Bombay High Court
Shri Chatrapati Shivaji College Of vs All India Council For Technical ... on 30 July, 2009
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar, S.C. Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1233 OF 2009
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NOS. 1234 OF 2009 AND 1235
OF 2009
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1233 OF 2009
1) Shri Chatrapati Shivaji College of )
Engineering, Shri Shivaji Nagar (Rahuri )
Factory), Taluka - Rahiri, Dist. Ahmednagar. )
2) Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal )
Shri Shivaji Nagar (Rahuri Factory) )
Taluka - Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. )
3) Shri Kishore Vane )
Secretary, Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak )
Mandal, Shir Shivaji Nagar (Rahuri Factory) )
Taluka - Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. )Petitioners
VERSUS
1) All India Council for Technical Education )
a statutory body established under the )
All India Council for Technical Education )
Act, 1987 through its Member Secretary )
AICTE, Regional Office, Industrial Assurance )
Building, Churchgage, Mumbai 400 021. )
2) The Principal Secretary Higher and )
Technical Education and Employment )
Dept., Government of Maharashtra, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai. )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:59 :::
2
3) The Director of Technical Education )
having his office at Mahapalika Marg )
Mumbai 400 001 (to be served on learned )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Bombay (O.S.) )Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1234 OF 2009
1) Indira School of Business Studies )
having its address at 89/2A, Thathawade )
New Pune Mumbai Highway, Near Wkad )
Police Chowki, Pune 411 033.
ig )
2) Shri Chanakya Education Society )
a Society registered under the Societies )
Registraton Act, 1860 and a public trust )
registered under the Bombay Public Trust )
Act, 1950 having its office at 89/2A )
Thathawade, New Pune Mumbai Highway )
Near Wkad Police Chowki, Pune 411033 )
3) Dr. Renu Bhargava, Director, )
Indira School of Business Studies )
having its office at 89/2A, Thathawade )
New Pune Mumbai Highway, Near Wkad )
Police Chowki, Pune 411 033. )Petitioners
VERSUS
1) All India Council for Technical Education )
a statutory body established under the )
All India Council for Technical Education )
Act, 1987 through its Member Secretary )
AICTE Regional Office, Industrial Assurance )
Building, Churchgage, Mumbai 400 021. )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:59 :::
3
2) The Director of Technical Education )
Government of Maharashtra, having its )
Regional Office, 412-E, Shivaji Nagar )
Pune 411 016. )
3) The State of Maharashtra through its )
Secretary, Higher & Technical Education )
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai )
(To be served on learned Government )
Pleader, High Court, Bombay (A.S.) )Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1235 OF 2009
1)
Indira College of Engineering and
Management established by
)
)
Shree Chanayaka Education Society )
S.No.64-65, Gut No.276, Paradwadi )
Of Pune-Mumbai Highway, Near Somatne )
Phata, Taluka Maval, Pune 411 506. )
2) Dr. R.V. Kulkarni Director, )
Indira College of Engineering and )
Management having his address at )
.No.64-65, Gut No.276, Paradwadi )
Of Pune-Mumbai Highway, Near Somatne )
Phata, Taluka Maval, Pune 411 506. )Petitioners
VERSUS
1) All India Council for Technical Education )
a statutory body established under the )
All India Council for Technical Education )
Act, 1987 through its Member Secretary )
AICTE Regional Office, Industrial Assurance )
Building, Churchgage, Mumbai 400 021. )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:59 :::
4
2) The Principal Secretary Higher and )
Technical Education and Employment Dept )
Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya )
Mumbai. )
3) The Director of Technical Education )
having his office at Mahapalika Marg )
Mumbai 400 001 (To be served on learned )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Bombay (O.S.). )Respondents
Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Girish
Kulkarni i/b Sandeep Waghmare for the Petitioners in
Writ Petition (L) No.1233 of 2009.
Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Girish
Kulkarni i/b Sandeep Waghmare for the Petitioners in
Writ Petition (L) No.1234 of 2009.
Mr. J.J. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/b
Ms. Sushma Kulkarni for the Petitioners in Writ Petition (L)
No.1235 of 2009.
Mr. M.D. Naik, Assistant Government Pleader, for the
State in all the Writ Petitions.
Ms. Beena Menon for All India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE) in all the Writ Petitions.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 7TH /22ND JULY 2009
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 30TH JULY 2009
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:59 :::
5
JUDGMENT (PER SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.)
Heard. Rule in all the Writ Petitions. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2. By this common judgment we will dispose of the above three Writ Petitions. A some what common question of law and interpretation arises for consideration in these Petitions, however, on distinct facts, thus it will be necessary for the Court to notice the facts of each case separately.
3. At the outset, we may notice that the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "the Council") could not file the reply in any of these cases and the Court had directed the Council to produce the original records in the Court as these Writ Petitions were required to be disposed of at the earliest keeping in view the interest of the colleges and the students. Records had been produced before the Court which were perused during the course of arguments.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:59 ::: 64. In Writ Petition No.1233 of 2009, the Petitioner is Shri Shivaji Chhatrapati College of Engineering which is being run by Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Rahori, District Ahmednagar. The Petitioners with the intention of starting and establishing the College, submitted an application on 18th December 2007. Even according to the Petitioners, the applications received prior to 31st December 2008 were to be considered for the academic year 2009-10 and the applications received thereafter were to be considered for the academic year 2010-11. It is stated that the Council was required to grant approval by 30th June 2009 of completed applications received by 31st December 2008, in terms of Clause 6.2.10 of "The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Grant of Approval for starting new technical institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and increase/variation of Intake capacity of Seats for the Courses and Programmes and Extension for Approval for the Existing Technical Regulations 2006" (hereinafter referred to at "the Regulations") framed by the Council. Vide letter dated 28th December 2007, the Petitioners submitted the application, duly complete in all respects along with the requisite fees of Rs.40,000/-, which ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:59 ::: 7 was acknowledged by Respondent No.1 on 28th December 2007 itself. It appears from the record that on 30th July 2008, Letter of Intent was issued to Petitioner No.2 for establishment of new Degree Engineering Institution for the academic year 2009-10 (Exhibit "A" to the Writ Petition). It stipulated various conditions and required the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.35 lakhs for Engineering and Technology (Degree). It also contained various terms and conditions and stated that the Expert Committee would visit the institution to verify the original documents and will also verify all the necessary infra-
structural facilities required for establishment of a new institution as per the norms of the Council as detailed therein.
