal orders of the Standing Appellate Committee are required for grant of permission to the petitioner. In so far as it is admitted that the petitioner has made available all the infrastructure required for establishing the college, I do not think that there is any requirement under law for the Standing Appellate Committee to consider this matter again.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The AICTE is directed to grant the permission sought by the petitioner for establishing the Pharmacy College forthwith to enable the petitioner to commence the courses applied for during the current academic year itself.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE bpr