Madras High Court
M/S.Dhaya College Of Engineering vs ) The Secretary To Government on 7 June, 2013
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.06.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P(MD)No.8719 of 2013 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions M/s.Dhaya College of Engineering Sivarakottai Village Thirumangalam Taluk Madurai Distrct Rep. by its Authorised Signatory ... Petitioner Vs. 1) The Secretary to Government Higher Education Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 2) The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai-32. 3) The Anna University, Chennai-600 025. Rep. by its Registrar. 4) The Centre for Affiliation of Institutions, The Anna University, Chennai-600 025, Rep. by its Director. 6) The Registrar, The Anna University of Technology, Madurai, Madurai-625 002. 7) Dr.S.Sivanesan, The Registrar i\c The Anna University, Chennai-600 025. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the third respondent in Ref.Lr.No.CA1/057/2013 dated 20.05.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 5 herein to grant affiliation to the petitioner college in the counselling for admission of students as per the recognition given by AICTE in its letter F.No.SOuthern/1-1380517642/13 EOA dated 30.04.2013 without any further delay. !For petitioner .. Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel for Mr.Veera Kathiravan ^For Respondents .. Mr.Chellapandian Additional Advocate General, State of Tamil Nadu, Assisted by Mr.M.Rajarajan, Standing Counsel for Anna University :ORDER
M/s.Dhaya College of Engineering, Madurai District, has filed a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the Registrar, Anna University, Chennai, by which, the University has informed the Principal of the college that the University is not in a position to grant affiliation to the college for the academic year 2013-14.
2. For better appreciation of the reasons stated by the University for not granting affiliation, this court deems it fit to extract the Letter No.CA1/057/2013 dated 20.05.2013.
Sub : Affiliation for the academic year 2013-14 - status informed - reg. Ref : 1.Your application for affiliation for the academic year 2013-14 dated 05.03.2013.
2.This office letter No.CAI/057/2013-14 dated 09.05.2013.
3.Your letter dated 13.05.2013.
With reference to your application first cited in the reference submitted for affiliation for the academic year 2013-14, you were informed about the visit of the inspection committee to your college on 13.05.2013 through this office letter second cited, so as to verify the fulfillment of the requirements as per the statutory affiliation norms and standards of the University to consider the grant of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2013-14. As informed, the Inspection Committee was sent to your college on 13.05.2013 without prejudice to the contentions of the University in the pending writ appeal against the order of Justice K.Vinod Sharma dated 21.09.2012. However, the Inspection Committee could not inspect your college, as your gate was closed and you did not extend your co-operation to the Inspection committee. The Inspection Committee has reported that your college has not been functioning in the recent past from the mere look of the college from outside. Hence, it is informed that the University is not in a position to grant affiliation to your college for the academic year 2013-14.
3. Inviting the attention of this court to the schedule of events for Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions 2013, Mr.Wilson, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner college advanced arguments. Mr.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Tamil Nadu, made a detailed reply. Considering the chequered history of the college and the schedule stated supra, this court deems it fit to dispose of the writ petition.
4. Tracing the chequered history of this case, eversince AICTE, New Delhi, has granted approval for the engineering college, for the academic year 2011-12, vide proceedings dated 18.08.2011 and the rectification of the defects noticed by the inspection committee on 22.07.2011 namely, 1)non availability of 175 books, 2)request to shift the cafeteria from inside the building to outside the building and 3)provision for transportation to the students and inviting the attention of this court to the specific directions issued by the Hon'ble Bench of this court in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09/10.08.2011, decision in W.P(MD)No.9667/2011 dated 21.10.2011, confirmed on appeal in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 20.12.2011, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.17760 and 17761/2012, Mr.P.Wilson, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner college submitted that though the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court, on more than one occasions has made a categorical pronouncement and reaffirmed its decision, that Anna University cannot go beyond the directions of the Division Bench, in making any fresh inspection, under the guise of verifying the requirements of norms and standards of the University, to consider the issue of grant of affiliation, for the college, actuated by malice and bent upon to deny affiliation, the University has once again, rejected the request for affiliation to the college, for the academic year 2013-14, on the grounds that the Inspection Committee, could not inspect the college, as the gate was closed and due to non co-operation to the Committee. He further submitted that the observation of the Inspection Committee that the college has not been functioning in the recent past, from the mere look is irrelevant for considering the application for provisional affiliation.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the letter dated 13.05.2012 proposing to inspect the petitioner college was received, only on the same day and that teaching and non teaching staff of the college were not available, due to vacation. According to him, sufficient opportunity has not been given to the college before conducting the inspection. He submitted that the report of the Inspection Committee that the college appears to be non functional and inoperative, is erroneous.
6. Inviting the attention of this court to the show cause notice dated 05.12.2012 issued by AICTE, New Delhi, Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the letter dated 30.08.2011 of the Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Madurai, has been taken note of by the Standing Committee of AICTE, New Delhi, and based on which, the said show cause notice has been issued by the Council calling upon the institution to show cause as to why:
i. It should not be considered that AICTE was misled by the institute by giving manipulated/false information.
ii. It should not be considered as violation of the terms and conditions contained in the letter of approval.
iii. Appropriate actions, including withdrawal of the approval ne not initiated against the institution for non-observance of the terms and conditions of approval as also for misleading the AICTE by it's self disclosure/declaration of false information.
7. Drawing the attention of this court to the order dated 30.04.2013 extending the approval of the college, for the academic year 2013-14, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that all the allegations levelled against the college regarding the manner in which the approval has been obtained by the college and requirements for approval of an Engineering college has been duly considered by AICTE, New Delhi which includes Stability Certificate and staff structure also.
Learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that inasmuch as the AICTE, New Delhi, has verified all the documents required for approval and impliedly rejected the complaint of the Registrar, Anna University, Chennai, alleging receipt of approval by any alleged fraudulent means, it is not open to Anna University to deny provisional affiliation, again and again, harping on the sole ground that they have a right to make inspection, in terms of the statutes of the University, which has been held to be an erroneous interpretation by the Division Bench. In this context, he invited the attention of this Court to paragraphs 37 to 48 of the Division Bench order of the Hon'ble Bench made in M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 09.05.2012.
8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that when the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that when the submission and interpretation of Anna University of Technology, Madurai, to the effect that apart from the directions given in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011, it has been granted liberty, to consider the reply of the college dated 25.07.2011 as per the provisions of the statutes of the University has been rejected, the stand of the University to inspect again and again, with reference to the norms and the standards per se amounts to Contempt of the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench and it is in derogation of the orders of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.17760 and 17761/2012 dated 30.05.2011.
9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that on the objections regarding non submission of certificates, including Stability Certificate, this court in W.P(MD)No.9667 of 2011 dated 21.10.2011, has categorically overruled the same, holding that there was no bona fide on the part of the University and that the said decision has been confirmed in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 20.12.2011. He therefore submitted that it is not open to the University to fish out fresh reasons for rejection.
10. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that having regard to the orders made in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011 and W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 20.12.2011, this court in W.P(MD)No.9695/2012 dated 21.09.2012 has categorically held that the respondent University cannot act contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court. He further submitted that once this court has held that the University has to consider the grant of affiliation, keeping in view of the first inspection report dated 22.07.2011 and the representation of the petitioner college dated 25.07.2011, wherein the defects pointed out, stood complied with, and when that the judgements have attained finality, the respondents are bound to decide the question of affiliation, based on the first inspection report alone, and cannot insist on any second or further inspection. In this context, Learned Senior Counsel invited the attention of this court to the specific observations of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma, who has categorically held that the respondents have not acted fairly, in the interest of the students or for education.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court that in W.P(MD)No.9695/2012 dated 21.09.2012, no direction was issued to the University to carry out any fresh inspection, and that it has been clearly observed that any such direction, would go contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench, passed in the earlier proceedings between the parties.
12. According to the Learned Senior Counsel the stand of the University that it has a right of inspection based on the statutes and norms of the University for grant of affiliation, except to consider the reply dated 25.07.2011 of the college, rectifying the three defects, is highly motivated, contumacious and nothing but a mockery of the orders of this court. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the decision of the University to deny affiliation for every year, on the ground that the college was not functional and that there was no co-operation for inspection, reflects the closed mind of the University, actuated with malice. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed that suitable directions be issued to the University for grant of affiliation for the academic year 2013-14.
