Jharkhand High Court
Nilai Educational Trust Through Its ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 1 October, 2015
Equivalent citations: AIR 2016 (NOC) 239 (JHAR.), 2016 (1) AJR 78, (2016) 1 JCR 373 (JHA), (2016) 1 JLJR 293
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 1545 of 2015
Nilai Educational Trust, a Trust Registered under the Indian Trust
Registration Act through its President Bhim Munda, son of Late
Shiv Charan Munda, resident of opposite Nath Hospital, Main
Road, Kadru, P.O. Kadru, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. All India Council for Technical Education, a Statutory Body of
the Government of India having its office at 7th Floor, Chandralok
Building, Janpath, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S. Janpath, DistrictNew
Delhi
2. Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor,
Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi P.O. &. P.S. Janpath,
District New Delhi
3. Principal Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education,
7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi P.O. & P.S.
Janpath, District New Delhi
4. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Science &
Technology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
Mr. S.B. Deo, Advocate
For RespondentState : Mr. Ajit Kumar, AAG
Ms. Soumya S. Pandey, J.C. to AAG
For RespondentAICTE : Mr. J.P. Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For the Intervenor : Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
CAV on: 11.09.2015 Pronounced on : 01.10.2015
Per SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
The petitionerNilai Educational Trust was granted
approval on 13.07.2010 for establishing Nilai Educational Trust's
Group of Institutes for running Engineering and Management
courses. The petitioner is aggrieved by letters dated 07.04.2015
and 14.04.2015 whereby, approval dated 13.07.2010 has been
withdrawn.
2
2. The brief facts of the case are that, M/s Dreams
Consultant Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 19.03.2003 under the
Companies Act, 1956 with the objective to setup technical
educational institute in the State of Jharkhand. The Company
approached Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited
(HUDCO) for grant of loan for construction of Nilai International
College at Burmu, Ranchi. The estimated project cost was
Rs.39.96 crores for which, loan agreement dated 05.11.2007 for
Rs.25 crores was executed between M/s. Dreams Consultant Pvt.
Ltd. and HUDCO. The Company mortgaged 11.985 acres land
with HUDCO as security against the above loan by depositing title
deeds of the land. However, the franchise for Nilai International
University could not be obtained and, subsequently with a view to
seek approval of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
for establishing Nilai Educational Trust's Group of Institutes, Nilai
Educational Trust was formed under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 on
04.09.2008. M/s Dream Merchants Consultant Pvt. Ltd.
transferred 7 acres and 79½ decimals land situated at villageDandi, Burmu to Nilai Educational Trust through saledeed dated 22.12.2008. However, in view of objection raised by HUDCO, vide deed of cancellation dated 25.05.2009 the said saledeed executed in favour of Nilai Educational Trust was cancelled. On 21.01.2010, the Nilai Educational Trust submitted affidavit in prescribed format for grant of affiliation for establishing an integrated campus for running various Engineering and Management courses. The AICTE team made inspections and considering inspection reports dated 21.05.2010 and 21.06.2010, AICTE granted approval on 13.07.2010 for running various courses with intake of 300 students. In the meantime, HUDCO stopped further disbursement of loan and, on 30.08.2009 declared the loan account as NPA. Though, the repayment of loan was to begin from 31.08.2009 HUDCO filed O.A. No. 121 of 2010 before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi for recovery of the loan amount.
