Bombay High Court
Mahatma Education Society'S vs All India Council For Technical on 14 July, 2014
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta, A.A. Sayed
ssm 1 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6021 OF 2014
Mahatma Education Society's
Pillai's Institute of Information
Technology, Engineering, Media
Studies & Research ....Petitioners.
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. C.K. Thomas I/by M/s. C.K.
Thomas & Associates for the Petitioners.
Ms. Pranali Dixit I/by Mr. R.A. Rodrigues for Respondent No.5.
WITH
CAW/1684 OF 2014
IN
WP/4500/2013
The Principal, K. C. College of Engineering
and Management Studies and Research ... Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mahadeo A. Choudhari
and Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for the Petitioners
WITH
1/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:41 :::
ssm 2 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
WRIT PETITION NO. 6235 OF 2014
Mahatma Gandhi Missions College of
Engineering and Technology, Kamothe ... Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Joel John Carlos for the
Petitioners.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6247 OF 2014
Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Education,
Science and Technological Research
ig .. Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. Shriniwas S. Patwardhan with Mr. Ruturaj Pawar for the
Petitioners.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6252 OF 2014
Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha, through
Chairman, ... Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.C. Naidu with Mr. Y.C. Naidu with Rahul Tanwani i/by Mr.
Pramod Kalwar for the Petitioners.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6293 OF 2014
Lokmanya Tilak Jankalyan Shikshan Sansthas
2/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:41 :::
ssm 3 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
Lokmanya Tilak College of Engineering ... Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/by KMC Legal Venture for the Petitioners
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6356 OF 2014
Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha, through
Principal, Dr. Sudhir D. Sawarkar .. Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.C. Naidu with Mr. Y.C. Naidu with Rahul Tanwani i/by Mr.
Pramod Kalwar for the Petitioners.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6362 OF 2014
Jawahar Education Society, A.C. Patil
College of Engineering, through .. Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir S. Hardikar for the
Petitioners.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6365 OF 2014
The South Indian Education Society, through
Member Narasimhan Raja and anr. ... Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
3/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:41 :::
ssm 4 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.C. Naidu with Ms. Nandini Govind Menon for the Petitioners
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6366 OF 2014
The South Indian Education Society, through
Member Narasimhan Raja and anr. ... Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.C. Naidu with Ms. Nandini Govind Menon for the Petitioners
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6468 OF 2014
Saraswati Education Society's,
Saraswati College of Engineering, By Secretary .... Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. C.K. Thomas I/by M/s. C.K.
Thomas & Associates for the Petitioners.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6469 OF 2014
Saraswati Education Society's,
Re Vera Institute of Technology
(Polytechnic), through .... Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ...Respondents.
Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. C.K. Thomas I/by M/s. C.K.
Thomas & Associates for the Petitioners.
4/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:41 :::
ssm 5 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6513 OF 2014
Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil College of
Engineering and Polytechnic, By Rayat
Shikshan ... Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.C. Naidu with Mr. Y. C. Naidu and Rahul Tanwani i/by C. R.
Naidu and Company for the Petitioners.
ig AND ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION (Stamp) NO. 17839 OF 2014
Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil College of
Engineering and Polytechnic, By Rayat
Shikshan ... Petitioners
Vs.
All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.C. Naidu with Mr. Y. C. Naidu and Rahul Tanwani i/by C. R.
Naidu and Company for the Petitioners.
----------------------------
Mr. Mihir Desai with Mr. Sariputta Sarnath and Mr. Swaraj Jadhav for
Respondent/AICTE in all matters.
Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the State in all matters.
5/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:41 :::
ssm 6 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : 14 JULY 2014.
P.C. :-
Rule, returnable on 25.08.2014. Hearing expedited.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respective Respondents waive
service.
2 We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
parties. In view of urgency so expressed, we are inclined to pass this
common interim order as the challenge in all these Petitions is
essentially to the decision of AICTE denying `Extension of Approval' to
the existing institutions of the Petitioners and placing the institutions
in `no admission' category. In Writ Petition No. 6468 of 2014, AICTE
has reduced the intake capacity of three Undergraduate Degree
Courses and two Post-graduate Degree Courses.
3 "Technical education" and related aspects are controlled
and governed by the All India Council for Technical Education Act,
1987 (For short, "AICTE Act"). The aim and object by the AICTE Act
6/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:41 :::
ssm 7 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
is to co-ordinate and integrate the development of technical education
system at all levels throughout the country to provide and promote
qualitative technical education in planned manner. The AICTE is
required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and
standards in technical education system. It also involves regular
performance appraisal for technical institutions and Universities. The
AICTE, therefore, is under obligation to control the norms and
standards for common development of such education in the country.
