Madras High Court
Noorul Islam Education Trust Rep. By Its ... vs The Govt. Of Tamil Nadu By Its Secretary, ... on 30 January, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1990)2MLJ105
ORDER Srinivasan, J.
1. Both the writ petitions are between the same parties. While the former was filed for issue of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to grant immediate affiliation to the petitioner for the proposed self financing Engineering College at Thiruvithancode, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District, the latter is for issue of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent, quashing the resolution of the Syndicate dated 18.10.1989 and for directing the second respondent to grant affiliation to the petitioner's institution for the Academic Year 1989-90. The first of the writ petitions was filed on 13.11.1989 and notice of motion was ordered on 15.11.1989. The petitioner received on 17.11.1989 a communication from the second respondent in No. CD. 1/ Fresh.Affln./EC/89-90 dated 9-11-1989 informing the petitioner of the resolution passed by the Syndicate at its meeting held on 18.10.1989 that fresh affiliation could not be granted until adequate infrastructural facilities are created in the permanent site and that necessitated the filing of the second writ petition by the petitioner. In fact, the first writ petition has become unnecessary as the subject-matter is covered by the second writ petition.
2. The petitioner is a Trust created in the year 1984 as a private Trust under a registered deed of Trust dated 19.7.1984. The main object of the Trust is to promote technical education among the weaker sections of the people in Kanyakumari District which is a backward area. The petitioner Trust established a polytechnic at Thiruvithancode, Kanyakumari District in the year 1984. It is claimed to be a reputed institution in the State. Under G.O. Ms. No.429, Department of Education, Science and Technology, dated 17.4.1984, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed a general order approving the proposal of the Director of Technical Education for starting new private Engineering Colleges in the State with effect from 1984-85 without involving any financial commitment to the Government, both under recurring and non-recurring items, subject to the conditions stipulated in the G.O. Pursuant to the G.O., a number of private Engineering Colleges were established and run by private managements on self-financing basis.
3. The petitioner applied to the Government for permission to start one such self-financing Engineering College. By G.O.Ms.No.1498, Department of Education, dated 22.9.1988, the Government granted permission to the petitioner to start a new Engineering College at Thiruvithaneode with three courses viz.,
1) Civil Engineering.
2) Electrical and Electronics Engineering and
3) Computer Science and Engineering with an approved total intake of 180 students. It was stipulated that 50% of the students should be on management quota and the remaining 50% of the students should be on Government quota. One of the conditions imposed by the Government was that the petitioner should obtain the prior concurrence of the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, before starting the new Engineering College.
4. The petitioner made an application to the third respondent. An Expert Committee was constituted by the third respondent to examine the proposal of the petitioner and make its recommendations. The Committee after inspecting the premises and considering the infrastructural facilities provided by the petitioner, submitted a detailed report to the third respondent The third respondent sent a communication dated July 31, 1989 to the petitioner that it has approved in principle the-establishment of 'Noorul Islam College of Engineering', Thiruvithancode, Kanyakumari District by the Management of the petitioner Trust from the academic year 1989-90, with the following degree level courses in Engineering with an annual intake of 30 students each:
1. Computer Science
2. Electronics and Communication Engineering.
It was, however, stated in the communication that the approval for the establishment of the above Engineering College and the course was being given in principle and the final approval would be issued later on the basis of the detailed report of the National Expert Committee regarding fulfilment of the facilities like creation of infrastructure, buildings, etc. The petitioner was called upon to submit an undertaking to the effect that no capitation fee will be charged and the admissions will be made on merit and that the petitioner will fulfil all the conditions laid down by the AICTE and those which will be issued from time to time. The petitioner was permitted to take necessary action for starting of the Engineering College as soon as possible. Along with the communication, the guidelines laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education for fulfilment of the private Technical institutions for AICTE's approval, were sent One of the guidelines was that the infrastructure and other facilities should be provided as per the norms laid down by the AICTE.