3For the academic sessions between 2011 to 2015, the approval granted to the Nilai Educational Trust's Group of Institutes was renewed by AICTE. On 08.08.2014 HUDCO sent a letter to AICTE regarding saledeed dated 22.12.2008 and deed of cancellation dated 25.05.2009 and, the AICTE issued showcause notice dated 23.09.2014 to the petitioner on the allegation of furnishing false affidavit and sought explanation with respect to the aforesaid saledeed and the deed of cancellation. The petitioner submitted its reply on 07.10.2014 however, vide order dated 07.04.2015, AICTE refused to grant extension of approval to the petitioner's Institute, which was challenged by filing writ petition on 15.04.2015. On 14.04.2015, approval to the petitioner's Institute was completely withdrawn by AICTE and therefore, an application seeking permission to challenge order dated 14.04.2015 was filed vide, I.A. No. 3285 of 2015. The said application was allowed vide, order dated 16.07.2015.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Mr. Jitendra Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has raised threefold contentions namely, (i) impugned order dated 14.04.2015 is not an order by the Council constituted under Section 3 of the AICTE Act, and therefore, it is without jurisdiction, (ii) order dated 14.04.2015 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus, it has been passed in gross violation of the rules of natural justice and, (iii) the role of AICTE is supervisory and acting on the communication from HUDCO, AICTE cannot withdraw approval dated 13.07.2010. Per contra, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned counsel for the AICTE submitted that possession of land with clear title is a precondition for grant of approval. The petitioner was not possessing 4.5 acres land for Integrated Campus for running Engineering and Management courses as required under the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions), Regulations, 2010 however, it submitted 4 an affidavit asserting that it possessed 11.985 acres land and thus, made a false statement for obtaining AICTE approval for running various courses. It is submitted that the petitioner is bound by its own affidavit whereunder, it has undertaken to abide by decision of the AICTE including, withdrawal of approval. It is further submitted that even if the plea taken by the petitioner that it possesses more than 2.52 acres land is accepted as true, it cannot be pleaded as a ground to revalidate approval granted by the AICTE on 13.07.2010. Denying the allegation of violation of rules of natural justice, it is contended that the petitioner was granted personal hearing before the Standing Appellate Committee and thus, it cannot plead ignorance of nature of allegation and the consequences thereof.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. Before dealing with the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, some of the relevant provisions in the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010, may usefully be noticed.
All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010 Clause 2.8 "Council" means All India Council for Technical Education established under section 3 of the Act;
Clause 4.1(a) "Establishing a new technical institution, establishing an integrated campus."
Clause 4.3 "The Council shall publish, from time to time, Approval Process Hand Book, detailing the procedure to process the applications of institutions and/or promoters."
Clause 4.11 "The Scrutiny Committee shall invite applicants, who submitted the application under subclause (a), (b) and (c) of clause 4.1 for presentation of their proposals along with originals of all scanned 5 documents and a video CD of all facilities created for new Institutions as the case may be. As regards the other applications listed at 4.1 and 4.2 the Scrutiny Committee will process the proposals based on the information/documents provided by the applicant."
Clause 4.20 "Further, based on the decision of the Executive Committee, Letter of Approval for specified period or rejection letter shall be issued by the designated authority of the AICTE."
Clause 4.22 "The applications received under clause 4.1 and 4.2 of these Regulations will be processed as per the procedures prescribed in the Approval Process Hand Book as notified by the Council from time to time."
6. The Preamble to the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 discloses that the Act is intended at conferring powers to the All India Council for Technical Education to ensure; (i) proper planning and coordinated development of the technical education system through out the country,
(ii) promotion of qualitative improvements of technical education in relation to planned qualitative growth and, (iii) regulation of the system and proper maintenance of norms and standards. Section 10 deals with functions of the Council. One of the functions of the All India Council for Technical Education is to grant approval for starting new technical institutes and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned. Section 23 confers power upon the Council to make regulations. In exercise of its powers conferred under Section 23(1) read with Section 10 and Section 11 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, the Council has framed "All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals of Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010". Referring to definition under Section 2(b) of AICTE Act, 1987 and Clause 2.8 of 2010 Regulations, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 14.04.2015 is without jurisdiction in as much as, the said order has been issued 6 under the signature of AdvisorII, Approval Bureau. It is submitted that the Council is established under Section 3 and Section 3(4) provides constitution of the Council which includes 27 members besides, the Chairman and ViceChairman. The impugned order dated 14.04.2015 does not refer to a decision by the Council constituted under Section 3 of the Act and therefore, the order dated 14.04.2015 withdrawing approval to Nilai Educational Trust Group of Institutions is without jurisdiction.