13. Opposing the relief sought for in the Writ Petition, Mr.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that earlier, the request for affiliation to the petitioner college for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, has not been granted for the defects noticed during the inspection, conducted by the Committee constituted by Anna University of Technology, Madurai. He further submitted that approval of the petitioner college to conduct engineering courses for the academic year 2012-13 has been granted by AICTE only on 30.04.2013 and thereafter, the college has submitted an application dated 02.05.2013 to the Regional Director (In-Charge), Anna University, Madurai, to grant affiliation for the year 2013-14 and allot counselling code, so as to enable them to take part in the counselling process to admit students in the five branches of engineering courses, for the academic year 2013-14.
14. He further submitted that the application for affiliation was received on 04.05.2013 by the University. Thereafter, by letter dated 09.05.2013, the Registrar, Anna University, Chennai, has sent a letter dated 09.05.2013, to the Principal, Dhaya College of Engineering, Madurai District, Madurai, informing them that an inspection committee would visit the college on 13.05.2013, to verify the fulfillment of the requirements, as per the statutory affiliation norms and standards of Anna University, Chennai, for the engineering programmes and to consider the grant of provisional affiliation, for the academic year 2013-14. He further submitted that an Inspection Committee was directed to visit the college, without prejudice to the contentions of the University, in pending Writ Appeal, filed by the University.
15. He also submitted that the college was requested to keep the soft copies of the individual faculty data sheets, with self attested certificates, appointment orders and joining reports etc, and to submit the same to the Chairman of the Inspection Committee. Further instructions have also been given in the letter dated 09.05.2013, so as to enable the Inspection committee to ascertain the department-wise faculty members, and the folders of the individual faculty members of the department. In response to the letter dated 09.05.2013, the college has sent a reply dated 10.05.2013 that the proposed inspection amounts to Contempt and insisted that affiliation has to be granted for the academic year 2012-13, before sending the inspection committee. He therefore submitted that the contention that the college was not communicated with the date of inspection and that the college was denied of a reasonable opportunity is not correct.
16. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that on receipt of the letter dated 10.05.2013 by E-Mail and FAX from the college, the Registrar, Anna University, Chennai, has sent a reply dated 11.05.2013, stating that twice this Court has upheld the right of the University to have periodical inspection to ascertain as to whether the norms are followed and adequate facilities are available, as per the statutes of the Universities, and therefore, it is always open to the University to carry out an inspection with regard to the compliance of the statutes. He therefore submitted that the University has acted only as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court, and that there was no intention to disobey the orders. It is also his further contention that the college was requested to co-operate with the inspection committee which was constituted pursuant to the receipt of an application dated 02.05.2013 for affiliation, for the academic year 2013-14, without prejudice to the contentions of the University in the appeal filed by them.
17. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that no college can be permitted to run any course particularly, Engineering Programmes, without satisfying the requirements of the norms and standards prescribed under the statutes of the University, for grant of affiliation. It is also his further submission that when the Inspection Committee comprising of the Regional Director, Anna University, Regional Centre, Madurai, and others have visited the college, at 10.45 AM on 13.05.2013, the college was closed and that the security ward informed the committee that the college has not been functioning for the past one year.
18. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the Committee members have opined that from the mere look of the college from outside, the college had not been functioning for some time in the recent past. He therefore submitted that though adequate opportunity has been given to the petitioner college to submit the documents, so as to verify the fulfillment of the requirements, as per the statutory affiliation, norms and standards of the University, there was no co-operation from the college authorities and in the abovesaid circumstances, the Inspection Committee could not inspect the college. The gate was also closed. In the light of the report of the Inspection Committee, he submitted that the University is not in a position to ascertain as to whether the college has satisfied the requirements for grant of affiliation and in the abovesaid circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that Anna University, Chennai, had acted in an arbitrary or biased manner, to reject the request for provisional affiliation for the academic year 2013-14.
19. Learned Additional Advocate General also contended that when there was a change in the office of the Principal and other faculty members, it is the bounden duty of the University, to ascertain the requirements for grant of affiliation, as per the statutes of the University. Learned Additional Advocate General denied the allegations of mala fide. According to him, no sooner, the University received the application for affiliation for the academic year 2013- 14 on 02.05.2013, on 04.05.2013, action has been taken promptly and it cannot be contended that rejection was motivated.
20. Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that Structural Stability Certificate from PWD is one of the essential part, for grant of affiliation. According to him, there was no intention to discover any new issue/point, against the college, in the matter of granting provisional affiliation and steps have been promptly taken, to consider the application dated 02.05.2013. According to him, though in M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 09.05.2012, the Hon'ble Division Bench has directed to consider the application of the petitioner college for provisional affiliation, the words incorporated in the orders made in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011 and W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 20.12.2011 to the effect that the University can inspect all the facilities, based on its own statutes, would certainly empower Anna University, to make an inspection and ascertain all the details, as per the statutes for affiliation.
21. When the learned Additional Advocate General was posed with a question as to whether the Hon'ble Division Bench, in its order in M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 09.05.2012 has restricted the scope of inspection only to the three deficiencies noticed in the first inspection and to the reply of the college dated 25.07.2011 or given any liberty to University to make any inspection of the college, with reference to the requirements of the statutes for affiliation, learned Additional Advocate General reiterated that, at the end of paragraph 47 of the judgment in M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 09.05.2012, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court has granted permission to the University and hence, the action of the University in constituting a fresh Committee to inspect the college, to ascertain the particulars, as per the statutes is in accordance with law.
22. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that while considering an application for provisional affiliation, it is the duty of the University to ascertain as to whether the petitioner has obtained Stability Certificate from PWD and without the same, the college cannot be permitted to start any course. As regards the Contempt Application, he submitted that the decision in W.P(MD)No.9695/2012 dated 21.09.2012, is the subject matter of Writ Appeal and despite the pendency of the appeal, and without prejudice to the contentions raised in the appeal, the University has acted bonafidely in response to the requisition dated 02.05.2013.
23. In sum and substance, Learned Additional Advocate General reiterated that the University has got all the powers to make an inspection to satisfy itself, as to whether the college fulfils the requirements, as per the statutory affiliation norms and standards of the University. It is his further contention that when the college did not satisfy the requirements, and when they did not co-operate with the inspection committee, the impugned order declining to grant affiliation for the academic year 2013-14 cannot be said to have been arbitrarily made, warranting intervention by this court. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
24. Record of proceedings shows that the Writ petition has come up for admission 29.05.2013 and stood adjourned to 03.06.2013. Today, the matter is listed under the caption "Adjourned Admission".
25. It is the third round of litigation for the college for grant of provisional affiliation. The first round of litigation started in 2011 when the college filed W.P.No.8354/2011, for a Mandamus directing the Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Madurai, to grant affiliation for the academic year 2011-12 and consequently prayed for a direction to the respondents therein, to permit the college to admit the students, both under counselling, as well as in the management seats, commencing from 2011-12. Earlier, vide order dated 09.08.2011, the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, in short AICTE, has granted approval to the college to start five under graduate courses in Engineering Faculty Viz., 1)Civil Engineering, 2)Computer Science Engineering, 3)Electrical and Electronics Engineering, 4)Electronics and Communication Engineering and 5)Mechanical Engineering.
26. While considering the request of the college for affiliation for the year 2011-12, three defects have been noticed by the inspection committee on 22.07.2011 and the defects were;
1)Non availability of 175 library books
2)Shifting of cafeteria from inside the building to outside the premises
3)To provide transport facilities to the students.
27. When intimation dated 25.07.2011 was sent to the University by the college, stating that the defects were rectified, the University did not grant affiliation. But another inspection has been ordered. Hence, a challenge has been made in W.P(MD)No.8354/2011, with the prayer as stated supra. Vide order dated 01.08.2011, the Writ petition has been allowed. At paragraph 20 of the order in W.P(MD)No.8354/2011 dated 01.08.2011, this court issued a direction to the Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Madurai District, to consider the reply of the petitioner dated 25.07.2011 and grant affiliation to the educational institution, if the deficiencies notified by the committed were rectified, so as to enable the college to admit students, and also to take part in the counselling.