The Petitioners were also informed by the Council that the Expert Committee shall process the proposal as per the revised Approval Process and final decision of grant of approval or otherwise shall be communicated to all concerned by the Council, subsequently.
5. In the Letter of Intent, the following clause was also mentioned :-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 8"The applicant Trust/Society is hereby informed that issuance of LOI by AICTE does not entitle to automatic grant of approval. The proposed institution cannot commence any educational activity and admit students based on LOI."
6. The Expert Committee visited the College and submitted a report dated 1st June 2009, not recommending the grant of approval to the Institution of the Petitioners. Inter alia, it pointed out the following deficiencies :-
"1) 100% deficiency of equipments in the Labs and W/S.
2) Principal is got to attain 65 years of age on 16th June 2009.
3) Existing school building is being converted into Engg. College and it is in the process of modification and is not as per approved building plan.
4) No Bills and vouchers are available for the procurement made.
5) Bank statements not available.
6) Faculty members are short."
7. Vide letter dated 11th June 2009, the Council informed the Petitioners that various deficiencies, as noticed ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 9 above, were observed which related even to lack of infrastructure of laboratories, workshop and other defects as pointed out by the Inspecting Team. On 13th June 2009, the Petitioners filed an application for reconsideration of their proposal for approval(Exhibit "C" to the Petition). In this application, the Petitioners had specifically requested for, "reconsideration of approval for Shri Chatrapati Shivaji College of Engineering for the current academic year" and have also claimed to have written about compliance of rectifying the deficiencies. The Expert Committee Report dated 15th June 2009, had clearly recorded "not recommended for issue of LOA for 2009-10, deficiencies as pointed out in the report may be conveyed". The objections related to defects in building plans, lack of infra-structure, Principal appointed not possessing requisite statutory experience, etc. The Petitioners, vide their letter dated 19th June 2009, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which commented upon the defects pointed out and then observed as under :-
"Approved Y. LOA be issued for 2010-11".::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 10
8. Vide letter dated 23rd June 2009, the Council issued the letter of approval for the academic year 2010-11 and pointed out number of deficiencies which were to be complied with and as per clause 7(d) of the said letter, the compliance report was to be submitted by fulfilling the conditions in each year within the time prescribed by the Council from time to time. Other conditions related to that of laboratories, workshops, etc. should be operational before college starts;
the library should be established with adequate number of titles, books and journals and the Institution should provide for the facilities indicated in paragraph 16 thereof. This conditional grant of approval is the basis of the Petitioners' in the present Writ Petition.
9. According to the Petitioners and as per the law enunciated by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Missions Institute, Aurangabad vs State of Maharashtra and others, 2008 (5) Mh.L.J. 913, the approval should have been for the current academic year and the College is entitled to grant admission to the students for the current academic year of 2009-10 and to that extent they pray ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 11 for the modification of the Letter of approval dated 23rd June 2009.
10. In Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1235 of 2009, Indira College of Engineering and Management which had been established by Shree Chanayaka Education Society, Paradwadi, Pune, is an institution which is running an Engineering College which, according to them, was founded in the year 2007 and they are running 12 educational institutions ranging from primary level and post graduation. To increase the intake capacity of the seats in their institution and after providing complete infra-structure, the Petitioners submitted an application on 14th October 2008 to the Council, which complied with the several requirements. The Petitioners wanted to enhance the intake capacity in Mechanical and Computer Engineering faculties from 90 to 120 and 60 to 120, respectively. The Council through its Regional Office, Mumbai had forwarded the application to the New Delhi office on 17th March 2009. Vide letter dated 18th June 2009, the Respondent Council pointed out that there was deficiency in the faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Computer Engineering and called ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 12 upon the Petitioner to rectify the deficiencies and submit fresh proposal with all relevant documents in support of compliance of deficiencies with requisite fee for further action. According to the Petitioners, they did not receive this letter and they obtained a copy of the said letter from the website on 16th June 2009 and the actual copy was received on 20th June 2009. The Petitioners immediately vide their letter dated 16th June 2009 recorded that it was a matter of great concern, the faculty was sufficient and that there was no deficiency and also requested the respondents to issue necessary corrigendum on their website so as to enable the petitioners to take part in the centralised admission in the State with effect from 15th June 2009 for allocation of seats to the students. It appears that on 23rd June 2009, Hearing Committee reconsidered the proposal and recommended the increase and thereafter revised letter (increase in intake) dated 24th June 2009 for increase in intake capacity for Mechanical, Computer Engineering and MCA was issued for the academic year 2010-11 to be valid for two years from the date of issue for getting affiliation with university and State Government requirements of admission and various other conditions were ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 13 imposed for compliance before admission could be granted.
According to the Petitioners, the intake capacity should have been increased for the current academic year and not for 2010-11.
11. In Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1234 of 2009, Indira School of Business Studies claims to be an educational institution and conducts autonomous courses in Business Management. The Petitioners, after providing the entire infra-
structure requirements, on 14th October 2008 submitted their duly completed application form to the Respondent Council for starting additional course in PGDBM-IB, Exhibit "A" to the Writ Petition. According to the Petitioners, the Inspecting Team of respondent No.1 is stated to have undertaken the inspection on 20th March 2009 and vide letter dated 1st June 2009, which according to the Petitioners, was received by them on 18th June 2009, they were informed that there were some deficiencies on account of shortfall in area and additional intake could not be considered. The said letter which is at Exhibit "B" to the Writ Petition reads as under :-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 14"ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (A Statutory Body of the Govt. of India) F.No.06/07/MS.MBA/2006/011 Date : June 1, 2009.
