Punjab-Haryana High Court
Munirka Krishna Education Society vs Union Of India And Others on 6 August, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CWP No.8521 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No.8521 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.08.2013
*****
Munirka Krishna Education Society
. . . .Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
. . . . Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*****
Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr.Arjan Lakhanpal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr.S.K. Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
Petitioner has challenged order dated 5.4.2013 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for establishing technical institution/campus on the ground of deficiencies found at the time of inspection.
In brief, the petitioner/society applied to respondent No.2 for approval of establishing a new institution in the name and style of Krishna Vidyapeeth of Management and Technology, Village Khera, Tehsil Siwani, District CWP No.8521 of 2013 -2- Bhiwani. A scrutiny committee constituted by respondent No.2 held the scrutiny on 22.2.2013 and recommended for visit by expert committee. The expert committee visited and inspected on 12.3.2013 and recommended that "the building area meets the requirement to conduct first year classes but still the work is in progress and furniture and equipments are yet to be placed".
On the basis of the aforesaid report, respondent No.2 sent rejection letter to the petitioner on 19.3.2013 and on the letter of rejection of the petitioner, the Standing Appeal Committee called upon the petitioner to appear on 24.3.2013 before it. The petitioner appeared and submitted the documents to the Standing Appeal Committee, in order to show that the alleged deficiencies have already been removed and against the column of 'all weather approach road', the Standing Appeal Committee has observed that "presented and accepted" and against column of 'Library Management Software' it has been mentioned that "bills shown but no proof of payment".
The Standing Appeal Committee Expert Visiting Committee visited the premises of the petitioner on 31.3.2013 and did not notice any of the deficiencies pointed out in the earlier report dated 12.3.2013 but still observed against all weather approach road that work is in progress and against CWP No.8521 of 2013 -3- library management software that the same has not installed. No other deficiency was pointed out. The petitioner has averred that at the time of inspection by the Standing Appeal Committee Expert Visiting Committee, the petitioner has submitted bill dated 23.3.2013, regarding purchase of software of library management and payment made towards it vide cheque of the even date which are also attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-7. The library software was purchased from M/s Voice Tele Systems Pvt. Ltd. Hisar, who had issued two receipts dated 23.3.2013 and 29.3.2013 of a sum of `11,000/- and `1,34,463 and also received the cheque on 29.3.2013 of an amount of `1,34,463 which is attached as Annexure P-7 towards the receipt of payment. It is also averred that the all weather road had also become operational and for that a certificate of the Gram Panchayat has also been attached as Annexure P-8 dated 29.3.2013 but still the rejection order has been passed basically relying upon scrutiny report, re-scrutiny report, expert committee visit report, regional committee report, rejection in the EC and rejection in Standing Appeal Committee report.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that strangely enough, respondent No.2 has not disclosed the exact reason in the impugned order of rejection but from the aforesaid reports, it is evident that the rejection order has CWP No.8521 of 2013 -4- been passed only for two reasons that the petitioner had not constructed all weather approach road and the bills of the library management software is shown but no proof of payment was there.
After notice, respondent No.2 has filed short reply dated 7.6.2013 but has not given para-wise reply of the writ petition and has only quoted provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 [for short 'the Act'] and has also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others" 2013 (3) Supreme Court Cases 385, contending that the time schedule cannot be extended.
During the course of hearing, it was argued by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the objections were only with regard to non-completion of all weather road and purchase of library management software which was countered by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that in the report dated 31.3.2013 against the column of all weather approach road it has been mentioned that 'presented and accepted' and against column of library management software it has been mentioned that 'only bills shown but no proof of payment has been mentioned' whereas the petitioner has purchased library management software worth `90,000/- CWP No.8521 of 2013 -5- and `56,000/- from M/s Voice Tele Systems Pvt. Ltd. Hisar for a total consideration of `1,34,463/- which was paid on 29.3.2013, by way of cheque which was received by the vendor of that software and also issued receipts on the same day which are attached as Annexure P-7 with the report.
However, there is no denial by respondent No.2 about aforesaid facts mentioned by the petitioner, in their reply as they had chosen only to file a short reply to avoid a para-wise reply. Even otherwise, during the course of hearing Sh.S.K.Sharma, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 has submitted that the software might have been purchased by the petitioner but the same has not been installed. In this regard, an order was passed by this Court on 3.7.2013, which is reproduced as under: -
"The petitioner in this case has challenged the order dated 05.04.2013 (Annexure P-10) by which approval for establishing the petitioner's Institute has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to page 57 of the paper book where rejection has been recorded against two items namely, Legal Application Software-bills shown and CWP No.8521 of 2013 -6- accepted but no proof of payment, Library Management Software-bills shown but no proof of payment. He further submits that one of the objections was with regard to the bills shown but no proof of payment in Library Management Software column, which has been accepted in Annexure P-6 but in the report, it is denied. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that both the softwares, referred to above, purchased on 23.03.2013 against bills and has also attached receipts indicating payment thereof dated 23.03.2013 and 29.03.2013.
Mr. Sharma, appearing on behalf of AICTE has submitted that the softwares might have been purchased but have not been installed. In this regard, he has referred to page 57 of the paper book where the reasons for non-acceptance have been given as stated by him. Mr. Sharma has CWP No.8521 of 2013 -7- submitted that the said softwares have not been installed so far and has challenged the petitioner to file affidavit in this regard."
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner also filed affidavit of Vineet Singh, Secretary, Munirka Krishna Education Society, New Delhi by way of CM No.9358 of 2013.
The application is allowed and the affidavit is taken on record.
In the said affidavit, it has been mentioned that the software was installed and was functional at the time of inspection on 31.3.2013. No counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 in this regard.
learned counsel for respondent No.2, however, relied upon a decision of this Court in CWP No.10332 of 2013 titled as "St. Soldier Institute of Pharmacy & Polytechnic Vs. State of Punjab and others" passed on 14.5.2013, in support of his contention that if there are deficiencies in the super-structure of the petitioner/institute, the approval for establishment of the institute cannot be granted.
I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record from which I have found that CWP No.8521 of 2013 -8- primary objection for not granting approval was non-availability of the library management software about which the Standing Appeal Committee has observed that the bills have been shown but no proof of payment has been given regarding which the petitioner has placed on record receipts dated 29.3.2013 and the cheque of the said date indicating the payment. Insofar as the all weather road is concerned that even has been accepted by the committee in its report by observing thus, "that the documents were 'presented and accepted' and also the petitioner has placed on record a certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat dated 29.3.2013 to establish the fact that the road has been constructed and is fully operational for all weather conditions."
As regards, the judgment which relied upon by respondent No.2 in the case of St. Soldier Institute of Pharmacy & Polytechnic (Supra), in that case, many deficiencies have been found by the Expert Committee including that the building itself was under construction. However, in the present case, facts are altogether different because in the inspection report dated 31.3.2013, it has been found that the building was complete and the only bottle neck was the construction of the all weather road, which was also found to be there in the report. The arguments raised by learned counsel for respondent No.2 was with regard to the CWP No.8521 of 2013 -9- library software that it has not been installed about which the petitioner has also filed affidavit of the Secretary of the Society which has remained un-controverted.
From the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned rejection order was not only ambiguous as it does not disclose the actual reason for rejection except for referring to the various reports but also contrary to the record which has been produced by the petitioner before this Court and about which there is no denial even in the reply filed by respondent No.2.
In view thereof, present writ petition is found to be meritorious and thus the rejection order Annexure P-10 dated 5.4.2013 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to decide the question of approval within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 06.08.2013 JUDGE Vivek Pahwa Vivek 2013.08.07 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document