7. It is not in dispute that the Council has constituted several committees including, the Scrutiny Committee, Hearing Committee, Executive Committee, Appraisal Committee, Expert Committee, EC subCommittee, Standing Appellate Committee etc. for proper and effective functioning of the Council at different levels. The proposal for grant of approval submitted by Nilai Educational Trust was examined by Scrutiny Committee and, on the recommendations of Regional Committee and Executive Committee, approval was granted by AICTE. After a complaint was received from HUDCO, a showcause notice dated 23.09.2014 was issued to the petitioner by the Scrutiny Committee and the complaint dated 08.08.2014 of HUDCO was placed before the Standing Complaint Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner's reply to the showcause notice, search report, report of SubDivisional Magistrate etc. were placed before the Standing Appellate Committee which recommended complete withdrawal of approval and accordingly, impugned letter dated 14.04.2015 was issued under the signature of Advisor II, Approval Bureau. The letter dated 14.04.2015 records that the decision to withdraw approval granted to the institute has the approval of the competent authority. It is evident that in view of large number of technical institutes different Committees have been constituted and, on the recommendation of the Committees, a final decision is taken by the competent authority. The contention that every decision of the Council must be taken by all the members constituting the 7 Council under Section 3 or atleast by a majority of the members cannot be accepted for the reason that such a construction would surely defeat the very object for constituting different Committees. In fact, letter of approval dated 13.07.2010 was also issued by the MemberSecretary, AICTE.
8. Assailing the showcause notice dated 23.09.2014 as vague and alleging breach of the rules of natural justice, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the showcause notice does not disclose the proposed action to be taken by the Council. The impugned order dated 14.04.2015 is founded on the ground that the petitioner intended to defraud however, no such allegation was revealed in the showcause notice. It is thus submitted that the impugned order dated 14.04.2015 travels beyond the showcause notice. It is further contended that the decision of the Standing Appellate Committee was not conveyed to the petitioner and thus, the petitioner had no opportunity to meet the adverse findings recorded by the Standing Appellate Committee. Had the recommendation of the Standing Appellate Committee been made known to the petitioner, the petitioner could have demonstrated that the constitution of M/s Dreams Consultant Private Limited and the Nilai Educational Trust is identical and comprises only the family members. It could have also been demonstrated by the petitioner that as per 2012 Regulations, only 2.5 acres land is required for establishing institute for Engineering courses and the petitioner is in fact, in possession of unencumbered 2.52½ acres land. Referring to the decision in "Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.", reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fundamental purpose behind the serving of showcause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case setup against him which he has to meet. The notice should also indicate the proposed action which may be taken if the breach complained of 8 is not satisfactorily explained. It is contended that complete withdrawal of approval as a penalty for the alleged breach was not indicated in the showcause noticed dated 23.09.2014 and therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order dated 14.04.2015 is liable to be quashed. Referring to averments in paragraph nos. 50, 56 and 58 of the amended writ petition, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the specific stand taken by the petitioner that the recommendation of the Standing Appellate Committee based on a presumption that the petitionerTrust intended to defraud HUDCO was not specifically put to the petitioner in the showcause notice dated 23.09.2014, has not been specifically denied by the respondentAICTE. Relying on decision in "Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.", (2001) 6 SCC 260, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that what was not communicated in the showcause notice cannot be a ground for the order withdrawing the approval. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the bonafide intention of the petitioner is reflected in its conduct in proposing to offer additional 2.52½ acres land which is in its possession and which is the requirement for establishing Engineering courses. Referring to deficiency report, it is submitted that the petitioner's institutes have state of the art facilities and the deficiency report discloses that only 2.50 acres land is required for establishing institute for running Engineering courses and therefore, on a technical ground approval granted to the petitioner's institutes could not have been withdrawn.