To The Director Indira School of Business Studies' 85/5A, Tathawade, Near Wakad Police Chowki Mumba-Banglore Bypass Highway, Pune 411 033 Sub: Application for increase in Intake/Additional Course of Indira School of Business Studies 85/5A, Tathawade, Near Wakad Police Chowki Mumbai-Banglore Bypass Highway, Pune 411 033 for the Academic year 2009-1010.
Sir, This has reference to your application made for considering grant of approval for increase in intake/ additional course. The same has been examined by the Hearing Committee as per the norms and standard of the AICTE.
Based on the recommendation of the hearing committee, I am directed to inform you that your application for increase in intake/additional course has not been found suitable due to the following deficiencies :-
* Shortfall in built up area as per AICTE norms.
* The additional intake cannot be considered as the even the first batch has not been passed out as per AICTE norms. The institute should consolidate its position.
* The cadre ratio is not as per AICTE norms.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 15
However, if you wish to apply again for Increase in Intake/additional course(s), you may submit a fresh proposal, alongwith the requisite fees, to the concerned Regional Office after rectification of above deficiencies, as per policy of the council.
It may be noted that as per policy only one application for reconsideration shall be considered by the Council.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(Prof.H.C.Rai)
ig Advisor (PC)
Copy to :
1) The Regional Officer
AICTE-Western Regional Officer
Mumbai, Maharashtra.
2) Guard File (AICTE-PC Bureau)."
12. Vide letter dated 19th June 2009, the Petitioners disputed the deficiencies and pointed out that they had been running the academic courses successfully and the Council should grant approval for the current academic year. It was also averred that their first batch had passed out. However, no letter of approval was issued by the Council to the Petitioners.
Thus, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 16 praying that the Respondents be directed to grant approval to the Petitioners for the academic year 2009-10.
13. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties primarily relied upon the various parts of the Full Bench Judgment in Mahatma Gandhi Missions Institute (supra).
According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, any approval granted prior to 30th June should have the effect for the current academic year i.e. 2009-10 and the Respondents have granted approval with effect from the next academic year i.e. 2010-11 which is arbitrary, discriminatory and has no reasonable basis. It is further contended that it is contrary to the law enunciated in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Missions Indtitute (supra) as well as other judgments of the Supreme Court. On the contrary, the learned Counsel appearing for the Council has vehemently argued that they have strictly acted as per the judgment of this Court in Mahatma Gandhi Missions Institute (supra) and contended that any approvals granted prior to 15th June 2009 could be operative for the current academic year and any approval granted, particularly conditionally granted, has to be operative ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 17 for the next academic year. According to the learned Counsel, this would not only prejudice the interest of the Council but even the admission of the students to the courses as well as the education standards.
14. It will be useful to refer to the relevant part of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mahatma Gandhi Mission (supra). The same reads as under :-
"39. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Atharva Institute of Management (supra), after noticing the various judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the directions issued by different Benches of this court had not only prescribed the need for adherence to uniform standard and to the cut-off date but also noticed the further difficulty that the college is not entitled to admit the students merely on the ground that AICTE has granted its approval. It has to be supplemented by proper exercise of power by the statutory authorities. The satisfaction of such authorities, obviously, has to be in consonance with the conditions imposed by the AICTE. The Bench dealing with the difficulties posed by the State Government in implementation of eleventh hours increase in intake strength etc., issued the following directions:
"9. The State Government has, in the course of these proceedings, set out the serious difficulties that arise in implementing the admissions process if AICTE grants approval throughout the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 18 year in an unregulated manner. This, it has been stated, would cause irreparable loss, hardship and immense inconvenience to students. An increase in the number of seats for a particular academic year can occur for one of the following reasons viz., : (i) An approval granted for opening of a new College; (ii) An approval granted for opening of a new course in an existing affiliated College; and (iii) An approval granted for an increase in the intake capacity of an approved affiliated old course conducted by an existing approved and affiliated College. The State Government has stated that if approval is granted on the eve of the commencement of admission, such additional seats should not be made available for the grant of admissions in the particular Academic Year for several reasons:
(i) The educational institution is not immediately entitled to admit students merely on the ground of approval by AICTE, because AICTE grants approval subject to the fulfillment of various conditions. Hence, unless an exercise is conducted by the statutory authority to record a finding that such conditions subject to the fulfillment of which approval has been granted by AICTE are, in fact, fulfilled, admissions cannot be granted in furtherance of the approval. This process of recording the satisfactory fulfillment of the conditions prescribed by AICTE takes time and cannot be completed before the commencement of the admissions process if the approval received from AICTE is on the eve of the commencement of admissions;
(ii) Upon the approval by AICTE, institutions are required to obtain affiliation from the concerned University. The process of affiliation takes a few months since it involves inspection by a local Inspection Committee and the consideration of the report of the Academic Council of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 19 University. The process of affiliation, therefore, cannot be conducted and completed if the initial approval of AICTE is received just before admissions are to commence;
(iii) In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court, it is impermissible in such a case to grant provisional admissions, thereby putting the career of a large body of innocent students in danger. Several institutions admit students armed with the approval of AICTE and in such cases if affiliation is refused by the University, that would seriously affect the careers of the students;
(iv) If additional seats are made available during the admissions process, the students who are already admitted prior to making such additional seats available, do not get an opportunity to claim those seats. As a result of this, the golden rule for the allotment of seats on the basis of merit-cum-choice gets breached;
(v) In the event that the seats which additionally become available during the continuation of the admissions process are made available to students who have already been admitted by the time that such seats are made available, the entire process would be thrown out of gear and would get severely disturbed. If students who have already been admitted are allowed to change their admissions, this would set in motion a change which would have a cascading effect destroying the entire admissions process that has already become settled;
