Patna High Court
Smile A Registered Society Of Its Head ... vs The Union Of India & Ors on 6 November, 2015
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6391 of 2015
===========================================================
1. Smile A Registered Society Of Its Head Office 302 Maya Enclave, Road No.10
Patel Nagar, Patna - 20 through its Secretary Sri Amit Kumar.
2. Amit Kumar. S/o Vinod Kumar Singh, 302 Maya Enclave, Road No.10 Patel
Nagar, Patna - 20.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi - 3.
3. Northern Regional Officer, All India Council for Technical Education, Kanpur.
4. Standing Appellate Committee, New Delhi through its Chairman.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. M. M. Sina (For A.I.C.T.E.)
Mr. Tuhin Shankar
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 06-11-2015
***************
06.11.2015 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner
and counsel representing the A.I.C.T.E.
Petitioner is a registered society, which has
set up a technical institution in a village called Sirsa
Biren at Lalganj, in the district of Vaishal. The aim and
object for the society is to set up a polytechnic institution
and in this regard, they have taken various steps to put
up the infrastructure and facilities.
As mandated under law since the approval of
A.I.C.T.E. is required to be taken for recognition before
affiliation, in the proper format an application was filed
Patna High Court CWJC No.6391 of 2015 dt.06-11-2015
2/4
before the authorities of A.I.C.T.E. From time to time
certain inadequacies were pointed out and the petitioner
removed those inadequacies and shortfall, as would be
evident from the various annexures, annexed with the
writ application. Still the respondent-authorities were not
willing to grant recognition and permission, therefore, the
matter traveled before the Standing Appellate
Committee. The order of the Appellate Committee is
dated 13.04.2015 and annexed as Annexure-1.
Petitioner wants quashing of Annexure-1 as well as the
direction on this count upon the respondents.
From perusal of Annexure-8, it is evident that
eight issues arose before the Appellate Committee. Out
of the eight issues, Issue Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 does not
remain an issue because documents in this regard
submitted by the petitioner have been accepted by the
Committee.
However, they have raised certain objections
with regard to Issue No. 3, where they feel that the
document submitted do not match with the survey
numbers of the land and whether it is contiguous or not.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner
through the evidence, contained in Annexure-6,
demonstrated that there is a certificate of the revenue
Patna High Court CWJC No.6391 of 2015 dt.06-11-2015
3/4
authorities and that should be accepted as final
certification in this regard. They are willing to satisfy the
authorities on any misgivings, provided opportunity is
given to the petitioner or its representative to explain
things.
So far as Issue No. 4 is concerned, it is
certified that since the institution is coming up in a
village, where there are no municipal laws and building
bye-laws, which are in operation, therefore, Issue No. 4
should be ignored.
So far as Issue No. 5, i.e., the certification of
an Advocate is concerned, it is not evident as to what is
not proper, because the format, which has been utilized
for certification, obviously, there is some minor defect,
which has been noticed by the Committee, the same is
noticeable by the Court, as such. Therefore, even this
aspect can be looked into and removed, provided an
opportunity is given by the Appellate Committee.
Issue No. 8 is similar to Issue No. 4, since
there is no municipal law applicable to that area. Any
details or certification with regard to FSI or FAR are not
required.
In view of the above observations, the
impugned order, contained in Annexure-1, dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.6391 of 2015 dt.06-11-2015
4/4
13.04.2015stands quashed. Matter is remanded back for reconsideration. The Committee is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner will ensure that the shortfalls, which are minor in nature, if at all, should be taken care of, so that an early decision on the issue of recognition and permission can be taken and the petitioner can draw advantage of taking admission and running the institution before the next academic year begins.
The Committee would be well advised to take an early decision by fixing a date with due communication to the petitioner for him to respond.
The writ application stands allowed in terms of above.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) SKM/-
U