5. The petitioner sent an application on 7.8.1989 to the second respondent University for grant of affiliation. A reference was made to an earlier application for affiliation submitted on 5-10-1988 and the payment of Rs.500/- towards consideration fees along with the same. The second respondent appointed two persons as Inspection Commissioners to inspect and report on the application of the petitioner-Trust. The Commissioners submitted their report in October, 1989, after completing the inspection on 7.10.1989. Even while the application for affiliation was being considered by the University, the petitioner started admitting students in the Management quota and admitted 30 students, 15 for Electronics and Communications and another 15 for Computer Science and Engineering. Finding that there was no communication from the second respondent with reference to the application for affiliation, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 14820 of 1989 on 13.11.1989. It was only thereafter, the petitioner received the communication dated 9.11.1989 from the second respondent containing information about the resolution passed by the Syndicate on 18.10.1989 deciding against the petitioner. The communication read as follows:
I am, by direction, to inform you that the Syndicate, at its meeting held on 18.10.1989 considered the report of the inspection commission which visited the proposed Noorul Islam College of Engineering at Thiruvithancode to find out the facilities available in the proposed college and has resolved that fresh affiliation to the Noorul Islam College of Engineering at Thiruvithancode, cannot be granted until adequate infrastructural facilities are created in the permanent site. It has also resolved that a copy of the above resolution be sent to All India Council of Technical Education.
After receiving the said communication on 17.11.1989, the petitioner filed the second writ Petition on 22.11.1989 for the reliefs set (sic) already.
6. After service of notice of motion both the petitions were heard together. As pointed out already, nothing survives in the first writ petition and it will be sufficient if the second writ petition is considered on its merits.
7. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner has not fulfilled the requisite conditions for grant of affiliation. According to the second respondent, the infrastructural facilities including the hostel facilities available present are not sufficient to meet the requirements laid down by the University. Reference is also made to a suit pending in the Court of the District Munsif, Nogercoil, at the instance of one Mr. P. Soundararajan against the grant of affiliation to the petitioner. It is the case of the second respondent that if the petitioner after creating all the infrastructural facilities required for the College in its permanent site approaches the University, the latter will consider its application on its merits according to the laws of the University. In short, the second respondent contended that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief prayed for in the writ petition. On my direction, the second respondent filed a copy of the Inspection Report submitted by the Inspection Commissioners appointed by the University.
8. The third respondent filed a separate counter affidavit stating that the final approval would be issued by the Council later after a detailed report is given by the National Committee on the question of fulfilment of facilities like creating infrastructural facilities, buildings, etc. According to the counter affidavit, as far as the Expert Committee was concerned it held that the infrastructure and other facilities existing were found to be manageable for conducting the First Year Classes. It is also contended in the counter affidavit that the approval given by the All India Council for Technical Education does not exempt the institution from fulfilling other requirements which may be prescribed by the University for affiliation. The Council filed a copy of the report of the Expert Committee.
9. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that the suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Nagercoil, is one filed by a disgruntled ex-employee of the petitioner's Polytechnic College and that no interim order had been made in the said suit preventing the University from granting affiliation. A supplemental affidavit was also filed by the petitioner annexing thereto balance-sheets as at 31.3.1987, 31.3.1988 and 31.3.1989. A statement of Cash Flow of the proposed college for the years 1989-90 to 1992-1993 prepared by the Chartered Accountants of the petitioner Trust was also annexed to the reply affidavit. The substance of the reply affidavit is that the financial position of the petitioner Trust is sound enough to commence and run the College as proposed and there is no basis for any apprehension on the part of the respondents that the conditions imposed by them will not be fulfilled by the petitioner-Trust.