(vi) The Competent Authority which is incharge of conducting admissions would also be faced with innumerable administrative difficulties when additional seats become available during the admissions process. The distribution of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 20 allotment of seats to various categories including reserved seats is a complex process which has to be conducted not only on the basis of seats available at the College, but also seats available overall in the State. As against the Health Science Courses where admissions are granted to a limited and restricted number of course, in the case of Technical Courses, thee are numerous choices available to students, namely, (i) coursewise choices, there being more than 60 courses; (ii) collegewise choices, there being about 163 colleges; (iii) quotawise choices; (iv) categorywise choices - reserved, open, reserved for women etc.; and (v) institutionwise choices -
involving a differential fee structure and affordability of the payment of fees. The state Government has, therefore, submitted that approval should not be granted by AICTE on the eve of the commencement of the admissions process so that no complications would arise. Institutions which get approval either for the first time or for additional courses or, for that matter for additional intake capacity, can wait for the next Academic Year for commencement of that course within which period, requisite statutory approvals and permissions can be obtained. A large number of students seeking admissions to technical courses come from rural areas and the students, their parents and teachers go strictly by what is stated in the admissions brochure. Such students have no access to know, inter alia, about the availability of additional seats.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
43. The enunciation of law in Atharva Institute of Management Studies (supra) is in accordance with law. Notifications issued by the Government as well as AICTE specifies the various ingredients essential for maintaining the very object of excellence in education, proper completion of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 21 course and adherence to the standards and norms prescribed for infra-structure and amenities. While the Court is granting relief to the Petitioners on equitable ground, it is also desirable that Court keeps in mind that neither the statutory provisions are varied or relaxed in a manner that the object of education would be the casualty. It is much required that in the present day of competitive academics, the standards of education courses and merit cum preference are not given up in favour of mere prayer of the colleges that admission to seats have been denied for want of or co-operation or co-
ordination simpliciter between these authorities.
This is a matter of common knowledge that every college gets sufficient period to apply to the concerned authorities, particularly the Central Council which is responsible for adherence to standards applicable all over the country and it is necessary that the standards of education and infra-structure are maintained and they ought not to be compromised in a hurry or because of shortage of period. Institutions hardly suffer on any count as the seats would be available to them in the coming year. Wherever the institutions are desirous of taking benefit of additional seats or commencing new courses, it is expected of them to act timely and even approach the court if they so desire, leaving sufficient time for the authorities to comply with the directions of the court, if issued, that too without jeopardising the process of admissions to the courses.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
48. During the course of hearing, the order of the another Division Bench of this court passed on 1st August, 2008 in Civil Writ Petition No.1826 of 2008, The Shetkari Shikshan Mandal v. State of Maharashtra and others, was brought to our ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 22 notice where a Bench while referring to the case of Yerla Medical Trust (supra) directed the Government to consider the cases where approval was granted by AICTE prior to the last date of admission and to take steps to fill in the seats.
However, it also observed that the institution must have been affiliated with the University as directed and even their admission to the courses was purely provisional and subject to the institution obtaining requisite affiliation and other steps. With respect, we are unable again to follow this view. In our humble, respectful but firm view, this judgment of the court does not state any principle of law. Furthermore, it would also result in violating basic concepts applicable to such academic cases noticed by us above being affected adversely. There is no notice to the candidates at large, merit will be the casualty and it will only prove the boom for the colleges. They could safely be adjusted in the coming next academic year in terms of the notification issued by the Central Council which is a binding document and validity of which was neither questioned in that writ nor before us. In face of a legal document which is binding on all concerned and is issued in exercise of the legislative statutory power, the courts would hardly be in a position to pass orders in contradiction thereto. With these observations, we do not propose to say anything more in these writ petitions.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
51. Serious attempt was made to argue before the court that the institutes have invested money on infrastructure and, thus, it would be inequitable not to permit admissions even after the cut-off dates as the seats would go waste. This argument of equity seems to be attractive at the first glance but when examined in depth after proper analysis of law, it is without substance.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 23We have already noticed that if an institution was to increase the intake of seats or start new courses, it must act timely. It is expected of such institution to approach the court well in time and not at the nick of the time when the courses are about to commence and in most of the cases when admission process has been closed. Merely because some expenditure has been increasing for the infrastructure per se is no justification for compelling the expert bodies to permit admissions after the cut-off dates. The seats which are approved after 30th June are to be added in the next academic year as per the stand of AICTE and Director of Education as well. Thus, their expenditure, no way, is wasted. Secondly, all three principles as discussed in some elaboration above, that is merit-cum-preference, timely commencement of the courses and midstream admissions are adversely affected if this argument is accepted. The court cannot also lose sight of the fact that the Central and State bodies have to carry out proper inspection in accordance with the provisions of section 10(p) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, regulation 2.6.9(a) notifications issued and law enacted by the State. These principles are intended to achieve the object and significance of adherence to proper academic and infrastructural parameters. Even under the order of the court if inspections are directed to be carried out in an undue haste, it will surely adversely affect excellence of education as a whole. This should be avoided in the interest of all concerned. It may, at best cause some inconvenience to the institutions only for the present year whereafter the institution, students as well as the Central and State Governmental authorities would be fully aware of their obligations as well as the time schedule which shall be enforced without fail.