9. In the counteraffidavit, the respondentAICTE has taken a plea that showcause notice dated 23.09.2014 was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted its reply on 07.10.2014. The Standing Appellate Committee afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and its Director (Admin) and Administrative Officer appeared before the Standing 9 Appellate Committee. The respondentAICTE has asserted that due opportunity of hearing was thus, given to the petitioner. The report produced before the Standing Appellate Committee reproduces the reply submitted by the petitioner. It records the contention of the Nilai Educational Trust that the land on which the institute is setup is owned by Nilai Educational Trust and the Trust is the owner and in physical possession of the said land. It appears that report dated 18.09.2014 was received from the Standing Appellate Scrutiny Committee which recommended for a search report for the land and accordingly, report of the SubDivisional Magistrate was received which was placed before the Standing Appellate Committee. In the above facts, the plea taken by the petitioner that had it been granted opportunity of hearing before the impugned order dated 14.04.2015 was passed, it could have demonstrated that it owns and possesses 2.52½ acres land which is more than the requirement under the 2012 Regulations, is liable to be rejected. The petitioner was afforded personal hearing before the Standing Appellate Committee and the search report as well as the report of SubDivisional Magistrate regarding the land were placed before the Standing Appellate Committee. Considering the materials on record, the Standing Appellate Committee recommended withdrawal of approval to the petitioner's institutes. It is well settled that the application of principles of natural justice cannot be confined in a straight jacket formula. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, "it is not only difficult but also not advisable to spell out any straight jacket formula which can be applied universally to all cases without variation." In "K.L. Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.", reported in (1984) 1 SCC 43, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "..............there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules 10 under which the tribunal is acting, the subjectmatter to be dealt with, and so forth." In "Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan", reported in (2000) 7 SCC 529, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking note of "K.L. Tripathi" case observed that, "since then, this Court has consistently applied the principle of prejudice in several cases." It was further observed that, "there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be setaside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example, where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary." Thus, the person aggrieved has to show prejudice caused to him. The factum of execution of saledeed dated 22.12.2008 and its cancellation have not been disputed by the petitioner. The impugned order is in terms of Clause 10 and, the petitioner cannot contend prejudice caused to it. Under the 2010 Approval Process Handbook for setting up institute for Engineering courses the applicant must have 4.00 acres land with clear title and for starting MBA course it must possess 0.50 acres land. The petitioner claims that in addition to 11.985 acres land which has been mortgaged to HUDCO, it possesses 2.52½ acres land which fulfills the requirement for running Engineering courses. The same however, cannot cure the initial defect in the application dated 21.01.2010 seeking grant of approval. The petitioner may apply afresh for grant of approval for Engineering courses but on the ground that it still possesses 2.52½ acres land, the approval granted on 13.07.2010 cannot be revalidated. In so far as, the contention that the showcause notice was vague and the proposed action was not indicated in the showcause notice is concerned, in view of Clause 10 of the 2010 Regulations, the petitioner must be deemed to have knowledge of the penalty mentioned in Clause 10. One of the penalties is withdrawal of approval. Clause 10 and Clause 11 of 2010 Regulations read as under:
11Clause 10. "Withdrawal of approval: If any technical institution contravenes any of the provisions of these Regulations, the Council may, after making such inquiry, as it may consider appropriate and after giving the technical institution concerned as opportunity of being heard, withdraw the approval granted under these Regulations."
Clause 11. Penalty Clause 11.1 "An institution running any technical education in violation of these Regulations, shall be liable for initiation of legal civil action including withdrawal of approval, if any, and/or legal criminal action by the Council against the institution and/or its promoter Society/Trust and Individuals associated as the case may be.
Provided further that if any technical institution contravenes any of the provisions of these Regulations, the Council after making such inquiry as it may consider appropriate and after giving technical institution concerned, an opportunity to clarify the matter, may take any or all actions as specified below and as the case may be."