10. The only question is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to get the relief prayed for in the writ petition. The AJ1 India Council for Technical Education Act (No.52 of 1987) came into force on 28.3.1988. Thereafter, the power to grant approval to any technical institution vested with the All India Council for Technical Education. The State Government which was previously exercising its jurisdiction by virtue of Article 162 of the Constitution of India ceased to have the power. The provisions of the said Act as well as the effect thereof on the powers of the State Government were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 793, 797 and 821 of 1989, to which I was a party. By judgment dt 23.11.1989, the Division Bench held that on the Act coming into force, the State Government ceased to have jurisdiction for grant of approval or disapproval with reference to any technical Institution. Hence, the permission granted on 22.9.1988 in G.O.Ms.No.1428 to the petitioner-Trust to start a College, will have no significance. However, in the said G.O., the State Government has directed the petitioner to obtain the prior concurrence of the All India Council for Technical Education before starting the Engineering College. The only authority which can grant such permission is the All India Council and rightly the petitioner applied to the said Council.
11. Under Section 10 of the Central Act, it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical and management education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions, the Council is conferred with the powers set out in the section. One of the functions of the council is to lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff patterns, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations as well as fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees. The Council is empowered to grant approval for starting new Technical Institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concurred. It is pursuant to the power conferred under Section 10 of the Act, an Expert Committee was constituted by the Council to make an inspection and submit a report. It is seen from the copy of the report submitted by the Expert Committee, the following conclusions are reached by the Committee among others; with reference to the financial soundness of the organisation, it is stated as follows:
Excepting the statement that they will be able to mobilise funds from Jamaaths, the Committee could not visualise any identifiable guaranteed resources either for capital investment or for running of the College in terms of the movable and immovable assets of the Trust. This aspect requites to be ensured before arriving at a decision.
with reference to infrastructure and other facilities, the report reads thus:
The present level of infrastructure and other facilities existing in the Noorul Islam Polytechnic (a self-financing Polytechnic) seems to be manageable with slight addition for the proposed intake of 30 students for conducting 1st year classes in the two branches of Engineering. The organisers informed the Committee that once the approval is given, they will be able to raise enough funds and put up their own buildings and move to the proposed campus at Vellukury, and create the infrastructural facilities, as per norms to be prescribed by A.I.C.T.E. As regards financial and academic viability of the College, the Committee observed thus.
As discussed in the fore-going paragraphs, the Organisers are confident of raising enough resources through donations from the Muslim Jamaaths and other Philanthropists. Except for the assurance that the 54 Jamaaths will come forward and donate liberally for creating the infrastructure and also the running cost of the College, the Trust could not produce any assured source of income both, for creating the non-recurring infrastructure and for running the institution.
With reference to the staff, the Committee's observation reads thus:
The organisers informed that they have already identified suitable experienced persons for appointment to the post of Principal and other faculty positions required for conducting the first year classes and also for initiating steps for setting up the laboratories for the second year.
12. The following recommendations were made by the Committee subject to the points made out in the prior paragraphs of the report:
1. Subject to the policy to be evolved by AICTE, about the need of locating an Engg. College per District, keeping in view the existing number of Engg. Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Southern Region, AICTE may take decision regarding permitting the Engg. College.
2. Subject to 1 above, the following courses may be permitted to be conducted viz.,
1. Electronics & Communication Engg.
and
2. Computer Science & Engg.
with an intake of 30 each to begin with. Once the College is fully equipped, the organisers could approach for augmenting the intake keeping in view the scenario of manpower needs and the position of employment potential existing then, in tune with the infra-structure already created and the potentials for creating further infra-structure, or for starting new courses.
3. It has to be ensured that the institution will not indulge in commercialisation of education by collecting Capitation fee or donations directly or indirectly from the candidates or their parents. The organisers should produce adequate proof to show identifiable assured sources of resources both for capital expenditure and running cost.
4. At the end of the each academic year, a Committee should be required to visit the institution to review the progress made during the previous year and assess the facilities created for conducting the courses so that the Committee can make appropriate recommendations to enable the students to get quality education and training. This shall be continued till at least one batch of students graduate from the institution. It is suggested that in future, the institute after getting approval should not ever dilute the standards of education and training in the AICTE approved institutions.