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 2452. Every person or authority would have more than adequate time at hand to take appropriate decisions including pursuing legal remedy available to the students and/or the institution. The entire process is a continuing process. The relevancy and nexus of the cut off date is for finalisation of admission and commencement of the courses. Thus, these cut off dates besides being requirements of law are even administratively necessary. Wherever necessary, aggrieved party concerned can also approach the court well in advance of the cut off dates which are sacrosanct. Vide notification dated 14th September, 2006, approval process was notified by the AICTE which was also followed in the subsequent years including January, 2008. This is declared to be a legal document and has the force of law. It is expected of the council to follow its procedure and adhere to the schedule indicated in different chapters for commencement of new courses as well as for increase or variation of intake capacity of seats in existing courses. In terms of clause 2.8.1(c) of the notification issued by AICTE, the council while dealing with the application/submissions of proposal for courses are received, is required to communicate to the applicant society or trust within 15 days from the date of receipt of the proposal the deficiency, if any, in the check list. Wherever the applications are submitted to the Regional Office, it is required to send the intimation even to the AICTE Headquarters in Delhi. The State Government and the affiliating University, both, are required to forward their views within 30 days from the date they received the proposal sent by the Regional office in terms of clause 2.8.2(a) and issue a No Objection Certificate to the applicant society. The council in terms of clause 2.8.2(c) can overrule the recommendations of the State Government as well as the University while deciding the matters of introduction of additional courses, increase ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 25 and/or variation in intake capacity of seats in the existing technical institutions. While dealing with the matter relating to proposal for affiliation, the State Government and affiliating University are also required to submit their views in that respect as contemplated under clause 4.3.3. Under Clause 6.2.3, the evaluation reports of the Regional office are required to be sent to the Headquarters of AICTE within 15 days from the receipt of such proposals, complete in all respects including the views of the State Governments and affiliating University, which are required to give reasons and justification to substantiate their stand. The hearing committee of the council is expected to meet every month and decide the cases in accordance with the provisions of clauses 6.2.5 and 6.2.6. This is a crucial stage where the council can recommend for approval, require visit of the expert committee or reject the proposal on the grounds as it being appropriate. Clause 6.2.10 further mandates that decision on grant of approval or otherwise shall be communicated to the applicant society, trust, institution throughout the year.
53. Of course, it is essential for the council to intimate the fate of their application to the applicant well in time so as not to take away their right to pursue an appropriate legal remedy.
They need to be cautious of this aspect and essentially should inform the concerned institutions at least two weeks in advance of the cut-off date.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
56. We have already noticed in some length that no irreparable loss or prejudice is being caused to the institutions particularly after commencement of terms. The rule is to follow ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 26 the notification and exception is to direct its variance. We are of the considered view that upon correct analysis of the above enunciated law, present cases are not one's which would justify interference by this court in the current academic year. There has to be some exceptional and compelling circumstances before the court can find fault with exercise of statutory power by the Council as well as the Director of Technical Education in fixing these cut-off dates. These dates essentially are sacrosanct and, therefore, they should be adhered to. There is some inconvenience to the institutions for the current year merely because some seats may remain vacant would not justify judicial intervention as it inevitably result in defeating merit-cum-preference principle, timely commencement of courses, undue haste and manipulation of admission process by the institutions and lowering the academic excellence. Moreso, in the case of Harish Verma and others v. Ajay Srivastava and another, 2003(8) SCC 69, the Supreme Court while directing that only majority view given in a judgment would be a binding precedent, further set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, holding that the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India had the force of law and they should be adhered to and even struck down and set aside the admission given contrary to such provision. It is also the obligation of the concerned authorities, Central or State to ensure that professional education should be made accessible on criteria of merit and preference to all eligible students on uniform basis. In other words, students should have an equal opportunity of indicating their preference relatabale to their merit.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 27 xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
58. With above recorded findings and
conclusions we issue directions as follows:
(a) As far as all colleges of the petitioner institutions/trusts for the academic year 2007-2008 are concerned, the students who were admitted in furtherance to orders of the court against variation in intake of seats duly approved by the Council, their admissions would not be disturbed.
(b) The colleges/institutions shall ensure that in the courses already undergone by them, there is no deficiency. If the students have joined their respective courses late, they shall be required to make up the deficiency.
(c) For the current academic year 2008-2009, we see no reason to interfere with the notification issued by the All India Council of Technical Education or Directorate of Technical Education.
The said courses shall commence strictly in accordance with the schedule and no institution which is not duly approved by the AICTE with the concurrence of opinion by the Directorate of Technical Education and the affiliating University as per the requirements of law upto 30th June, 2008 shall admit any students. However, as per the stand taken by the AICTE after completing the requisite formalities and satisfying the authorities concerned in regard to infrastructure and educational standards, such seats would be available to have for the next academic year.
The AICTE and other authorities are permitted to adhere to the schedule notified by them. In fact, it is directed that henceforth, there shall be strict adherence to the schedule specified in the law and hand-book printed by AICTE in exercise of its statutory powers.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 28(d) The AICTE and all other concerned authorities are hereby directed to communicate to every applicant institution, university or trust about refusal and/or grant of approval of their proposal by 15th June of every academic year where the applications have been received in terms of its brochure upto 31st December of the previous year, regarding admissions for the academic year."