10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted application on 21.01.2010 and it submitted advocate's affidavit on 28.06.2010 stating that it is in possession of 11.985 acres land whereas, as a matter of fact, it has been found that as on 13.07.2010 the petitioner was not in possession of 4.50 acres land. Under Clause 6, possession of land with clear ownership title is one of the essential conditions for grant of approval for establishing a technical institute. Clause 6 reads as under:
Clause 6. "Requirement of Land: The promoter society/trust of a new technical education institution shall have the land as required and prescribed, in its lawful possession, with clear title, in the name of the promoter society/trust on or before the date of submission of application.
Provided, that it shall be open for the promoter society/trust/proposed institution to mortgage the land for raising the resources for the purpose of development of the technical education institute situated on that land."12
11. In "Gorkha Security Services" case, it has been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there was no dispute between the parties on the proposition that it was a mandatory requirement to give showcause notice before blacklisting. It was also not disputed that the showcause notice issued did not specifically indicate the proposed order of blacklisting and, admittedly, no hearing was afforded to the aggrieved party. In the above facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that a showcause notice should state the material facts and the grounds which necessitated an action and the proposed action/penalty to be taken. I find that in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that even if the aforesaid two conditions are not specifically mentioned in the showcause notice but if it can clearly and safely discern from the reading thereof that would be sufficient to meeting the requirement of principles of natural justice. In my opinion, a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner would have been futile in as much as, in the present proceeding the petitioner has not disclosed a fact which would have materially affected the decision of the Standing Appellate Committee. The plea taken by the petitioner in its reply to showcause has been duly considered by the Standing Appellate Committee and the petitioner was granted hearing by the Standing Appellate Committee. Based on the recommendation of the Standing Appellate Committee, the Council took a decision to withdraw approval granted to the institutes of the petitioner which was communicated vide letter dated 14.04.2015.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondentAICTE admits that the Trust is more or less a family affair of which M/s Dreams Consultant Private Limited is one of the Trustees and therefore, it was merely a technical error committed by M/s Dreams Consultant Private Limited and, all that should have been done was to transfer the shares of M/s Dreams Consultant Private Limited to Nilai 13 Educational Trust. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act and submitted that Trust is an obligation and the individual Trustees have no independent interest in the Trust. I find that in its reply dated 07.10.2014, the petitioner has asserted that, "11.985 acres land was inherited by Nilai Educational Trust from M/s Dreams Consultant Private Limited through registered saledeed dated 22.12.2008 however, at the time of purchase of the said land the Trust was not aware with regard to the loan taken by M/s Dreams Consultant Private Limited from HUDCO". The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that the Board of Directors of M/s Dreams Consultant Private Limited and the Trustees in Nilai Educational Trust are same may be a fact however, the plea as noticed above, taken by the petitioner was apparently false. The petitioner asserted that Nilai Educational Trust is the owner of the land and it is in physical possession of the said land whereas, as a matter of fact, saledeed dated 22.12.2008 executed by M/s Dreams Consultant Private Limited was cancelled on 25.05.2009. It is not in dispute that on the date when the petitioner submitted application for grant of approval, it was not in possession of the aforesaid land. In these facts whether the petitioner intended to defraud HUDCO or not becomes irrelevant.
The fact that the petitioner did not fulfill one of the essential criteria for grant of approval, is sufficient to reject the challenge to the impugned order dated 14.04.2015. The petitioner cannot claim that it was misled because neither the specific allegations nor the proposed penalty of withdrawal of recognition was specifically put to it.
13. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to Clause 9 of 2010 Regulations and submitted that the Council should have relaxed condition as to requirement of land for a temporary period. Referring to application dated 20.06.2015 submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner seeking 14 permission under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the necessary approval is granted by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitionerTrust would have clear title over 2.52½ acres land which is the requirement under the present Regulations for establishing technical institute for running Engineering courses. This contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Clause 9 of the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010 reads as under:
Clause 9 "Power to relax: The Council may in exceptional cases, for removal of any hardship or such other reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these Regulation in respect of any class or category of institutions."