5. The Committee felt that the present temporary arrangements of conducting BE Degree courses of Engg. Colleges, in a Polytechnic which itself is a self-financing one and not approved by AICTE, requires the consideration of AICTE. The Committee also felt that the existing facilities in the Polytechnic and the Laboratories require further augmentation for conducting degree level courses. It has to be ensured that the institute should not interpret, allowing an Engg. College to function in a Polytechnic, that the Polytechnic gets automatically regularised and the facilities available in the Polytechnic are accepted to be excellent, by AICTE.
Since the Engg. College is proposed to be located, permanently in a semi-rural area, the Organisers should provide adequate hostel facilities, play grounds and other students' amenities.
13. Based on this report, the third respondent forwarded a communication dated 31.7.1989 expressing its approval for the commencement of the College. The communication states that the approval is granted in principle and the final approval would be issued later on the basis of the detailed report of the National Expert Committee regarding the fulfilment of the facilities like creation of infrastructure, buildings, etc. One is at a loss to understand what exactly is meant by granting approval in principle and stating that final approval will be granted later. It is not made clear whether the National Expert Committee referred to in the letter dated 31.7.1989 is different from the Committee which had already inspected and submitted its report. It appears as if the National Expert Committee, whether it is the same Committee or a different Committee, would inspect again in order to ascertain whether the petitioner has fulfilled the facilities mentioned therein. It is somewhat baffling that approval in principle is granted straightaway by the Council in its letter dated 31.7.1989 when the report of the Expert Committee has pointed out in the portions extracted above that the petitioner has to fulfil some more conditions or at any rate some aspects of the matters referred to in the report should be ensured before any decision is taken by the Council. The Act does not contemplate a temporary or preliminary approval which would be followed by a final approval at a later stage. Section 10 of the Act refers merely to grant of approval for starting new technical institutions. If the Council is satisfied mat the conditions prescribed for the commencement of an institution are fulfilled, the Council should only grant" approval therefor. If, on the other hand, the Council is of the view that the applicant falls short of fulfilling the required, conditions, there is no question of a mid-way house by granting temporary or ad-hoc approval which could later be confirmed by a. final approval or cancelled in the event of the applicant not fulfilling the conditions. Under Clause (n) of Section 10(1) of the Act, the Council is bound to take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of technical education. If the Council brings into practice the system of granting a temporary or provisional approval, which is liable to be cancelled later, in the event of the applicant not fulfilling the conditions, that will only lead to commercialisation of education. In the judgment of the Division Bench, to which I have made a reference earlier, it has been pointed out in detail how the unhealthy practice of granting provisional approval adopted by the Madras University resulted in evil consequences. After referring to the provisions in the Madras University Act relating to grant of affiliation, the Bench I observed as follows:
While the procedure prescribed by the Statutes is unambigous, the University of Madras has not been following it in practice and it can be said without any fear of contradiction that the Statutes are followed more in breach than in observance. There is no provision in the Statutes for granting affiliation before the conditions are fulfilled. The enabling provision in Statute 44-A to the effect that affiliation or approval granted may be provisional, is invariably misused by the University by granting provisional affiliation or approval even when any one of the prescribed conditions is not fulfilled. For example, the provisional affiliation granted in this case by the University to the writ petitioner is by a letter dated 21.11.1987 for the Academic year 1987-88. Reading Statutes 37 and 38 together, the application for affiliation for the Academic year 1987-88 should have been made between the 1st July and 31st October, 1986, and it ought to have been considered by the Syndicate not later than the month of November, 1986. We have already seen on the facts of this case that the State Government gave permission for the establishment of the College in June, 1987. The petitioner would have applied for affiliation only subsequently to the University. The application could have been made only for the academic year 1988-89 and not 1987-88. However, the University entertained the application for the academic year 1987-88 and also granted provisional affiliation for the said year as late as 21.11.1987. In the communication to the petitioner informing him of the grant of temporary affiliation, as many as 27 conditions are set out and the petitioner was required to fulfil the same. In our opinion, Statute 44-A does not contemplate the grant of provisional affiliation or