15. From the above narrated principles, it is clear that opinion of the Council is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over the view expressed by other bodies including the State Council or authorities. Furthermore, the information is circulated in furtherance to its Regulations by advertisement or otherwise in relation to the criteria to be adopted, conditions to be satisfied for grant of LOI and approval and, lastly, with regard to strict implementation of the declared calendar in regard to the academic year. The Full Bench, while referring to different judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court which prescribed the need for adherence to uniform standards and to the cut off dates also noticed that the colleges were not entitled to admit the students merely on the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 29 ground that AICTE had granted its approval, but they must satisfy all the conditions stated in the letter of approval and satisfy the statutory authorities concerned which has to be in consonance with the conditions imposed by AICTE before the students are actually admitted to the course. Where the college wishes to start a new course or requests the Council for additional seats, it must satisfy the prescribed standards and criteria of infra-structure, faculty facilities and matters relating to maintenance of high education standards. The judgment of the Full Bench, which is binding on us, had dealt with Clauses 6.2.5, 6.2.6 and 6.2.10 in relation to the various stages which need to be followed while dealing with an application for grant and/or refusal of approval by the Council to the applicant college. As already noticed, some emphasis was placed on paragraphs 54 and 58 of the Full Bench judgment by the learned Counsel appearing for various parties. In order to clearly understand the import of specified days for communication of approval and commencement of the course for the relevant academic year, one has to examine the complete judgment of the Full Bench and what was intended by the Court. Obviously, adherence to the prescribed time ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 30 schedule was treated to be of paramount consideration with an object that the admissions to the students should be given well in time so that academic course could start on the dates fixed for that purpose. To read the specified days or cut off days in a manner that would frustrate this object, can hardly be permissible. The cut off dates must be construed so as to further the cause which is contemplated under the Regulations of the Council but even which would meet the ends of justice without causing serious prejudice to any person. In this regard, it is of paramount consideration that the Council should act with utmost punctuality and should avoid eleventh hour grant or refusal of permissions. It should channelise its working so as to adhere to the time schedules objectively and not act in a mechanical manner or in undue haste which generates litigation but but conduct performance of its statutory duties of adhering to the standards of education and timely implementation of the academic courses.
16. As per the Regulations of the Council and the Full Bench judgment of this Court, the applications which are received on or before 31st December 2007 which could either ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 31 be for commencement of new course or variation in intake of seats, could be dealt with and decided for the following academic year. The applications for grant of approval and/or increase in intake capacity received after 31st December 2007, cannot even be entertained for the following academic year keeping in view the minimum time that is required by the Council to process the application, conduct inspection and ensure that the conditions postulated in the LOI and/or letter of approval are fully satisfied before admissions are given and academic courses are commenced. Not only the Council but all other concerned authorities had been directed to communicate the refusal and/or grant of the approval by 15th June of the following year where the applications were received prior to 31st December of the previous year. This is the final date for such communication.
17. While referring to the relevant Rules, the Full Bench had mentioned the date of 30th June 2007 as the period on which the period of six months would lapse. The intervening period of 15 days i.e. from 15th June of every year to 30th June of that year had been primarily intended to enable the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 32 concerned party to take appropriate action particularly in approaching the Court of law and it was so held by the Full Bench judgment in paragraph 58 of the judgment. This 15 days period is not intended to extend the period of communication.
This has been specifically stated in the Full Bench judgment and now has been adopted as a correct practice by the Council and which is also in conformity with its Regulations. The communication of the order should put an end for grant and/or refusal of approval for the coming academic year and after expiry of 15th of June, all matters should be examined, considered, re-considered by any competent authority for the next academic year and not for the current academic year.
This approach alone would bring discipline and timely functioning by all concerned. Shortly, we would demonstrate from the facts of the case in hand that it is untimely action on the part of the Institutions as well as the Council that such circumstances have arisen. These eleventh hour decisions do not satisfy the principle of adherence to the high standards of education, adversely affect objective functioning of the statutory body, create uncertainty in the mind of the students and, lastly, generate avoidable litigations. All these evil ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 33 consequences can be avoided by strict adherence to the judgment of the Full Bench as well as the Regulations framed and declared by the Council.
18. Now, we will proceed to examine the factual matrix of cases in hand. In the case of Indira School of Business Studies (W.P.(L) No.1234/09), the application was submitted by the Institution on 14th October 2008. This college had submitted the application for commencement of a new course.
This college is running other academic courses since 2006 and it was within its knowledge that it intended to commence a new course of PGDM (IB) for the academic year 2009-10. First and foremost, it has not been stated by this Institution as to why the application was submitted in October 2008 and not earlier so as to set the machinery in motion for grant of approval. This application is stated to be processed by the Council and from the limited record produced before us, it appears that the Council for reasons best known to it and referring to the application received by it for the first time vide its letter dated 1st June, 2009 pointed out to the Petitioners three to four deficiencies and informed them that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 34 their application was not found suitable for the deficiencies pointed out in the said letter and that the Petitioners could make a fresh application or proposal alongwith requisite fee.
This was the order relating to the academic year 2009-10. This letter itself was replied to by the college on 19th June 2009 i.e. after the cut off date of 15th June 2009 wherein the Petitioners claimed that there were no deficiencies and that letter of 1st June 2009 was received by them on 18th June 2009. Referring to the correspondence made in the years 2006 and 2007, the Petitioners have also referred to the letter of 23rd May 2008 vide which a revised order was passed in relation to extension of approval for the existing course. Further, it appears from the record that the objections raised by the Council were based on the inspection report dated 28th April 2009 when a team had visited the institution and without any fresh inspection, on the basis of the letter dated 19th June 2009, two members of the Council passed the following order :-
"PGDM (IB) with an intake of 60 seats is recommended"::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 35
19. There is nothing on record before us to show as to for what reasons and how the same Committee which had provided the basis for issuance of the rejection letter dated 1st June 2009, without any further inspection, made the above recommendation. In terms of the Regulations of the Council, an Institution has to give 15 days notice to the Council showing its readiness for inspection. Strangely, nothing was done between 19th June to 23rd June 2009 and all formalities appear to have been completed. However, no letter of approval was issued by the Council and, in our view, rightly so. But, we are certainly unable to appreciate the action of the Inspection Committee and the haste in which it has acted. Keeping in view the Regulations, law enunciated, particularly the judgment of the Full Bench judgment of this Court, we do not think that the Mandamus can be issued by this Court to the Council to grant letter of approval to the Institution for the current academic year. Even if the plea of the Petitioner is to be considered probably either by the Council or by the Court, it could have been or now can be considered for the next academic year 2010-2011 as the approval being granted beyond the cut off date of 15th June of the relevant year. At ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 36 best, the Court can issue a direction to the Council to now consider the application of the Petitioners and dispose of the same expeditiously.
