Madras High Court
Sri Malolan Educational Trust ... vs The Member-Secretary on 21 August, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.08.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.19676 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 Sri Malolan Educational Trust (Registered), represented by its Honorary Secretary, New No.16/1, Old No.36/1, II Main Road, Kasturba Nagar, Adayar, Chennai-600 020. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Member-Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001. 2.The Regional Officer, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Shastri Bhavan, No.7,Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings No.1-71706111 letter of rejection dated 27.06.2012 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to grant approval for the courses MBA and MCA for the current academic year 2012-2013. For Petitioner : Mr.B.T.Seshadri for Mr.R.Dasaratha Rao For Respondents : Ms.AL.Gandhimathi - - - - ORDER
The petitioner trust represented by its Honorary Secretary, has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 27.06.2012 issued by the respondents All India Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE) and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to grant approval for the courses to be run by the college established by the Trust in respect of MBA and MCA for the current academic year 2012-2013.
2.When the writ petition came up on 26.7.2012, this court ordered notice on admission and directed Ms.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE to get instructions from the respondents. Accordingly, a counter affidavit, dated 02.08.2012, has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
3.It is seen from the records that the petitioner trust was registered on 21.10.1974 constituted by Sri Ahobila Mutt in the name of Sri Malolan Educational Trust. The Founder Trustee had transferred the immovable properties belonged to the Mutt set out in the Trust deed. The schedule to the property was consisting of Nanja land comprising in S.No.1335 to an extent of 6 acres and 41 cents. The object of the Trust was to establish a Sanskrit Vidyapeeth and to start a Sanskrit college as well as institutions for Vedas, Prabhandas and Sastras. It also provides for establishment of schools and colleges providing modern school and university education. Initially, a Sanskrit college and Oriental school were started at Madurantakam. It has been functioning for more than three decades. The trust was reconstituted during the period 2008-09. The trustees desired to start an Arts and Science College known as Sri Malolan College of Arts and Science with five UG courses. A No Objection Certificate was also obtained from the State Government to start the college on self financing basis. The college was located at Mocheri Road, Madurantakam. The University of Madras had granted affiliation to the college on 24.07.2010 to run 5 UG courses from the academic year 2010-2011. Since there was a case pending in A.S.Nos.92 and 97 of 2001 before this court with reference to the land in S.No.1335, it was stated that it will be subject to the outcome of the case pending before this court. Sri Kothandaramaswamy Devasthanam, Madurantakam had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.174 of 1990 before the Sub Court, Madurantakam stating that the suit land in which the trust had constructed a building belonged to them. They sought for a declaration of title and recovery of possession. The trial court had decreed the suit. As against the same, the trust had preferred appeals in A.S.Nos.92 and 97 of 2001. This court by judgment dated 10.6.2011 had allowed the appeal filed by the Mutt and dismissed the suit filed by the Devasthanam. This judgment was also produced before the State Government and the University. On satisfied with the rights of the petitioner Trust owning the land, the affiliation was granted for the subsequent academic years.
4.It was stated that as the College was growing, they also wanted to start courses in MBA and MCA and made an application to the AICTE for the grant of permission to start MBA and MCA courses. They had requested to grant permission for 180 seats, which consists of MBA (Finance) 60 seats, MBA (Marketing)- 60 seats and MCA 60 seats. Online application was filed together with the process fee and that the hard copy was also sent to the Regional Office. The application was sent for verification and for scrutiny by the experts on 15.02.2012. The scrutiny committee which examined the documents as per the check list did not clear the academic, legal and architect papers. Subsequently, the re-scrutiny committee had granted an another opportunity to the petitioner for removal of discrepancies and for compliance for the grant of approval. The re-scrutiny committee meeting was also held on 25.2.2012 and papers relating to academic were cleared. The approval for construction of the building by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning could not be obtained by that time and it was pending with the DTCP. The legal papers were also not cleared despite submission of available documents with the trust. After completion of the scrutiny and re-scrutiny committee, the AICTE by its order dated 15.4.2012 had rejected the application for the grant of establishment of technical institution to start the courses in MBA and MCA. It was also directed that the petitioner can appear before the Standing Appeal Committee on 22.04.2012 at New Delhi. The petitioner Trust had submitted documents before the Standing Appeal Committee regarding the land conversion certificate, Khasra plan, classification of land, land use certificate, site plan, complete building plan and plan / section / elevation details.