14. The aforesaid provision is intended to be exercised in exceptional cases for removing such hardship which may not be avoided by a class of institutes immediately. The power to relax under Clause 9 cannot be exercised in individual cases rather, any of the provisions of the Regulations can be relaxed only in respect of a class or a category of institutions. The petitionerTrust has breached one of the mandatory conditions for grant of approval for establishing technical institute. The petitionerTrust was not in possession of 4.5 acres land which was the requirement at the time when application for grant of approval was made and also as on 13.07.2010 when AICTE granted approval to the petitionerTrust for establishing Nilai Educational Trust's Group of Institutes. The power to relax under Clause 9 cannot be exercised in these circumstances.
15. It is contented that the Regulations made under Section 23 of the AICTE Act are required to be laid before the Parliament under Section 24 however, the All India Council for Technical Education Approval Process Hand Book, 2010 was not laid before the Parliament and thus, it has no statutory force.
15It is thus, submitted that prohibition for mortgage of the land is contrary to Clause 6 of 2010 Regulations and it cannot be relied upon. Clause 4.2 under ChapterI is extracted below:
All India Council for Technical Education Approval Process Handbook, 2010 ChapterI Clause 4.2. "The applicants fulfilling the following conditions on or before the last date prescribed for receipt of application by the Council shall be eligible to apply:
1. The applicant is a Society/Trust, should have been registered under the Societies Registration Act, the Trusts Act or any similar Act.
2. The land should have been registered in the name of the applicant Society/Trust on or before the date of submission of Application.
The land as required for the setting up of a new Technical Institution shall have a clear title at the time of making an application. However, the same may be mortgaged at a later date for the purpose of raising finances for development of the same Technical Institution. An affidavit in the format prescribed on the web portal, shall be submitted along with the application form.
3. Land use certificate should have been obtained from the Competent Authority as designated by concerned State Government/UT.
4. Land conversion certificate should have been obtained from the Competent Authority as designated by concerned State Government/UT".
16. Clause 6 of 2010 Regulations permits the proposed institution to mortgage the land for raising the resources for the purpose of development of the technical education institute situated on that land. Clause 4.2 of 2010 of Handbook also postulates mortgage of the land by the institute however, only after grant of approval. Clause 4.2 under ChapterI of 2010 Approval Process Handbook thus, does not depart from the requirement under Clause 6 of 2010 Regulations. It cannot be said 16 to be overriding the provision under Clause 6. Clause 4.2 under ChapterI of 2010 Approval Process Handbook is only a reiteration of the 2010 Regulations.
17. Relying on decision in "Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors." (2013) 8 SCC 271, it is contended that AICTE has limited power for the purpose of ensuring proper maintenance of norms and standards in technical education system and it has no control over the affiliated colleges including, the private aided and unaided colleges and thus, nonfulfillment of requirement as to land cannot invite withdrawal of approval. I find that in "Association of Management of Private Colleges" case it was not in dispute that the AICTE Regulation were made applicable to professional colleges from Academic Year, 1994 and there was no provision for regulating existing Arts and Science colleges which were running MCA courses. A contention was raised that as the MCA courses which were run by the colleges do not fall under the definition of "technical education" under Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act, it was ultravires the Act. Noticing the independent powers of the UGC and the AICTE, it was held that AICTE is not an authority either the superior or to supervise or control the universities and thereby, to superimpose itself upon the universities which are regulated under the UGC Act, 1956. It was held that role of AICTE visavis universities is limited to the purpose of ensuring proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system so as to conforms to standards laid down and that AICTE has no further or direct control over the universities and there was no scope for any direct action except, bringing the violations to the notice of the UGC. The said decision has no application in the present case.