20. As is evident from the prayers made in the Writ Petition, the Petitioners had prayed for a writ directing the Respondents to issue letter of approval for conducting the additional courses for the current academic year. Vide letter dated 1st June 2009, the Petitioners' Institute was conveyed of the short-comings for which, according to the Council, approval could not be granted. This letter is stated to have been received by the Petitioners on 18th June 2009 i.e after the prescribed cut off date of 15th June 2009. Thus, no approval could be issued for the current academic year. However, when the record was produced before us after the case was reserved for judgment, the records revealed that the approval was given in a most casual manner, though no letter of approval was issued to the Institution by the Council. Even the Petitioners stated that they did not receive any such letter of approval. As per the letter dated 7th July 2009, the approval is stated to have been issued by one Prof. Rai, Advisor of the Council and it ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 37 is alleged to have been issued on the basis of a letter received from the Institution. No inspection of the Institution's premises was conducted; no hearing of the Committee was held and the very same members who had raised serious objections in regard to grant of approval, in turn-around and without any justification recommended grant of approval without recording any reasons and satisfaction on the very same sheet on which rejection was recorded. In fact, even when the matter was listed by the Court for directions on 14th July 2009 with reference to the records produced subsequent to the judgment in the case being reserved, the Petitioners were put to notice of these facts. It is revealed from the record, even at that stage, the letter of grant of approval had not been received by the Institution. This approval is stated to be for the academic year 2009-10. However, on 20th July 2009 the Court passed an order requiring the Respondents to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against the concerned officers/consultants/experts and the other persons connected with the matter as they did not produce the records, misrepresented before the Court and granted the approval contrary to the law enunciated in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 38 judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Mission Institute (supra) in a most casual manner and is a decision that lacks bona fides. It is noticeable that not only in the above three Writ Petitions, but even in other cases, the uniform stand taken by the Council was that after 15th June they cannot issue consent/approval for the current academic year and as per their Calendar, Regulations and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Mission Institute (supra), they would issue consent/ approval for the next academic year. For reasons best known to the Council, this stand was totally violated. This rule was adhered to only in its flagrant breach.
21. In an affidavit filed in the proceedings subsequently, it has been stated by Mr. Rai that there is a typographical error in the letter of approval as it was actually intended to be issued for academic year 2010-11 and not 2009-10 and he stated that necessary correction would be made. We really are not quite satisfied with this explanation which appears to be an after thought as no corrective steps have been taken right from 7th July 2009 till 22nd July 2009 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 39 when the case was again reserved for orders. Another reason which smacks of arbitrariness on the part of the Council and Experts is that the approval was declined vide letter dated 1st June 2009 for the deficiencies which were as follows :-
"Shortfall in built up area as per AICTE norms.
The additional intake cannot be considered as the even the first batch has not been passed out as per AICTE norms. The Institute should consolidate its position. The cadre ratio is not as pe AICTE norms."
22. There was nothing on record; neither the Inspection Committee Report nor report from the Regional Office at Mumbai that actually at site the area was in excess as claimed by the College. The second objection was hardly capable of being cured within twenty four hours as, according to the Institution, it received the letter of rejection on 18th June 2009 and had written a letter on 19th June 2009 in respect of consolidating its position. When we even asked the Experts in Court, they expressed the view that the second objection was not capable of being remedied in this manner.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 4023. Thus, for the above facts, we see no reason to direct the Council to issue consent/approval for the current academic year.
24. Similarly, in the case of Shri Chatrapati Shivaji College of Engineering and others, the application for approval was submitted on 18th/28th December 2007 for starting new Engineering College for the academic year 2008-2009. This proposal was processed and on 30th July 2008, the Respondents issued the Letter of Intent with number of conditions and also mentioned that it was subject to inspection by the Expert Committee. The Expert Committee had visited the college and in its report dated 1st June 2009 found number of deficiencies as noticed above. Vide letter dated 11th June 2009, these deficiencies were communicated to the Petitioners and they were informed that it was not possible to grant approval. On 13th June 2009, the Petitioners filed an application for reconsideration of their proposal for grant of approval. Finally, on 15th June 2009, the Expert Committee revisited the College and submitted a report not recommending the grant of approval. Against that decision, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 41 Appeal was filed and the Appellate Authority recommended grant of approval but for the academic year 2010-2011 which was communicated to the Petitioners on 23rd June 2009 resulting in challenge before this Court.
25. When the Expert Committee conducted the inspection of the College on 1st June 2009, it had noticed many deficiencies. This was communicated by letter dated 11th June 2009 wherein it was clearly stated that it was not possible to grant approval for the academic year 2009-2010 and as per the provisions of the guidelines, policies and procedure of Regulations and Handbook for Approval Process (January 2008) they could avail the opportunity of reconsideration of the case after rectification of deficiencies. In furtherance to this, the College deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- with a request for consideration and not for continuous consideration of the same application. The Committee had again visited the College on 15th June 2009 and did not recommend for grant of approval.
That would put an end to all matters for current academic year and any approval even if granted subsequent to 15th June 2009, would be for the subsequent academic year viz.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 422010-2011. This was made amply clear and put beyond ambiguity vide letter dated 15th June 2009 of the Council that the request of the Institute for grant of approval for the academic year 2009-2010 stood finally rejected and obviously the Petitioners' request for consideration would be for the academic year 2010-2011. The Appellate Committee had granted approval but for the academic year 2010-2011 and that too vide its letter dated 23rd June 2009 subject to satisfying the conditions stated therein and to ensure that all facilities viz. Infrastructure, laboratories, libraries, etc. are provided before commencement of the academic year. This aspect of the approval order can only signify by the physical inspection which has not been conducted even as of now. We have already held that 15th June 2009 was the cut off date for the current academic year on which date the Expert Committee had found number of deficiencies in the college and, therefore, we are unable to find any error in the action of the Respondents in issuing the letter of approval dated 23rd June 2009 for the academic year 2010-2011. We must also notice that no order either of 15th June 2009 or 23rd June 2009 passed by the authorities concerned has been challenged in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 43 the present Writ Petition. Without challenge to the orders, a direction or mandamus contrary to the order cannot be issued by this Court. The Council has rightly taken the view that this will be effective from the academic year 2010-2011. We do hope that the Council shall duly conduct an inspection as contemplated in the letter of approval and ensure that all the conditions have been fully satisfied/complied before the students are granted admission in that college so as to avoid any prejudice.