28. Being aggrieved by the abovesaid decision, Anna University of Technology, Madurai, represented by the Registrar, Madurai District, has filed W.A.(MD)No.740/2011. After considering the rival submissions, a Division Bench of this court, has modified paragraph 20 of the order made in W.P(MD)No.8354/2011, and issued a direction to the University to consider the reply made by the college dated 25.07.2011, on merits and in accordance with law and based on its own statutes and pass appropriate orders, regarding the grant of affiliation. Taking note of the last date for counselling extended upto 17.08.2011, the Division Bench has directed the University to pass orders within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order made in W.A.No.740/2011.
29. Thereafter, the University has issued a letter No.AUTMDU/REG/1- 388/2011-388 dated 17.08.2011 to the Principal, M/s.Dhaya College of Engineering, Madurai District, proposing to inspect on 19.08.2011, for considering the grant of affiliation for the academic year 2011-12 and directed the Principal to keep all the relevant records and documents ready for verification, at the time of inspection. A reply dated 18.08.2011 has been sent by the college to the University. Another letter dated 19.08.2011 has also been sent. Vide letter dated 20.08.2011, the University has rejected the request of the college for provisional affiliation for the academic year 2011-12, for the following grounds:-
(a) Regarding the requirement of approval by the Director of Town and Country Planning, the District Collector, by his report has stated that your college has not obtained any approval but only a consent from the Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning (In-charge), Madurai Region, for the plan approval to be issued by the Village Panchayat, Sivarakottai.
(b) Regarding the clearance as per Section 37(B) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, he stated that you have neither applied nor obtained any clearance from the Government.
(c) The District Collector or District level authorities have not given any consent for conversion of wet land into land for other purposes as per the statutes.
(d) The District Collector has not issued any Land Use Certificate and it has been observed that certain water channels have been destroyed.
30. The Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Madurai, has also sent a detailed letter dated 30.08.2011 to the Chairman, AICTE, New Delhi, pointing out that the college did not comply with certain requirements of the State Government/University Statutes (As per the application for affiliation of New Institutions prescribed by Anna University of Technology, Madurai), and also the norms prescribed by AICTE (As per AICTE Approval Process Hand Book 2011-12) and requested AICTE, New Delhi, to reconsider the grant of approval extended to the college and take suitable action for cancellation of approval, due to non fulfillment of rules and regulations of AICTE.
31. Rejection of affiliation dated 20.08.2011 has been challenged in W.P(MD)No.9667/2011. The University has opposed the relief sought for, on the grounds that the approval order dated 03.08.2011 was received by the University only on 18.08.2011, and in order to implement the order of the Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011, and to verify several other irregularities committed by the college, the University has decided to send a second inspection team to the petitioner college, on 19.08.2011, to inspect and verify the compliance of the University's Statutes and Regulations.
32. In W.P(MD)No.9667/2011, the University has contended that the following documents have not been submitted.
1)Land Conversion Certificate from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning
2)Certificate under Section 37(B) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Land Fixation and Ceiling) Act, 1961
3)Certificate for fire/boiler/electrical safety from competent authorities
4)Certificate from Health Inspector
5)Certificate from PWD Superintendent Engineer for Structural Stability for the building
6)Master Time-Table for all courses and all sections with classroom arrangements
7)Audited statement of accounts of the college for the past three years
8)Non availability of licence under Tamil Nadu Buildings Licensing Act, 1965 and rules framed thereunder.
33. A further contention has been made by the University that the approval obtained by the college from the AICTE, New Delhi, has been obtained by misrepresentation. It was also the contention of the University that it has every jurisdiction and authority to verify the particulars submitted to AICTE, New Delhi, with reference to the specific report of the District Collector, regarding the irregularities and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the University has no authority to verify the entire physical features. It has also been contended that the University can inspect and verify as to whether the college has adequate man power, infrastructural facilities and other anomalies and submit a report to the AICTE, for further action.
34. Pendency of a public interest writ petition in W.P(MD)No.8876/2011 has also been brought to the notice of this court and it has been further submitted that the college has not extended its co-operation to the Inspection Committee and submitted the required documents, though an opportunity was given. As regards the contention of the college that the second inspection committee cannot redo the inspection afresh, the University has submitted that it is empowered to nominate a fresh inspection team.
35. In W.P(MD)No.9667/2011, the University has contended that when the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has directed the University to ascertain the facts through records, the Registrar has acted as per the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench. Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench decision in The University of Madras rep. by its Registrar, Rajaji Salai, Chepauk, Chennai, Vs. Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust, rep. by its Secretary, Chennai, and the Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai, reported in 2005 WLR 395. The decision of the Full Bench in Rukmani College of Education, run by Rukmani Educational and Charitable Trust, rep. by its Correspondent S.Deepak, Tirunelveli District Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, and two others reported in 2008 (1) CTC 545, has been pressed into service, contenting that merely because the AICTE has granted approval for the petitioner's college, affiliation cannot be sought for, as a matter of right.
36. Placing reliance on the decision in Dental Council of India Vs. S.R.M Institute of Science & Technology and another, reported in 2004 (9) SCC 676, the University has further submitted that when the application form submitted by the petitioner college is either incomplete or contained distorted facts, the University which has a specific role in the matter of affiliation can seek for necessary details from the college and it has been further contended that when a letter from the University was issued, the college refused to part with any information, other than three deficiencies pointed out by the first inspection committee and that no documents were submitted to the second inspection committee and that therefore, the University could not inspect all the facilities, as per the norms of Anna University, Madurai.
37. Per contra, by way of reply, the college has submitted that the University has intentionally failed to adhere to the directions of the Hon'ble Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011 and further order dated 10.08.2011. The college has also contended that the inspection ordered by the University can be referable only to the directions contained in the order made in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011 and it does not amount to giving any liberty or granting direction for redoing the entire process of making a fresh inspection with reference to the matters, not specifically directed by the Hon'ble Bench of this court.
38. While adverting to the above submissions, inter alia, this Court has noticed that two colleges namely, C.R.Engineering College, Alagarkoil, Madurai District, and SSN College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, have been permitted to participate in the admission counseling, even without an order of affiliation, by Anna University, Madurai, and that no reasons have been assigned in the counter affidavit filed by the University, as to how the said colleges were given permission, to participate in the counseling for the academic year 2011-12.
39. This Court has also taken note of the fact that pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.3454 and 3482 of 2002, etc., batch, provisional affiliation has been granted to certain institutions, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions and the requirement of certificate under Section 37-B of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Land Ceilings) Act, 1961, was not insisted to those institutions. Though the inspection team constituted by the University in its report has stated that "since their terms of reference were to inspect all the facilities as per the Anna University of Technology norms, we could not do so", this court while disposing of the W.P(MD)No.9667/2011 dated 21.10.2011, has observed that constitution of the second inspection team to re-do the whole exercise of verification of all the facilities afresh, is beyond the scope of the directions granted by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09/10.08.2011.
40. The direction of the Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09/10.08.2011 taken note by this court reads as follows:-
10. It is true that the said deficiencies regarding conversion have not been pointed out by the appellant - University while not granting affiliation.
Since we have already elicited that the Affiliating University has raised only three deficiencies to be complied with and according to the learned counsel for the first respondent college, the first respondent college has complied with all the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee, we modify the Paragraph No.20 of the order of the learned Single Judge only with a direction to the appellant University to consider the reply made by the first respondent college dated 25.07.2011 on merits and in accordance with law and based on its own statutes and pass appropriate orders regarding the grant of affiliation. (Emphasis supplied)
41. This Court in W.P(MD)No.9667/2011 dated 21.10.2011 also noticed that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 has considered a decision in Self Financing Pvt. Teacher Training Institutes Assn. V State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011 (5) MLJ 605, wherein, this court has followed a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhartia Education Society and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in 2011 (3) Scale 48. Paragraph 22 of the abovesaid judgment considered by the Division Bench is reproduced hereunder:-
"22. Sub-section (6) of Section 14 no doubt mandates every examining body to grant affiliation to the institution on receipt of the order of NCTE granting recognition to such institution. This only means that recognition is a condition precedent for affiliation and that the examining body does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which have been considered by NCTE while granting recognition. For example, NCTE is required to satisfy itself about the adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, and laboratory required for proper functioning of an institution for a course or training in teacher education. Therefore, when recognition is granted by NCTE, it is implied that NCTE has satisfied itself on those aspects. Consequently, the examining body may not refuse affiliation on the ground that the institution does not have adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, or laboratory required for proper functioning of the institution."
42. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the decision in Al-Karim Educational Trust and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1469, taken note of by this court in W.P(MD)No.9667/2011 are extracted hereunder:-
"11. In the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the State Government after consulting the Medical council of India to arrive at a decision. However, if it is found that the affiliation is being withheld unreasonably or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other, this Court would, though reluctantly, be constrained to exercise jurisdiction. We must make it clear that we are not diluting the importance of fulfilling the essential pre-requisite set by the Medical Council before granting recognition. The facts of this case are very special and exceptional. In the present case, we take note of the following aspects:
(a) The appellant institution was granted temporary affiliation nearly 6 years ago (29.12.1989).
(b) More than three years ago, (on 16.7.1992) this Court directed that students may be admitted and permitted to take examination, subject to certain conditions and this has been so done.
(c) In view of the earlier orders of this that affiliation should be granted to the appellants.
(d) On more than three occasions, this Court, after perusal of the affidavits of the parties and report of the concerned authorities about the deficiencies pointed out, directed time-bound inspections, by Medical Council of India, along with other authorities bearing in mind that we are concerned with the post establishment stage.
(e) At one stage, it came to light that the original deficiencies having been removed, new or further deficiencies were pointed out by the Medical Council of India, which were ordered by this Court to be removed.
(f)Finally, the appellants filed a tabular statement along with an affidavit dated 4.9.1995, stating that even the new deficiencies pointed out have been removed and the averments in that behalf stand uncontradicted.
(g) The appellants,claim to be a minority institution and the difficulties/ or even the imponderables to start a new institution, cannot be gainsaid. To insist on fulfilling all requirements, at a stretch in modern conditions, is not a practical proposition and ordinarily, only those aspects or requirements, which in the minimal will give a good start for effectively imparting education, with ancilliary requisites may be considered sufficient, in the extra-ordinary circumstances of this case.
(h) It is impractical to insist, for a fool proof or absolute adherence to all requirements without regard to their importance or relevance, for the purpose of imparting education, in a practical way, especially because the institution has begun to function, students admitted to institution have taken the examination and the fate of a good many number of students should not hang in the balance in an unending or everlasting manner.
(i) In the final analysis, the question to be posed, is whether there exists the minimal and satisfactory requirements to keep the matter going, and not whether better arrangements that will render the set up more efficient and more satisfactory, should be insisted as "a wooden" rule.
(j) It may be that there are some minor deficiencies here and there which call for rectification. Time can certainly set right such matters. What is required is a total, practical, overall view in the light of the latest tabular statement filed along with the affidavit dated 4.9.1995. material placed before the Court goes to show that there has been "substantial" though not literal compliance with the deficiencies pointed out in the latest report dated 28.6.1995.
(k) Lapse of time and the turn of events call for urgent action and any delay on that score will entail untold hardship to the students and the institution.
12. In the totality of the circumstances disclosed in the case and having regard to the fact that at each stage new deficiencies are being pointed out, the latest being the report dated 28.6.95 (explained by the subsequent affidavit of the appellants dated 4.9.95), we are satisfied beyond any manner of doubt, that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with and minor deficiencies pointed out in the last mentioned report of 28.6.95 are not such as to permit withholding of the affiliation to which the appellants' institution is entitled, From the manner in which the deficiencies have been pointed out from time to time, each time the old deficiencies are shown to have been removed, new deficiencies are shown, gives the impression that the affiliation is unnecessarily delayed. For the removal, of the minor deficiencies pointed out in the report of 28.6.95, a compliance affidavit dated 4.9.1995 is filed. Once the institution feels secure on the question of affiliation, we have no doubt that these minor deficiencies, if they exist, shall be taken care of by those in charge of the institution. For taking such further steps, the grant of affiliation need not wait. We make this position clear. The steps for the grant of affiliation to the appellants' institution may now be expedited and we direct the respondents to issue the necessary orders without loss of time. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs."
43. Ultimately, this court in W.P(MD)No.9667/2011 dated 21.10.2011 held that the University had not acted, as per the directions of this court made in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09/10.08.2011 and arbitrarily rejected the request of the petitioner for affiliation for the year 2011-12. The University has been directed to strictly act in accordance with the directions contained in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09/10.08.2011 and pass orders, on the request for affiliation.
44. Testing the correctness of the order made in W.P(MD)No.9667/2011 dated 21.10.2011, the University has preferred W.A(MD)No.1517/2011. In the appeal, though the University has again urged that, apart from considering the reply of the college dated 25.07.2011, wherein, the college has pointed out that the three deficiencies have been rectified, they have the authority to consider the norms prescribed under the statute for grant of affiliation. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench in its order dated 20.12.2011 made in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011, has made it clear that the University shall reconsider the matter afresh, as per the directions given in W.A(MD)740/2011 and also consider the reply submitted by the college dated 25.07.2011 seeking affiliation for the academic year 2011-12, as per the provisions of the statute without being influenced by any observation made by the writ court in the order dated 21.10.2011 in W.P(MD)No.9667/2011.
45. Thereafter, Anna University vide letter dated 18.01.2012 has appointed another inspection committee of three persons and directed them to complete the inspection by 25.01.2012. The said letter dated 18.01.2012 has been addressed to the college intimating the date of inspection. Another letter dated 19.01.2012 has been sent to the Principal of the College stating that, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench to reconsider the grant of affiliation afresh, and to process the same, in accordance with the statutes, an inspection would be conducted on 25.01.2012 and that the college has been directed to co-operate with the committee, and keep all the relevant records and documents for verification. The requirements include department-wise non teaching staff, besides registers and records pertaining to attendance, scholarship details etc. The University has also requested the college to keep the following certificates, which includes a certificate from PWD, Superintending Engineer, for structural stability of the building. Sl.No. Certificate Available (Y / N) 1 Village field map/Field measurement book sketch 2 College site map / plan 3 Existing building plan 4 Building sketch (details of Rooms, Laboratories, Stores, Libraries etc. for all the floors) 5 Building plan proposed 6 Irrecoverable Trust Registration Deed 7 Documentary proof for ownership of lands exclusively earmarked for the college 8 Legal opinion from not below the rank of the Govt. Pleader on the ownership of land and extent of coverage 9 Land Use Certificate from an appropriate authority (RDO) and Land conversion certificate from the Directorate of Town & Country Planning.
10# Certificate under Section 37 (B) of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Land fixation and Ceiling) Act, 1961 11 # State Government permission for starting the college.
12* AICTE approval for the programme(s) (copy to be enclosed) 13 Documents showing the financial viability of the college [details of financial budgeted revenue and expenses statements (Current year) 14 Composition of the Governing council 15 Master Time - Table for all courses and all sections with classroom arrangements 16 Audited statement of accounts of the college for the past three years 17 Certificates for fire/boiler/electrical safety from competent authorities 18 Certificate from Health Inspector 19 Certificate from PWD Superintendent Engineer for the structural stability of the building 20 Building and equipment insurance certificate
46. By way of reply dated 23.01.2012, the college has reiterated that as per the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09/10.08.2011, the University has to consider the only reply dated 24.07.2011, given by them and not to travel beyond such directions. The college has also stated that the appointment of a third committee to go through the entire process, as per the enclosure and the letter dated 19.01.2012 is void ab initio.
47. Further, a letter dated 25.01.2012 has been sent to the University. But the University has reiterated that as per the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench, they have to reconsider the whole issue afresh, with reference to the requirements under the University's statutes. After the disposal of the Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 20.12.2011, Anna University of Technology, Madurai, has filed M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011, seeking extension of time to comply with the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 and prayed the Hon'ble Bench to issue suitable ad-interim orders, to the college to co-operate with the Inspection Committee, so as to reconsider the grant of affiliation afresh, and to process the same, in accordance with the statutes and in the light of the directions, issued by this court in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 20.12.2011.
48. In the Miscellaneous Petitions, the University has contended that there was a non co-operative attitude on the part of the college, in not allowing the inspection committee to visit the college. Per contra, the college has contended that by violating the order made in W.A(MD)740/2011 dated 09/10.08.2011, the University has ordered re-inspection of the amenities and other facilities. The college has contended the University has violated the orders of this court deliberately.