4 The Act itself provides for grant of extension of approval to
existing institutions, for starting new technical institutions, for adding
of new courses in existing institutions and variation in intake capacity
in consultation with the other Respondents/Authorities. On the basis
of this Act, therefore, various authorities, Board, Council have been
created to control and supervise technical education and all its related
aspects. This itself means, AICTE is having various functions and
powers and being a specialized body is empowered to ensure that all
the institutions recognized by the AICTE are possessed of complete
infrastructure/staff and other facilities and have capacity of
maintaining quality education standards for imparting technical
7/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:41 :::
ssm 8 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
education.
5 The Petitioners respective Society/Trust, running long
institutions, are imparting technical education in the area after getting
due and necessary approval/permission from the respective
authorities. The Petitioners' institutions are affiliated to the
respective Universities/Board since long. The institutions are running
degree/diploma colleges for technical education like Engineering,
Technology, Management etc. for more than 10 to 25 years. AICTE
has been granting them approval/sanction as prayed from time to
time continuously based upon the existing infrastructure and facilities.
6 In view of judgment in Association of Management of
Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. 1
dated 25 April 2013, the role of AICTE was curtailed. The Supreme
Court has held that no such approval of AICTE is necessary, once the
University has given its affiliation to start such technical course.
However, by order dated 9 May 2014, the Supreme Court directed
that for the present academic year 2014-2015, AICTE would be the
1 (2013) 8 SCC 271
8/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:41 :::
ssm 9 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
approval granting authority. We are informed that the issues in
Association of Management of Private Colleges (supra) are referred to a
Larger Bench and the same is pending in the Supreme Court. It is
clear that for the academic year 2014-2015, the AICTE, in view of the
provisions of law and the judgments is the supreme authority to grant
approvals.
7 The Supreme Court by order dated 9 May 2014 referred to
above, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7277 of
2014, (Orissa Technical Colleges Association Vs. AICTE & Anr.),
extended the date for AICTE to grant approval/sanction to 10 June
2014 by referring to earlier order dated 17 April 2014, whereby the
Supreme Court has directed the AICTE to proceed in accordance with
the approval process for the academic year 2014-2015. This itself
means the time table/schedule so fixed in the case of Parshvanath
Charitable Trust vs. All India Council for Tech. Edu. 2 was re-scheduled.
April 30 of the respective year was the date fixed by the Supreme
Court to complete all formalities and to grant approval by the AICTE
and/or its Appellate Authority.
2 (2013) 3 SCC 385
9/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:41 :::
ssm 10 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
8 AICTE having advertised on 9/10 May 2014 inviting fresh
applications from all concerned, including the Petitioners means that
the time fixed by the Supreme Court in the case of Parshavanath
(supra) was re-scheduled. AICTE was under an obligation to complete
the formality in time for granting/rejecting approvals on the dates so
announced.
9
Lastly, by order dated 26 June 2014 in Jayamatha
Engineering College Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No.
538 of 2014) the dates have been further extended by the Supreme
Court by passing the following order :-
"The AICTE is granted seven days within which to
take a decision on all the applications pending before it.
It shall first take up the applications in which it has
already expressed willingness to grant approvals, but
have not done so in deference of the Orders of this Court.
Thereafter, the concerned Universities/State Authorities/
Bodies which have the powers of granting affiliation
shall take a decision on that subject within one week. It
is for these reasons that the first round of
counselling/admission for allotment of seats which was
to be completed by 30th June, 2014 will now be
completed by 15th July, 2014. The second round of
counselling shall be completed by 22nd July, 2014 and
the last round by 29th July, 2014. In this manner, the
10/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 11 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
date of commencement of the Academic Session, as laid
down by this Court above, shall not be disturbed.
It is made clear that all the Colleges who have been
cleared for intake of students for the Academic Year
2014-2015, as envisaged in the process above, shall be
cleared and considered for admitting students for the
current Academic Year. Learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners in some of the Writ
Petitions apprehends that the respondents may adhere to
Annexure P-7. We think that that would not be
appropriate in view of the orders contained herein.
Thus, the time for granting approvals by AICTE stood extended to 3
July 2014.
10 Admittedly, the AICTE was not in a position to follow the
earlier scheduled dates so fixed by the Supreme Court in Parshavanath
(supra) in view of the judgment in the case of Association of
Management of Private Colleges (supra). As per those dates, by 30
April 2014 AICTE ought to have completed the process of granting or
denying the approvals including extension of approvals. Admittedly,
till 9 May, 2014, the role of AICTE itself was quite restricted and
limited. On the contrary, the UGC role was recognized for such
courses. The AICTE role therefore, was only to give feedback to the
11/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 12 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
UGC until 9 May 2014.