5.It was also stated that permission was obtained for construction of building for the courses for which affiliation was sought for during 2010-2011. As additional courses were started and further constructed area was also required, the petitioner had submitted a building plan for approval by the municipal authorities. The approval for construction of additional building was pending with the municipal authorities for want of clarification. Therefore, the petitioner trust sought for an adjournment of the hearing and it was postponed to 15.5.2012. In the meanwhile, sanction of the building plan was obtained from the DTCP and was produced before the committee. As the documents relating to the property were in Tamil, the matter was referred to the Regional SAC Scrutiny committee. The regional committee had fixed the time on 23.5.2012. On that date, on behalf of the Trust, its representatives appeared and explained various factors regarding the title of the property and produced a certificate copy of the Trust deed, chitta and adangal in respect of the property standing in the name of Sri Ahobila Mutt and also the patta in respect of the said property. On 23.05.2012, the architectural aspect of the building as well as the academic aspects were also cleared. But the only issue was relating to the documents relating to the property. However, the respondents did not clear the legal aspects of the property ownership on the ground that the original trust deed was not available, land conversion certificate was not available, the land use certification was not duly sealed by the appropriate authority and not in a proper format, the FAR certificate was not available and the title deed was not available. The deficiency report was forwarded to the petitioner by e-mail on 23.5.2012. The petitioner made an appeal to the respondents dealing with each aspects of the alleged deficiencies relating to the original trust deed and title deed. It was stated that the original trust deed was not available. The property was transferred by the Mutt head during the year 1974. At the time of establishment of the trust, the lands and properties were endowed by various volunteers of the Mutt over a period of time. The registration copies of documents were also not available at the Sub Registrar Office. These documents were transferred to the Mutt even before commencing of the Registration Act. But the chitta and adangal stood in the name of the Mutt. Even the claim by the Devasthanam regarding the ownership of the land was rejected by this court in the appeal suit.
6.In respect of the original trust deed, it could not be traceable despite diligent search. Therefore, when the certified copy of the document was produced, it cannot be construed as deficiency. As per the land survey conducted in 1875, the land was classified as Ryotwari land owned by the Mutt and it is the patta land. As per the 'A' Register, known as land survey and settlement register, the lands in S.No.1335 belonged to the Mutt. It was lawfully transferred to the trust in 1974. Even the DTCP had sanctioned the building plan. In respect of the land conversion certificate, it was stated that prior to the commencement of the Master plan, the trust had obtained approval for construction of the building for educational purpose on 16.12.1977 from the Madurantakam municipality. The Municipality had classified the land as the educational zone vide resolution dated 16.12.1988. With reference to the non availability of the land conversion certificate, a legal opinion from the counsel was produced. But it was not looked into by the authorities. Buildings have been constructed in the said land owned by the municipality. No objection certificate was obtained from the Tahsildar, Madurantakam Taluk, Commissioner, Madurantakam Municipality, PWD, Fire services. In respect of the third objection, i.e., the land use certificate was not sealed by the appropriate authority, it was stated that it was only to ensure that the land was put to use for educational purpose and such certificate was obtained from the Commissioner of Madurantakam Municipality and was furnished to the Screening committee. Already an approval for construction of additional building was also granted by the authorities on 11.5.2012. With reference to the 4th objection, i.e., FSI and FAR certificates could not be produced, it was stated that a copy of the building plan itself was submitted to the expert committee. This was refused to be taken note of. It is under these circumstances, contending that the rejection was made on erroneous grounds, the writ petition came to be filed.
7.In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the same contentions were reiterated except by contending that even though the college had already been established and affiliated to the Madras University in respect of UG courses, the AICTE being a separate approving body, it has to be satisfied about the compliance of all norms and regulations. It has its own legal experts for verifying the documents. Therefore, the rejection was made.
8.Heard the arguments of Mr.B.T.Seshadri, learned counsel for Mr.R.Dasaratha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.AL.Ganthimathi, learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE.
9.The objections raised by the AICTE do not stand any legal scrutiny. When the original Trust deed was not traceable and a certified copy has been produced, it is unnecessary for the AICTE to insist upon the original trust deed. Secondly, it is not as if it was a new institution and that the institution has been functioning for the last three years. Having obtained the no objection certificate from the State Government and affiliated to the Madras University, the requirement is to start MBA and MCA courses and not as a separate institution. Since the two courses require an approval by the AICTE, an application was made. Therefore, the AICTE must keep in mind that it was an existing institution which is seeking the grant of approval. In respect of the academic requirements, there is no difficulty that even the building plan has been approved by the DTCP. With reference to the title to the document, as rightly contended when the lands were given by several followers and documents themselves were not traceable in the Sub Registrar Office and even the pending civil suit has been decided in favour of the petitioner Trust as well as Sri Ahobila Mutt, it is unnecessary for the AICTE to take an hyper technical stand and refuse to grant approval to the two courses for which approval has been sought for.
10.The purpose for which the land has been used has been approved by the Commissioner, Madurantakam Municipality and the building plan has been approved by the appropriate authorities. Therefore, in the teeth of the justifications made by the petitioner Trust, it is wrong on the part of the AICTE to contend that there were discrepancies to an extent of rejecting their approval application. The stand taken by the AICTE clearly cannot be accepted by this court. Since the only question was the legal ownership of the land in question and that has been clarified by the petitioner Trust, this court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.06.2012 will stand set aside. The writ petition will stand allowed. The first respondent AICTE is directed to consider the petitioner's application for approval for MBA and MCA courses within 10 days and grant approval to the said institution and communicate the same to the petitioner without fail. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
vvk To
1.The Member-Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001.
2.The Regional Officer, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Shastri Bhavan, No.7,Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034