approval in such cases. That Statute only reads that if and when the Syndicate decides to grant affiliation or approval on the footing that most of the conditions prescribed already for such grant had been fulfilled, it may make the affiliation or approval provisionally with a view to enable the college to fulfil the remaining conditions within a prescribed period. Provisional affiliation or approval can be granted by the Syndicate only if it is satisfied that the conditions which remained unfulfilled are not of such importance in the sense that the cause of education would not suffer by the grant of provisional affiliation with a direction to the college to fulfil the remaining conditions within the prescribed period. It is not open to the Syndicate to grant affiliation or approval provisionally when none or most of the conditions prescribed had not been fulfilled. Statute 44-A must be read and understood in the context of the preceding Statutes and it does not confer any power on the Syndicate to ignore the provisions contained in Statutes 37 to 43. But, admittedly, the University of Madras has been following an unhealthy and unwarranted practice of granting affiliation or approval even without satisfying itself that at least the essential conditions prescribed are satisfied or fulfilled by the concerned college. Admittedly, in the recent years, the Syndicate of the University of Madras has been granting provisional affiliation to all the applicants, whether they satisfied the requirements or not; but the grant is made with the direction that the conditions should be complied with by the applicants. By adopting the said practice, the University of Madras has been doing a great disservice to the cause of education as well as the society. The members of the public comprising parents and students are being misled by the grant of provisional affiliation by the University. It is also a matter for regret that the University has been simply winking at the commencement of colleges and courses by the aspirants for affiliation even before the actual provisional affiliation. Invariably, the applicants for affiliation commence the colleges immediately after sending the applications for affiliation. Even though the University is fully aware of this illegal practice of commencement of colleges and admitting students therein, it has not taken any steps to prevent the same. If the. University has been strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed in Statutes 37 to 41, cases of this type would not have arisen. The University could also have prevented thereby the mushroom growth of private educational institutions by persons who commence such institutions purely as business and not as service to the Society. Section 10(n) of the Central Act 52 of 1987 imposes a duty on the All India Council to take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of Technical Education. But, unfortunately, the University of Madras has knowingly or unknowingly encouraged such commercialisation by adopting a practice which is not warranted by the provisions of the Statutes.
Yet another aspect of the matter has to be referred to in this connection. The University of Madras grants provisional affiliation as a rule for a period of one year only in the first instance and thereafter, extends the same on application by the colleges for such extension. This practice is adopted irrespective of the number of years for which the concerned courses is to be conducted. For example, if a course of study, say Bachelor of Arts, is for three years, the University grants affiliation provisionally for one year leaving the matter of extension of affiliation for the second and third years in doubt, or rather reserving its right to exercise the power of refusal to extend the provisional affiliation of the second and third years. What is the fate of students who get admitted into such colleges and commence their studies, if after their completing the first year they are to be told that the college will not have affiliation for the second and third years? Similarly, for Engineering Courses which are known to be for four or five years, provisional affiliation is being granted for one year initially with the uncertainty of its extension for the subsequent years. Here again, there will be a hanging sword over the heads of the students who join the colleges which have obtained provisional affiliation for the first year and which may not get extension for the subsequent years. The Madras University does not seem to have given any thought whatever to this aspect of the matter, it is a mystery as to what prevents the University from satisfying itself that all the conditions prescribed for grant of affiliation or approval are fulfilled and then grant affiliation provisionally or permanently for the entire course of three years, four years or five years as the case may be. They will assure at least one set of students that they can have their education completed in one course in one college without being driven from pillar to post during the course of study. It is very unfortunate that the University of Madras, which is the custodian of education in this State should forego the interests of the students in this manner. It is high time that the University puts an end to this illegal practice of granting provisional affiliation to educational institutions even without substantial compliance with the conditions prescribed therefor.