49. The main contention of Anna University in the Miscellaneous Petitions, extracted at paragraph 37 of the order made in M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 09.05.2012 is as follows:-
"It is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner University that since the order dated 20.12.2011 made in W.A(MD)No.1517 of 2011 also granted liberty to the petitioner University to consider the application for affiliation as per the provisions of the statutes, they are entitled to reconsider the issue afresh."
50. At paragraph 38, while rejecting the abovesaid contention, the Hon'ble Bench has recorded as follows:-
"In the considered opinion of this court, the said submission lacks merit."
51. While making it clear that it is not open to the University to go beyond the terms of the order in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 and reiterating that the interpretation of the University to redo the entire exercise is not in consonance with the orders passed in W.A(MD)No.740/2011, the Hon'ble Division Bench has recorded as follows:-
41. The order dated 09.08.2011 made in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 makes it very clear that the disposal of the reply dated 25.07.2011 submitted by the respondent college shall be in accordance with law and based on the statutes of the University. The said letter was sent in response to the Inspection Committee's report dated 22.07.2011 wherein only three deficiencies were pointed out.
42. The petitioner University wants to interpret the order passed in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011 by submitting that apart from the directions given in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011, they have been granted liberty to consider the reply dated 25.07.2011 as per the provisions of the statutes and therefore, they are entitled to inspect all the facilities as per the norms of the Anna University of Technology, Madurai.
43. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an interpretation is not in consonance with the orders passed in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 as well as in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011.
44. In fact, in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011, a Division Bench of this Court found that the appellant therein/University has not made out a case much less any prima facie case warranting interference in the orders passed in W.P(MD)No.9667 of 2011.
45. It has been also made clear in the said order that the appellant therein/University was directed only to strictly follow the directions given in the order dated 09.08.2011 made in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011.
46. Though the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that in the later portion of the order, it has been stated that "we make it very clear that the appellant viz., the Anna University of Technology, shall reconsider the matter fresh, as per the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 and also considering the reply submitted by the respondent herein, dated 25.07.2011, and as per the provisions of the statutes, in respect of the application made by the respondent herein, seeking the relief of affiliation to its college, for the academic year 2011-2012 without being influenced by any observation made by the writ Court in its order dated 21.10.2011," and hence, the petitioner University is entitled to inspect all the facilities, in the considered opinion of this Court, the said submission lacks merit and substance.
47. A careful reading and analysis of the paragraph 5 of the order dated 20.12.2011 in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011, would clearly disclose that the disposal of the reply dated 25.07.2011 is strictly in accordance with the orders passed in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 which was sent in response to the Inspection Committee's report dated 22.07.2011 wherein only three deficiencies were pointed out. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner University to inspect all the facilities available in the college. This Court also makes it clear that the petitioner University is to dispose of the reply dated 25.07.2011 on merits and in accordance with law and based on its own statues and it has been stated so in the order dated 09.08.2011 in W.A(MD)No.740 of 2011. However, taking into consideration the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader, this Court is of the view that extension of time is to be granted to the petitioner University to conduct inspection.
52. Again, at paragraph 48, while extending the time upto 31.05.2012, the Division Bench has ordered as follows:-
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012 is disposed of and the petitioner University is granted time till 31.05.2012 to inspect the respondent college in the light of the reply dated 25.07.2011 submitted by the respondent college. M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012 is disposed of with a direction to the respondent college to extend their co-operation to the Inspection Committed of the petitioner University to comply with the orders passed in W.A(MD)No.740 of 2011 dated 09.08.2011 and in W.A(MD)No.1517 of 2011 dated 20.12.2011.
53. Affiliation was not granted by Anna University of Technology, Madurai, for the academic year 2011-12 and therefore the college has submitted a fresh application dated 18.05.2012, requesting the University to grant provisional affiliation for the academic year 2012-13. The college has addressed another letter dated 22.05.2012 to the University.
54. The University has filed Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.17760 and 17761/2012 against the orders made in M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 09.05.2012 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 30.05.2012 has dismissed the SLPs, holding that no ground has been made out to interfere. Again, a letter dated 30.05.2012 has been addressed to the University, by the college requesting the University to permit the college to take part in the counseling process for the academic year 2012-13.
55. Now, for the first time, the University in its letter dated 30.05.2012 addressed to the Principal, Dhaya College of Engineering, Madurai District, has stated that the University is organising an inspection committee to verify the compliance of the three defects and that the team will be visiting the petitioner institution shortly.
56. Hitherto till 30.05.2012, the University had been harping on the portion of the judgment made in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011 and W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 20.12.2011 and urged that liberty has been granted to them to consider the application for affiliation, as per the provisions of statutes, which the Hon'ble Division Bench in its order made in M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 09.05.2012, has categorically overruled and held that such an argument and interpretation of the orders of the Hon'ble Bench, not only lacks merit and it is not in consonance with the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench Judgments stated supra. After the dismissal of the SLPs, as the University itself has come forward to inform the college, vide its letter dated 30.05.2012 to organise an inspection committee to verify the compliance only with reference to the defects pointed out earlier, this court deems it fit to extract the Letter No.AUTMDU/REG/01-150/2012-150 dated 30.05.2012 of the Anna University of Technology, Madurai, addressed to the petitioner college. Sub : Grant of Affiliation - Orders received from the Honourable Supreme Court of India - Fixing the date for inspection - Reg Ref : SLP (Civil) No.17760/17761-2012 of Honourable Supreme Court of India orders dated 30.05.2012 With reference to the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court of India cited in reference, I am by direction to inform that, the University is presently organizing the inspection committee to verify the compliances of the three deficiencies and the team will be visiting your institution shortly. The exact date and time of inspection will be intimated to you at the earliest. Thus it is evident from the above letter that a specific direction has been issued from the competent authorities to inspect the college only with reference to the three deficiencies noticed earlier.
57. Subsequently, the college has sent a letter dated 01.06.2012, issue provisional affiliation, so as to take part in the counseling for the academic year 2012-13. As the request was not considered, the college has filed another writ petition W.P(MD)No.7525/2012, for a Mandamus directing the respondents therein, to forthwith grant temporary affiliation to the college and consequently, to direct the respondents to permit the college to participate in the counseling. Despite the dismissal of the SLPs by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and quite contrary to the letter dated 30.05.2012 stated supra, the very same contentions regarding the right of the University to inspect the college has been taken, in the latter Writ Petition(MD)No.7525/2012 also. However, this Court by observing that the University has taken its own sweet time to make an inspection and considering the fact that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has already held that an inspection has to be made in the light of the reply dated 25.07.2011, declined to grant temporary affiliation. Thereafter, the college has filed W.A(MD)No.469/2012. The Division Bench at paragraph 26 of the order in W.A(MD)No.469/2012 has observed as follows:-
26. From a reading of the entire history of the case, the whole thing depend upon the original inspection dated 22.07.2011 and the reply dated 25.07.2011 of the college which has stated that the compliance of the deficiencies has been made. Therefore, in the earlier round of litigations this Court has directed the respondent University in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011 to reconsider the matter afresh in tune with the orders passed in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011. This order was passed on 20.12.2012 and in spite of this order as both parties were at loggerhead, the affiliation process could not be completed. In the meanwhile, earlier the University filed an application in M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011 and got an order of this Court on 09.05.2012 whereby the University was directed to inspect on or before 30.05.2012 and the appellant college was also directed to cooperate for inspection and SLP was filed against this order and the same was also dismissed and thereafter, the present application for extension of time has been filed.
58. Taking note of the inspection said to have been made on 26.06.2012, the Hon'ble Division Bench, has directed the University to pass orders on the affiliation of the college, in accordance with law on or before 07.07.2012 without fail. The Hon'ble Division Bench has also taken note of the fact of pendency of an application M.P(MD)No.5 of 2012, seeking extension of time filed by the University, for inspection. W.A(MD)No.469/2012 has been partly allowed, with the above directions.
59. Thereafter, the college has sent a letter dated 30.06.2012 to the University to grant affiliation. The University has sent a letter dated 06.07.2012 to the Principal, Dhaya College of Engineering, Madurai District, stating that the Standing Committee, upon scrutiny of the deficiencies and records has made the following recommendations:-
1.Since there is a considerable time gap of nearly 12 months from the full fledged inspection dated 21.07.2011 and as there has been a change in the faculties wherein a new Director and Principal have assumed charges, the status of other teaching faculties, non-teaching technical staff, academic fitness and working condition of laboratories are not known.