26. Now, we may examine the third case of Indira College of Engineering and Management which has been established in the year 2007 and wanted to enhance the intake capacity in Mechanical and Computer Engineering and had submitted their application on 14th October 2008. The Reconsideration Committee made some observations in the format on 12th March 2009 and some deficiencies were noticed particularly in relation to faculty members in the Computer MCA. Vide letter dated 17th March 2009, Western Region office of the Council forwarded the Inspection Report to the Advisor of the Council at New Delhi. The matters should ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 44 have been examined by the Council. From the record produced, it appears that Hearing Committee constituted as per the Regulations, made observations as under :
"Inadequate faculty in Mechanical Engineering and Computer Engineering."
27. On the basis of this and upon examination, the Council vide its letter dated 18th June 2009, communicated the inadequacy to the College and also clearly stated that the request of the college for increased intake variation was not granted and they were asked to rectify the deficiency and submit fresh proposal with all relevant documents. Thereafter, on Appeal, the concerned authorities recommended issuance of Letter of Intent for the academic year 2010-2011 which was communicated to the Petitioners vide letter dated 23rd June 2009. The contention raised before us is that since the approval has been granted by the Appellate Authority, it should be for the current academic year and not for the academic year 2010-2011. This argument cannot be accepted as the expert bodies in their wisdom and after inspection of the colleges have granted approval for the year 2010-2011 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 45 and not for the current year, which obviously means, keeping in view the calendar published by the Council, the cut off date being 15th June 2009. The Council was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the approval cannot be made operative for the current academic year as, even according to the Letter of Approval, there are conditions to be satisfied as contemplated in the letter of approval before actually granting approval and commencing the academic session. The opinion of the expert bodies can be subjected to judicial review in a very restricted class of cases. Generally, the opinion of the expert bodies should be binding. The grant of approval by the Appellate Authority even if was to relate back to the letter of 15th June 2009 wherein the deficiencies were found and the college was informed, even then the view of the Appellate Authority that this had to be effective from the academic year 2010-2011 does not call for any interference as that approach besides being that of the expert body is also in consonance with the Regulations of the Council, calendar declared by them and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mahatma Gandhi Missions (supra). However, the action of the Council even in this case does not call for any interference.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 4628. From all these cases, it appears that the above Writ Petitions have been filed as the final view on the matter has been taken by the Council and/or its agencies at eleventh hour. In fact, in two Writ Petitions, the Institutions did not even adopt the course of going before the Appellate Committee. Be that as it may, it is essential that the Council being the highest body for maintaining the standard of education, granting approval for courses, etc., it is expected to deal with the cases with greater emphasis, timely and expeditiously. In one of the cases afore-noticed, the application was forwarded on 17th March 2009 and the deficiencies were pointed out vide letter dated 18th June 2009 nearly after a period of three months. From the record, it also appears that no steps were taken by other parties. This was the crucial time when the matters ought to have been sorted out and Council ought to have satisfied itself of removal/ rectification of deficiencies in accordance with the Regulations.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 4729. While declining to interfere in any of the Writ Petitions, for the reasons recorded above, we do wish to direct the All India Council for Technical Education to ensure that the communication of acceptance or rejection and all steps of communicating rejection or grant of approval should be taken timely so as to avoid prejudicial results to any of the affected parties. It will also be in the interest of the students who seek admissions to these colleges so that they can exercise their options in accordance with their merit well in time. We do hope that the Council will ensure that the applications are dealt with within the time schedule specified in its Regulations and Handbook for Approval Process, 2008 and the directions issued by the Court earlier.
30. All the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged in all the Writ Petitions. No order as to costs.
31. While we have dismissed all the three Writ Petitions, we may also notice that vide orders dated 20th July 2009 and 21st July 2009, we had initiated proceedings against ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 48
(i) Mr. Harish C. Rai, Advisor, (ii) Prof. R.S. Nigam; (iii) Prof. Madhu Vij and (iv) Dr.Sanjay Sharma under the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution of India as there was mis-representation by the Council before the Court;
records were withheld at the first instance from the Court; the approvals were granted or refused in violation to the Calendar and Regulations of the Council and in particular the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Mission Institute (supra) on which the Council had placed heavy reliance. What persuaded the Court to issue such notice was not only these factors, but the way the Council is dealing with maintenance of academic standards and grant/refusal of approval for increase in intake of existing courses; addition of new courses as well as starting of new Institutions. The above three cases clearly demonstrate the pathetic state of affairs that is prevalent in the Regional Office and the Principal Office of the All India Council for Technical Education. All norms and rules of administrative jurisprudence and regulatory measures have been thrown to the winds. For months together no steps are taken and then suddenly within hours or days the approvals are granted or refused. All the Respondents/ ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 ::: 49 Contemnors have filed their affidavit in replies to the show cause notices issued by the Court on which the arguments have also been heard and we would be passing separate orders in relation to each of the Contemnors. It has become essential to pronounce this judgment in the interest of all concerned. The All India Council for Technical Education has been held to be a statutory body with supremacy over other Institutions, Universities involved in imparting of education, professional or otherwise in the State of Maharashtra. It is expected of the Council to maintain very high standard of performance and its action should be free of arbitrariness, discrimination and mala fides. Whether the mala fides are factual or legal, their impact on the education system in the State is bound to be adverse. Thus, we will deal with these aspects separately in that Petition.
CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
uday/judgments09/wp-l-1233-09final ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:51:00 :::