By virtue of the existing practice, the University has been holding out, so to say, that provisional affiliation would be granted for the asking of it and it would be continued until it is expressly withdrawn or cancelled. Based on the same, the petitioner as well as hundreds of institutions have obtained provisional affiliation without fulfilling the conditions prescribed therefor. But, it is not possible for the University to contend that the grant of provisional affiliation is itself bad and consequently, institutions like that of the petitioner cannot seek continuance of the same or challenge the invocation of Statute 44-A of Chapter XXVI of the Laws of the University. The principles of doctrine of equitable estoppel will well apply to such cases including the present one. Based on the practice adopted by the University in the matter of grant of affiliation, people like the petitioner invest huge sums of money and innocent members of the public get their wards admitted in such colleges. It will be too late for the University to retrace its steps and withdraw the provisional affiliation already granted after the expiry of the period for which it was granted and particularly when it has been acted upon and courses are conducted by the colleges during the period."
14. It is very unfortunate that the All India Council is attempting to indulge in the very same practice which has been deprecated by the Bench. There is nothing in the provisions of the Central Act 52 of 1987 empowering me All India Council to bring about such a practice. The Council shall decide once for all the question of grant of approval for the commencement of any technical institution and it cannot choose to do it in two stages. Further, the Council cannot permit any institution to admit the students to any course before all the conditions imposed by it and the norms laid down by it are fulfilled. In the counter affidavit filed by the Council it is stated that the infrastructure and other facilities existed were found to be manageable for conducting the first year classes. If that is the position, the Council ought not to have permitted the petitioner to start the college.
15. I must also take the opportunity to point out that the guidelines laid down by the Council for fulfilment by the private technical institutions for approval are vague. Clause 5 of the guidelines is to the effect that the infrastructure and other facilities should be provided as per the norms laid down by the AICTE. What exactly are the norms laid down by the AICTE is not made clear anywhere. No record has been produced before me containing the norms prescribed by the Council. It is high time that the Council brings out in clear terms the norms which should be fulfilled by any applicant for approval.
16. The Division Bench in the judgment referred to already, has pointed out that the University can impose only such conditions as will have no relevance to coordination and determination of standards. As laid down by the Bench, it is open to the University to grant or refuse to grant affiliation on grounds which will not impinge upon coordination and determination of standards. Hence, it is necessary for the All India Council to lay down the norms which will fall within the scope of co-ordination and determination of standards. That will enable the Universities to prescribe such other conditions as may be required for grant of affiliation. It cannot be disputed that the grant of approval or permission by the All India Council is not sufficient to enable any person to start a technical institution. If such person wants the students of the Institution to be examined by any University, the institution has to get affiliation from the University. Such affiliation can be granted only if the conditions laid down by the University are fulfilled. No doubt the conditions which may be laid down by the University have to be such other than those imposed by the All India Council.