2.The Standing Committee noted the communication from the Superintending Engineer - PWD, Government of Tamil Nadu, Lr.No.AEE/T1/C-111/2012/ dated 20.06.2012 stating that "No Structural Stability Certificate" was issued by them to the Dhaya College of Engineering. The Committee is of the view that, the safety and security of the students have to be given top priority.
3.The Standing Committee noted the Proceedings Roc.No.13458/2012 BA.1 dated 25.06.2012 sent by the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, addressed to, the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department and copy sent to Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department which was subsequently sent to the University. This letter has ascertained that there are violations in the construction of buildings. The nature of violations and their impact on the academic well being of the campus has to be analyzed before admitting the students. The standing committee on affiliation recommends that Secretaries of the Government concerned shall be addressed to clarify whether the classrooms/labs/other facilities are affected by the violations mentioned in this letter and the University shall act accordingly after receiving the communication from the authorities concerned.
4.The new application submitted by Dhaya College of Engineering for the forthcoming academic year 2012-13 shall be processed immediately as the counselling for TNEA-2012 is about to commence shortly.
60. In the abovesaid letter, the University has stated that the application for affiliation for the academic year 2012-13 would be processed on merits, as per the prevailing rules and regulations. The letter dated 06.07.2012 stated supra, has been challenged in W.P(MD)No.9695 of 2012 with a prayer for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said letter and consequently to direct Anna University of Technology, Madurai, to grant provisional affiliation to the college with the counselling code to participate in the Counselling and for admission of the students into the petitioner college in the courses 1)B.E., (Civil Engineering), 2)B.E., (Mechanical Engineering),
3)B.E., (Electrical & Electronic Engineering), 4)Electronics & Communication Engineering and 5)Computer Science Engineering.
61. The abovesaid letter is stated to have been issued after the filing of a Contempt Application by the college. The contentions of the college made in W.P(MD)No.9695 of 2012 summarised by the Hon'ble Judge, at paragraph 28 are as follows:-
28. The impugned order has been challenged on the grounds, that i. even as per the impugned order, it is clear that the three deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee stands rectified and therefore, the impugned order can be safely be said to be actuated by mala fide, thus illegal and arbitrary and discriminatory;
ii.that it is mandatory on the part of the respondents, to grant affiliation to the petitioners after renewal of recognition for current year by AICTE, therefore, there is no legal bar to grant affiliation; iii.that the reason for refusal is the receipt of communication dated 20.06.2012 and 25.06.2012, from the Town and Country Planning and Public Works Department, which according to the petitioner not supported by any evidence, and therefore cannot be basis to deny the affiliation;
iv.that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as it is contrary to the directions issued by this Court, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore the impugned order is outcome of mala fide intention of respondents 3 and 4 due to political affiliation;
v.that the impugned order is discriminatory as the University has granted affiliation to three colleges without inspection, whereas the different criteria is being adopted in the case of the petitioner ;
vi.that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the Statutes of the University, which do not stipulate the receipt of communication from the third parties as the Syndicate and Standing Committee is bound by the Inspection Report submitted to it.
62. Report of the Standing committee extracted supra has been mainly relied on and that the impugned letter therein, was sought to be justified. Reliance on the decision made in Avinash Mahjrotra Vs. Union of India, reported in 2009 (6) SCC 398, has also been made and the University has contended that before granting permission to the college, Stability Certificate is required from State or Central Government Engineers, and that it is mandatory. It has been further contended that in the absence of Stability Certificate, the petitioner college cannot seek for affiliation. Once again, the University has placed reliance on the public interest litigation, W.P.No.8876/2011 pending on the file of this court, wherein, violations have been alleged against the college. The University has also contended that it has a right to inspect the college and demand production of necessary records. Regulations of the University have been invited to the attention of this court. Objections of the University, summarised by the Hon'ble Judge, at paragraph 44 of the order made in W.P(MD)No.9695 of 2012 are extracted hereunder:-
44. Thiru.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader vehemently opposed the writ petition, by contending i.That the petitioner cannot claim the right of affiliation without complying with the statutory provisions under the Statue.
ii.That in this case, though the three defects pointed out by the Inspection Committee were rectified, but still the Standing Committee for Affiliation has the power to consider the inspection report if there is material showing defects in the building and in case of other irregularities. It is always open to the Standing Committee for Affiliation to order second inspection.
iii.That it is the petitioner which did not allow the second inspection, therefore can not challenge the impugned order.
63. Ultimately, after considering the rival submissions of the parties at paragraphs 49 to 62, Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma has passed the following orders:-
49. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed.
50. It cannot be disputed, that the University has the right, to inspect and also to see that the College before affiliation complies with all the requirements including safety requirement of the University.
51. This case, however, has chequered history. The respondent University can not act contrary to the directions issued by this Court. Once this Court held, that the University was to consider the grant of affiliation only keeping in view the first Inspection Report and representation of the petitioner that defects pointed out therein stood complied with and that Judgment had attained finality, the respondents are bound to decide the question of affiliation based on first Inspection Report alone, and can not insist on the second inspection.
52. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is right in contending, that the respondents have not acted fairly in the interest of the students or for the education, and that the decision is motivated.
53. A reading of the impugned order shows, that the Anna University of Technology, Madurai has taken note of the certain communications, which in normal course are not expected. No reasons are forthcoming as to why the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu had issued a letter regarding the petitioner's college alone nor any explanation is forthcoming, as to why such letter was not issued qua other colleges and why this condition was not insisted upon from other colleges.
54. No explanation is also forthcoming as to why the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu did not write to the petitioner for getting the Structural Stability Certificate, when the petitioner is in possession of the Certificate, by approved Contractor,, which was placed on file and held to be valid by the Inspection Committee.
55. Similarly, the letter of Commissioner of Town and Country Planning also does not fit in in the Scheme of the Statutes for grant of affiliation.
56. The reading of the impugned order shows, that the respondents have not taken bona fide decision, and taken note of development held at the back of the petitioner without informing the petitioner. The impugned order seems to be an act to justify the inaction of the respondents in not granting affiliation, in spite of repeated directions and time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
57. It is also not been disclosed as to why as per the provisions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, letter not was issued to the AICTE pointing out that the petitioner was not entitled to affiliation as held by Hon'ble Full Bench on which reliance is placed by respondents.
58. It is pertinent to note here that under the normal circumstance, this Court would have directed the petitioner to co-operate with the respondents for carrying out the inspection in the best interest of education and the welfare of the students in view of stand in the counter affidavit, but, in this case, any such direction will go contrary to the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, passed in earlier proceedings between the same parties. This Court, in W.P.(MD)No.9667 of 2011 took note of all the objections including the one pointed out in this order, but did not agree with the respondents and ordered the respondents to consider the request of affiliation as per the directions of Hon'ble Division Bench, which directed that respondents could only see whether three defects pointed out were rectified or not.
59. It is admitted case of the respondents, that those three defects were rectified.
60. Therefore, it was obligatory for the respondents, grant affiliation to the petitioner, as the right of the respondents, to have periodical inspection, to see that the norms are followed, and the necessary facilities are available cannot be taken away as per the Statue. It will always open to the University to carry out the Inspection with regard to compliance of Statue. The stand of the respondents can not be accepted also for the reason that AICTE has granted affiliation to the petitioner after due inspection and alleged irregularities were not pointed out by the respondents to AICTE, which is a control body.
61. For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, being contrary to the directions issued by this Court, which has attained finality. Otherwise also, the impugned order, is not only arbitrary, but is actuated by consideration other than the Statue.
62. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is quashed. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to re-consider the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
64. AICTE, New Delhi, the approving authority for an engineering college, based on the surprise visit of the institute by the council and the report of the Standing Committee, and after considering the letter dated 30.08.2011, received from the Registrar of Anna University of Technology, Madurai, and taking note of the recommendations of Standing Committee, has issued a show cause notice dated 05.12.2012, to the petitioner college, calling upon them to show cause as to why:
i. It should not be considered that AICTE was misled by the institute by giving manipulated/false information.
ii. It should not be considered as violation of the terms and conditions contained in the letter of approval.
iii. Appropriate actions, including withdrawal of the approval ne not initiated against the institution for non-observance of the terms and conditions of approval as also for misleading the AICTE by it's self disclosure/declaration of false information.
