Karnataka High Court
Map Foundation vs All India Council For on 6 June, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
W.P.Nos.21535-21536/2017 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN :
1. MAP FOUNDATION
A REGISTERED CHARITABLE TRUST
NAGASHETTYHALLI
BENGALURU 560094
REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE & CHAIRMAN
SRI S.MUNEGOWDA
2. RAMAIAH INTERNATIONAL
MANAGEMENT SCHOOL,
NAGASHETTYHALLI,
BENGALURU 560094
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADV. FOR
SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV.)
AND :
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION
(A STATUTORY BODY OF
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NELSON MANDELA MARG,
VASANTH KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110067
REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.SONA M. BADIGA, ADV.)
THESE W.P.s ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS DATED 30.04.2017 VIDE ANNX-A AND 08.04.2017
-2-
VIDE ANNX-B PASSED BY THE R-1 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 30.4.2017 marked at Annexure-A and 8.4.2017 marked at Annexure-B to the writ petitions passed by the Respondent No.1-All India Council for Technical Education ['AICTE, for short] inter alia, seeking a direction to the Respondent No.1 to grant approval to the petitioners to run the Post Graduate Diploma in Management course for the academic year 2017-18 onwards.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the petitioners placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.19592/2015 [DD-5.5.2015] would submit that in identical circumstances, this Court directed the -3- Respondent No.1 to reconsider the case of the petitioner therein in the light of the representation dated 15.4.2015 with expedition in any event within three days. The said order was challenged by the AICTE in Writ Appeal No.1741/2015 whereby the Division Bench by an Order dated 1.7.2015 dismissed the writ appeal, confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
3. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the Appellate Committee failed to consider the documents submitted by the petitioners in the right perspective and rejected the application arbitrarily on technicalities. There is absolute non application of mind by the Executive Committee and the Standing Appellate Committee in rejecting the application of the petitioners for setting up a new Technical Institution of Management. Accordingly the learned counsel submits that the respondents may be directed to reconsider the -4- case of the petitioners notwithstanding the rejection, since there has been due compliance with all the objections raised as to the eligibility of the petitioners for commencement of Post Graduate Diploma in Management.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent do not dispute the dismissal of the Writ Appeal No.1741/2015 filed against the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.19592/2015 wherein similar facts were considered and the Court directed the respondent to reconsider the matter. However, the learned Counsel submits that after reconsidering the matter, if it is found that the petitioners are eligible for commencing the course, the same shall be considered for academic year 2018-19.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
-5-
6. It is not in dispute that this Court in Writ Petition No.19592/2015 in similar circumstances, directed the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioners notwithstanding the rejection by the Executive Committee and the Standing Appellate Committee of the respondent in view of the compliance of the objections raised by the petitioner/institution. The same submissions are made by the learned Counsel in these writ petitions that the petitioners have complied with the objections raised and the documents submitted by the petitioners were not considered by the Committee in the right perspective.
7. However, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent was considered extensively by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1741/2015 as regards the applicability of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'PARSHVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST -6- AND OTHERS v. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND OTHERS' reported in 2013 [3] SCC 385 and was negated.
8. In such circumstances, however, given the objections on which rejection has been made, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice if the respondents should reconsider the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in the light of the writ petition averments with expedition in any event within a period of seven days. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. The copy of the order shall be furnished to the learned Counsel for the respondent.
Learned Counsel for the respondent is permitted to file power within a period of two days.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-