17. In so far as the second respondent is concerned, Chapter XXVI of the Laws of the University provides for affiliation, approval of colleges and autonomous Colleges. Statutes 21 to 30 contain the relevant provisions. They are similar to the provisions contained in the statutes framed by the Madras University and referred to in the judgment of the Division Bench. Under Statute 21, a College applying for affiliation or approval shall send a formal letter of application to the Registrar between 1st July and 31st October, preceding the-Academic Year in which the courses are proposed to be started and shall give full information on the matters mentioned therein. The Syndicate shall consider all applications for recognition, affiliation or approval of colleges not later than the month of November. The Syndicate is empowered by Statute 25 to call for any further information and also make local enquiry. Under Statute 28, which corresponds to Statute 44-A of the statutes framed by the Madras University, affiliation or approval may be provisional. As pointed out by the Division Bench, the Statute enabling the grant of provisional affiliation should not be misused. Statute 30 prohibits grant of affiliation or approval with retrospective effect. It is stated clearly that attendance of course of instruction provided in colleges or in subjects before affiliation' or approval is granted, shall not qualify for the giant of certificates of attendance and such attendance shall not entitle any candidate to exemption from the production of certificates of" attendance. 18. In spite of the second respondent informing the petitioner in its letter dated 27.10.1988 that the admissions to any of the proposed courses shall not be made without the orders of affiliation of the University and if any admission ii made before obtaining the orders of the University it shall not bind the University, the petitioner claims to have -admitted 30 students and started the classes. The petitioner cannot claim any right or equity on the basis of such illegal admissions; Though the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition does not state clearly as to when exactly the students were admitted by the petitioner, the report of the Expert Committee appointed by the All India Council refers only to the identification of suitable experienced persons for appointment to the post of Principal and other faculty posts required for conducting the first year classes. Obviously, as the time when the Expert Committee inspected the premises in June 1989, the students had not been admitted to the courses. In the letter dated 20.10.1989, written by the petitioner to the Director of Technical Education, Madras it. Is stated as follows:
We submit that inordinate delay has been caused in the matter of affiliation and time is fast running out for starting the courses of study. Classes have commenced already in other Colleges of Engineering in Tamil Nadu, We request you therefore to release the names, of students i.e., fifty percent of the sixty sanctioned by the AICTE, before the end of October 1989, pending affiliation by the Madurai Kamaraj University to enable us to commence the classes without anymore delay. The Management has selected 30 candidates on merit already.
Thus, even in the that letter, the petitioner had not claimed to have admitted students for the course.
19. It is clear from the facts referred to already that the petitioner has not provided the necessary infrastructurai facilities for the second year and subsequent years of the courses of study. As at present, the facilities available are sufficient only for conducting the first year classes. On the strength of the same the petitioner cannot seek the issue of a writ to the respondents directing them to grant affiliation to the college.
20. The second respondent has taken the correct stand in insisting upon the creation of adequate infrastructurai facilities in the permanent site before consideration of the grant of affiliation. The resolution passed by the Syndicate of the second respondent-University cannot ' be said to be arbitrary or illegal. It is well within the powers of the University to refuse the grant of affiliation to the petitioner as the necessary conditions have not been fulfilled. Even the approval granted by the third respondent is not sufficient in the eye of law to enable the petitioner to commence the University. The third respondent has failed to act in accordance with the law as found in the provisions of the Central Act 52 of 1987.
21. In the circumstances, the prayers of the petitioner cannot be granted. It is certainly open to the petitioner to complete the infrastructurai facilities and fulfil the conditions imposed, by the second and third respondents and seek approval of the third respondent and affiliation of the second respondent. If respondents 2 and 3 are satisfied that all the necessary conditions are fulfilled, it will be open to them to grant affiliation and approval respectively. The petitioner has in its letter dated 28.10.1989 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the second respondent-University assured that all infrastructural facilities will be provided for the second year and future years of the courses of study, before March 1990. It will be open to the petitioner to do so and request the third respondent to grant approval and the second respondent to grant affiliation.
22. I do not think it necessary to make a detailed reference to the proceedings in O.S.No.1272 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Nagercoil. It was brought to my notice by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party to the interlocutory application even though the petitioner is made a party to the suit. As on date, there is no order by the Civil Court restraining the second respondent from granting affiliation. The mere fact that the plaintiff in that suit has made certain allegations against the petitioner, would not be sufficient to reject the application for affiliation made by the petitioner. If the second respondent is convinced on acceptable evidence that the petitioner is collecting capitation fee from the parents of the students, it will be open to the second respondent to rely on the same and reject the application for affiliation. It must be pointed out that the petitioner has given a categorical undertaking not to collect capitation fee from any of the parents or the students. Hence, it is not proper for the second respondent to act on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint in the said suit.
23. In the result, writ petitions have to fail and they are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.