65. The AICTE, New Delhi, has directed the Director/Principal and Secretary/Chairman or any other authorised representative of the Institute/Trust to appear before a duly constituted Standing Complaint Committee to present their case on 11.12.2012, at the AICTE Headquarters, New Delhi, along with their specific reply and relevant supporting documents in original and a xeorx copy pertaining to deficiencies.
66. Thereafter, taking note of the provisions under the AICTE (Grant of Approval for Technical Institutions) Regulations 2012 notified by the Council vide notification number F-No.37-3/Legal/2012 dated 27.09.2012, norms and standards, procedures and conditions prescribed by the Council from time to time, vide order dated 30.04.2013, AICTE, New Delhi, has extended the approval for the petitioner institution, for the academic year 2013-14. Based on the abovesaid letter of approval issued by AICTE, New Delhi, the college has sent a letter dated 02.05.2013 to the Regional Director (In-charge), Anna University, Madurai, to grant provisional affiliation to the college, so as to enable them to take part in the counseling process. The Registrar, Anna University, Madras, has sent a reply in letter dated 09.05.2013, which is extracted hereunder:-
I am to inform that an Inspection Committee will visit your Institution on 13.05.2013 (Monday) to verify the fulfillment of the requirements as per the statutory affiliation norms and standards of Anna University, Chennai, for the programmes to consider the grant of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2013-14. The inspection committee is sent to the college without prejudice to the contentions of the University in the pending writ appeal. The Principal is requested to open the website http://www.annauniv.edu/CAI/Instructions to Principal.html and follow the instructions carefully and to keep all the relevant filled-in details and documents ready to be handed over to the Chairman of the Inspection Committee promptly on arrival.
In addition to the hard copies of individual faculty data sheets with self attested certificates, appointment order and joining report, soft copy details are also to be submitted to the Chairman of the Inspection Committee. Individual faculty data sheet, duly signed by each faculty member should be scanned along with the faculty member's UG/PG/Ph.D certificates and stored in the same file, preferably in the faculty name in pdf format. (Do not scan any appointment order / joining report) In addition, a recent color passport photograph of memory size not exceeding 150kb should be stored as a JPEG file in an unique folder name. Department-wise folders may be created; each containing the scanned pdf document of Department-wise faculty members rand the folders of the individual faculty members of the Department CD(s) containing the Department-wise folders are to be submitted to the Chairman of the Inspection Committee.
Since it will be very difficult to concede to any request for change in the schedule, you are requested to stick to the prescribed schedule and extend your utmost co-operation in this regard.
67. In the above reply, the University has stated that an Inspection Committee would visit the institution on 13.05.2013 to verify the fulfillment of the requirements, as per the statutory affiliation norms and standards of Anna University, Chennai, for the programmes, to consider the grant of provisional affiliation, for the academic year 2013-14. In addition to the above, individual faculty data sheets with self attested certificates, appointment orders and joining report etc, have been sought for and directed to be submitted to the Chairman of the Inspection Committee.
68. By way of reply dated 10.05.2013, the college has contended that the action of the University is in violation of the order of the learned single Judge in W.P(MD)No.9695/2012 dated 21.09.2012. In response to the same, Anna University, Chennai, vide letter dated 11.05.2013 addressed to the college has stated that since the college has applied for affiliation for the academic year 2013-14, it is always open to the University to carry out an inspection, with regard to the compliance of the statutes and that the action of the University is in accordance with the orders of the Hon'ble Court.
69. Material on record shows that a Committee has visited the college on 13.05.2013 and the inspection report, enclosed at page 220 of the typed set of papers is extracted hereunder:-
This is to inform you that the committee members along with Dr.K.Sivakumar, Regional Director, Anna University Regional Centre, Madurai reached Dhaya College of Engineering, Saravakottai, Thirumangalam, Madurai at 10.45 a.m on 13.05.2013. The college was closed and the security ward informed that the college has not been functioning for the past one year. Then two persons namely, Mr.Joseph and Mr.Jayakiran who were inside came out. We informed them that we have come here for inspection from Anna University. They contacted someone and gave the phone number of Mr.Gokulavasan, Administrative Officer (9443163057).
When we contacted Mr.Gokulavasan to inform him about the purpose of our visit, he told us that he came to know about the recent communication from the University (Letter dated 11.05.2013) only today morning and the staff members are on vacation. He also said that he is at Athur (Salem) and the Principal is away at Delhi. He also said that he is not able to do anything on this issued at this point of time.
A photograph was taken with the committee members in front of the locked gate (Copy enclosed) for record purpose.
It is observed from the mere look of the college from outside that the college has not been functioning for some time in the recent past. Because of the above reasons, the committee could not inspect the college as there was no college official available and the gate was closed.
70. Ultimately, vide letter dated 20.05.2013, the request of the college for affiliation for the academic year 2013-14 has been denied. The said letter is impugned in the present writ petition.
71. The objections of the University raised earlier were that the petitioner college has not satisfied the following requirements, as per the AICTE Approval Process Hand Book 2011-12 and obtained approval. Non compliance, pointed out by the Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Madurai, in its letter dated 30.08.2011 addressed to AICTE, New Delhi, to take action for cancellation of approval granted to the college, is as follows:-
i. DTCP approval was not obtained.
ii. Land Conversion certificate was not obtained.
iii. Land Use Certificate was not issued by competent authority iv. General Insurance not provided for assets against fire, burglary and other calamities.
72. Earlier, the Registrar, Anna University has also alleged that approval has been obtained by the college by misleading AICTE, New Delhi, and therefore, the University has sought for initiation of action, for cancellation of approval alleges non fulfillment of the rules and regulations of AICTE. However, the AICTE, after considering the case of the petitioner vide order dated 30.04.2013 has granted extension of approval, for the academic year 2013-
14. While considering the stand of the University and other respondents that they have the power and authority to inspect the college, the Hon'ble single Judge in W.P(MD)No.9695/2012 dated 21.09.2012, has categorically held that under normal circumstances, this court would have directed the petitioner to co- operate with the respondents, for carrying out an inspection, in the best interest of education and welfare of the students, in view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit. The Hon'ble Judge in the order made in W.P(MD)No.9695/2012 dated 21.09.2012 has also made it clear that any such direction for inspection, would go contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench, passed in the earlier proceedings, between the same parties, thus making it manifestly clear that the respondents have no jurisdiction to inspect the college once again, except to the extent of verification of rectification of the three defects pointed out earlier.
73. At this juncture, this Court at the risk of repetition is inclined to reproduce paragraphs 37, 38, 42 and 43 of the Hon'ble Division Bench made in M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 09.05.2012, which are as follows:-
37. It is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner University that since the order dated 20.12.2011 made in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011 also granted liberty to the petitioner University to consider the application for affiliation as per the provisions of the statutes, they are entitled to reconsider the issue afresh.
38. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said submission lacks merit.
42. The petitioner University wants to interpret the order passed in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011 by submitting that apart from the directions given in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011, they have been granted liberty to consider the reply dated 25.07.2011 as per the provisions of the statutes and therefore, they are entitled to inspect all the facilities as per the norms of the Anna University of Technology, Madurai.
43. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an interpretation is not in consonance with the orders passed in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 as well as in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011.
74. Again, at paragraph 47, the Hon'ble Division Bench after paragraph 5 of the order dated 20.12.2011 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 has made it clear that, it is not open to the University to inspect all the facilities available in the college and further held that the University can inspect the respondent college, in the light of the reply dated 25.07.2011 only, and therefore, it is not open to the University to harp on the usage of the words ''on merits and based on the statues'' and still contend that they can conduct any number of inspections, again and again, de hors the specific directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench.
75. It is also pertinent to note that after the University had lost its Appeal in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.17760 and 17761/2012, against the orders made in M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 09.05.2012, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench has categorically held that the interpretation of the University to conduct fresh inspection with reference to the statutes of the University for grant of affiliation lacks merit and that it is not in consonance with the orders passed in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011, and W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 20.12.2011 and when the University itself, by its letter dated 30.05.2012 has also made it clear that the University had organised a Committee to verify the compliance of the three deficiencies and that a team would be visiting the institution shortly, it is not open to the University to intentionally and deliberately misinterpret the judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench made in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011, and W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 20.12.2011. In the letter dated 30.05.2012, reference has been made to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.17760 and 17761/2012 dated 30.05.2012 and the University has categorically admitted that the Inspection Committee would inspect compliance of the three deficiencies alone. But quite contrary to the abovesaid letter which has been issued, without considering the judgment of the Supreme Court, the University has once again gone back and reiterated that they have all the authority, to inspect the college afresh, in terms of the statute of the University and norms for affiliation.