18. An application for intervention being I.A. No. 4288 of 2015 has been filed by the students of Nilai Educational Trust's 17 Group of Institutes seeking a direction upon the respodnentAICTE to permit the students to continue their courses till the existing students complete their courses in the institute. It is contended that the petitioner's institute is one of the best technical institute and the students are paying less fee in comparison to other institutes. The other two technical institutes namely, CIT, Tatisilwai and RTC Anandi which are offering similar courses are running at their full capacity and they do not have adequate infrastructure to accommodate extra students. A comparative chart of infrastructural facilities in the petitioner's institute and the above named two institutes has been prepared to contend that if the students are transferred to those two institutes, they would suffer on account of poor infrastructure and education and it would severely affect their career prospects. It is contended that dislocation is a drastic measure which should be adopted only in cases where the Council cannot relax the Regulations. Referring to a decision in "Mahatma Education Society's Pillai's Institute of Information Technology, Engineering, Media Studies & Research Vs. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) & Ors." [W.P.(C) No. 6021 of 2014], the learned counsel for the intervenors contended that the decision by the AICTE to transfer the existing students to other institutes would definitely cause injustice and hardship to the students.
19. Regulations framed under the AICTE Act provide that the students of an AICTE approved institutes, if the approval to the institute is withdrawn, would be transferred to another AICTE approved institute/institutes. This provision has been incorporated to safeguard the interest of the students so that, the students continue their studies. Though, a student may have a right to continue study in the institute where he has taken admission however, the student cannot insist that he must be permitted to continue and complete his course from an institute whose recognition has been withdrawn by the AICTE. The 18 hardship which may be caused to the students cannot be a ground to permit the institute to run its courses inspite of withdrawal of recognition by the AICTE. Considering the fact that AICTE has withdrawn recognition granted to Nilai Educational Trust's Group of Institutes, the prayer of the intervenors cannot be granted. In the present proceeding, the AICTE took a stand that once approval is withdrawn by the AICTE, it is the responsibility of the State Government to transfer the existing students to other institutes. The State of Jharkhand has filed an affidavit asserting that except order dated 14.04.2015, it did not receive any communication from the AICTE regarding transfer of the existing students to other institutes. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned AAG contended that it is for the AICTE to notify the institutes where the students can be transferred. The AICTE is also required to sanction the number of students who would be transferred to other existing institutes. However, no step was taken by the AICTE and it has simply tried to shift its responsibility upon the State Government.
20. Clause 4.31 of the Regulations framed by the AICTE provides that, "the affiliating universities shall transfer the students of the institutions, whose programmes/courses have been discontinued by the Council or approval is withdrawn or suspended, to other nearby AICTE approved technical institutions affiliated to it and the Council shall allow supernumerary seats in such institutions to accommodate the transferred students appropriately till they complete the programmes/courses.". There is no dispute that except communicating order dated 14.04.2015 the AICTE has taken no step in ensuring transfer of the existing students to other institutes. Only for a brief period between 24.06.2015 and 15.07.2015 the transfer of the students admitted in the petitioner's institute was stayed by this Court. On 16.07.2015, the interim order dated 24.06.2015 whereby, the direction allocating AICTE approved institute to the students was 19 kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing, stood vacated. Order dated 16.07.2015 records;
7. "The learned counsel for the AICTE submits that allocation of AICTE approved institute to the students of the petitioner's institute would take sometime. Accordingly, interim order dated 24.06.2015 is modified to the extent that the process, if any for allocating different institutes to the students, would continue. If the next academic session commences from 2nd week of August, 2015, final approval for admission of students shall not be granted till the next date of hearing. It is made clear that if the academic session has already commenced or it would commence from 1st week of August, 2015, interim order dated 24.06.2015 shall stand recalled."
21. I am of the opinion that the modalities for transfer of the students to other institutes have to be worked out by the AICTE in consultation with the State Government. The students who took admission in the Nilai Educational Trust's Group of Institutes must not suffer on account of inaction on the part of the AICTE. Accordingly, it is directed that the AICTE in consultation with the State Government should ensure that the existing students of the Nilai Educational Trust's Group of Institutes are transferred to other institutes so as to ensure that they complete their courses.
22. The writ petition is dismissed however, with the aforesaid direction to the respondent nos. 2 and 4.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 1st October, 2015 Manish/R.K./A.F.R.