76. It is to be noted that knowing fully well that all the objections raised in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 20.12.2011 and the contentions raised in the Miscellaneous Petitions in M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 09.05.2012 have been rejected, the University in its letter dated 30.05.2012 has restricted its inspection only to the verification of the compliance of three defects and not otherwise. Repeatedly, on more than one occasions, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court have made a categorical pronouncement that the University cannot go beyond the directions of the judgments in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011, and W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 20.12.2011 i.e., to inspect the college only with reference to the defects pointed out by the University.
77. Thus it is evident from the letter dated 30.05.2012 that at one stage, the Registrar, Anna University, has admitted that inspection would be made only with reference to the compliance of three deficiencies. Thereafter, quite contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment, confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the University has gone back to square one and that the said authority seemed to have inspected the college to verify the fulfillment of the requirements, as per the statutory affiliation norms and standards of the University to consider the grant of provisional affiliation, for the academic year 2013-14. By observing that the gate is closed and that there was no co-operation, the University has denied affiliation for the academic year 2013-14.
78. It is well settled that without any affiliation, no college can function and admit students and therefore, the observation of the Inspection Committee that, in the recent past, from the mere look of the college from outside, it was not functional, even taking it for granted is extraneous and it is an irrelevant consideration for denying affiliation for the academic year 2013-14. The fact that without affiliation, admission cannot be made to any engineering courses, approved by AICTE, New Delhi, cannot be disputed and the Inspection Committee cannot feign ignorance of the same. All the members of the Inspection Committee particularly, the Regional Officer, AICTE Souther Regional Office, Chennai, and others, cannot expect the college to admit any students without affiliation and functional. Certainly, one cannot also expect the faculty to be present in the college without students. When admission to the engineering courses have been denied for the academic years 2011-12, 2012-13 respectively, and when the college has filed writ petitions one after another, every year, for provisional affiliation to admit students, this court fails to understand as to how the inspection committee could expect the college to be functional. Therefore, the observation of the Inspection Committee that it was not functional is wholly irrelevant for consideration, for grant of provisional affiliation to the petitioner college, for the academic year 2013-14.
79. It could be seen from the letter of AICTE dated 30.04.2013, extending approval for the academic year 2013-14, the AICTE, New Delhi, (Grant of Approval for Technical Institutions), has taken note of the Regulations 2012 notified by the Council vide notification number F-No.37-3/Legal/2012 dated 27.09.2012 and norms and standards, procedures and conditions prescribed by the Council from time to time, for approval for the academic year 2013-14, de hors the complaint of Anna University of Technology in its letter dated 30.08.2011, pointing out certain alleged violations and non submissions of various documents, including the Stability Certificate and only after considering the case of the college, the AICTE, New Delhi, has granted extension of approval.
80. From the reading of the show cause notice dated 05.12.2012, issued by AICTE, New Delhi, it could be deduced that the show cause notice has been issued solely based on the letter of Anna University of Technology, Madurai, and a copy of the said letter of the Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Madurai, has also been enclosed along with the show cause notice. The allegations of misleading AICTE, New Delhi, by self disclosure/declaration of alleged false information by the petitioner college, has been disallowed and thereafter, extension of approval for the academic year 2013-14 has been granted.
81. Though the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the University is empowered to seek for the data regarding the staff structure, after the change of Principal and others and also other particulars, as per the statute norms fixed for affiliation and on failure to furnish the same, the University is empowered to reject the request for affiliation, this court is not inclined to accept the said submission, as the Hon'ble Division Bench, on more than one occasions, has held that the University can only verify only the compliance of three deficiencies said to have been rectified. When the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court has clarified stating that the reply of the college dated 25.07.2011 alone has to be considered as per the statutes and provisions, the University can only consider the said reply with reference to the statutory requirement of books, cafeteria and transportation facility, and not any other matter. The interpretation of the University as to the direction of the Hon'ble Bench that it "means and includes" all other factors as per the statutes of the University, has been categorically held as misinterpretation and lacks merit. The said order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
82. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to recollect that when the contentions have been raised regarding the physical features of the college and staff structure, this court at the earliest point of time in W.P(MD)No.8354/2011 dated 01.08.2011 disallowed the same and directed the University to confine only to the three deficiencies, which judgement came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Bench in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011 with the only modification of the judgement in W.P(MD)No.8354/2011 dated 01.08.2011. Therefore, under the guise of verifying the staff structure and other details, as per the norms of the University for affiliation, the University cannot again and again insist on the same grounds, already rejected by this court. That is why even the learned single Judge in W.P(MD)No.9695/2012 dated 21.09.2012 has not granted any direction to the University to once again make any inspection beyond the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench and did not direct the college to co- operate with the University for carrying out any inspection, as it has been clearly observed that any such direction, would run contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
83. It is thus manifestly clear that despite the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the respondents, particularly, the University is bent upon denying provisional affiliation on one ground or the other, which act, in the opinion of this court is mala fide. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the action of the University is nothing but an attempt to make mockery of the orders of this court as well as the Supreme Court is well founded. The University is beating around the bush and just before the commencement of the academic year, the University is either attempting to fish out new reasons or advance the very same grounds, found adversely against them.
84. From the cheaquered history and sequence of events that from 2011 onwards, just prior to the commencement of the counselling process, the University under the guise of exercising powers of inspection and verification, as per the affiliation norms, and for one reason or other, has rejected the request for provisional affiliation.
85. Anna University actuated by malice and abuse of process of law is bent upon, not to grant affiliation, de hors the specific directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench that it cannot go beyond the orders made in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011. The contention of the respondents that incorporation of the words, "in accordance with law and based on its own statutes" in the order made in W.A(MD)No.740/2011 dated 09.08.2011 and W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 20.12.2011 gives them power to inspect other aspects also, with due respect, runs contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.17760 and 17761/2012 dated 09.05.2011, which has confirmed the order made in M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A(MD)No.1517/2011 dated 09.05.2012. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that a public interest litigation in W.P(MD)No.8876/2011 is pending alleging violations against the college and therefore affiliation cannot be granted also cannot be countenanced, for the reason that, having taken note of the very same objections, this Court in W.P(MD)No.9667/2011 dated 21.10.2011 has directed the University to consider only the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.740/2011, with regard to the deficiencies stated to have been rectified and that subsequently the same objections have been raised in the latter proceedings between the parties.
86. The further contention of the Learned Additional Advocate General that a Writ Appeal filed by the University is pending consideration against the decision in W.P(MD)No.9695/2012 dated 21.09.2012 and therefore, this court can await the decision in the appeal also cannot be countenanced, as the rejection of affiliation for the academic year 2013-14 gives a cause of action to the college to challenge the order in a separate writ petition.
87. Therefore, this court is of the view that once the University has suffered adverse orders, which were ultimately confirmed by the Apex Court, it is incumbent on their part to respect the orders of this court, as well as the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which in the opinion of this court is conspicuously absent. Considering the totality of the case, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2013 and issue a Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant provisional affiliation to M/s.Dhaya College of Engineering, Madurai District, forthwith, for the academic year 2013-14 and allot the counseling code, so as to enable the college to participate in the counseling and admit students in the five Engineering Programmes namely, Viz.,
1)Civil Engineering, 2)Computer Science Engineering, 3)Electrical and Electronics Engineering, 4)Electronics and Communication Engineering and
5)Mechanical Engineering, under the management seats.
88. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the Registrar, Anna University, Madras, to the petitioner's college. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
nb2 To
1) The Secretary to Government Higher Education Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009
2) The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai-32.
3) The Anna University, Chennai-600 025.
Rep. by its Registrar.
4) The Centre for Affiliation of Institutions, The Anna University, Chennai-600 025, Rep. by its Director.
6) The Registrar, The Anna University of Technology, Madurai, Madurai-625 002.
7) Dr.S.Sivanesan, The Registrar i\c The Anna University, Chennai-600 025.