11 There are about 1800 private/aided and non-aided
institutions in Maharashtra imparting technical education. There are
about 11,000 institutions throughout the country. Admittedly, since
2009 the institutions in Maharashtra and particularly the present
institutions have not been inspected by AICTE within the time frame
prescribed. The respective institutions, as per the procedure,
submitted and provided the details to AICTE for extension of approval
for the academic year 2014-2015. For the earlier years, as per the
procedure, on making the on-line Application, AICTE used to grant
them approval from time to time. Further, in the year 2014-2015, as
recorded above, at the fag-end i.e. on 9 May 2014 they invited
applications. Therefore, they themselves were not in position to
comply with their own rules and adhere to the cut-off dates. AICTE
has not inspected the institutions since 2009. It has not given
opportunity to defaulting institutions, to remove deficiencies, if any,
or put on record their justification in time before taking action to
withhold the extension of approval. The situation appeared to be
beyond the control of AICTE to manage and to take inspection and/or
12/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 13 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
pass adverse orders after giving show cause notice and hearing the
parties concerned for the present academic year 2014-15.
12 It appears that on the basis of Complaints filed by some
organizations and/or individuals, AICTE constituted a High Power
"Fact Finding Committee" (for short, the Committee) to examine the
complaints and to make its recommendation. The Committee after
holding their respective meetings initially heard only one complainant
viz. Citizens Forum for Sanctity in Educational System and not the
representative of the Petitioners. Admittedly, though their Complaint
was against 32 institutions, the Complainant for undisclosed reasons,
restricted their Complaint to 13 institutions only. Most of them are
the Petitioners in this group of Writ Petitions. It is contended that no
show cause notice and/or hearing was given to the Petitioners before
taking action of withholding extension of approval. The Committee
submitted its report dated 10/01/2014 to the AICTE, though at that
time in view of judgment in Association of Management of Private
Colleges (supra), the role of AICTE was restricted to give feedback to
the UGC. The UGC as per the aforesaid judgment was supreme
Authority to deal with such situation. The AICTE, however, based
13/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 14 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
upon the recommendations of the High Power Committee appointed
EVCs (Expert Visiting Committees) for inspection of the Petitioners'
institutions. The High Power Committee also directed to take
suggestive steps and insisted upon for strict adherence to the
conditions of approvals, in the public interest. The suggestion is also
made to have a proper mechanism to monitor the cases in Courts.
13 The respective inspections of the Petitioners' Institutions
have been taken by the EVC. AICTE based upon the report of EVC
without giving proper opportunity of hearing, communicated the
impugned adverse orders to the respective Petitioners on the dates
which are ranging from 10 June 2014, 23 June 2014, 26 June 2014
and 2/3 July 2014. The information collected at the fag-end of the
academic year 2014-2015 without earlier inspections of any kind for
more than 5 years and without giving opportunity to remove the
deficiencies or permitting them to justify their respective contentions,
AICTE issued the respective impugned orders.
14 Therefore, at this stage we are definitely concerned with
the way and manner by which AICTE has taken the decisions. AICTE
14/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 15 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
after collecting information did not grant reasonable time and
opportunity to the Petitioners' institutions and passed the impugned
orders. From the record, it is apparent that the Petitioners were heard
by the Standing Complaints Committee and the impugned orders were
passed by another Authority viz. Competent Authority (i.e. Chairman
of AICTE). Normally, the authority who hears the parties must pass
orders. (See Rasid Javed & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 3 and
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao Vs. A.P. SRTC4) In the present cases, prima-
facie, it appears that authorities/ bodies, invoked their respective
powers at different stages and ultimately the impugned orders were
passed against the Petitioners without giving proper and reasonable
opportunity, in breach of the principles of natural justice as well as the
respective provisions/ procedures declared by AICTE. These orders
will cause great injustice and hardship to the institutions, staff and the
students. The investments so made by the Petitioners also just cannot
be overlooked.
15 There is no material that, out of 1800 such institutions in
Maharashtra, only these are the defaulting institutions. The
3 2010(7) SCC 781
4 AIR 1959 SC 308
15/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 16 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
complainant also unable to justify their restrictions and insistence to
proceed only against these institutions. There is also nothing on
record to show that all other 1800 institutions are without
deficiencies.
16 We are not suggesting that institutions should not remove
the deficiencies. But, this is not the way to deal with such institutions
on the basis of private complaint by giving unilateral hearing to them
thereby adopting a pick and choose policy. It is an admitted position
that for the academic year 2014-15 because of the time constraints,
AICTE has not made site visits in case of other institutions seeking
extension of approvals or for that matter additional courses/increase
in intake capacity. Timely and proper opportunity should have been
given before passing such orders and paucity of time can be no reason
for not following due procedure of law. Timely action should have
been taken. The impugned orders are in breach of natural justice,
fair-play and equity and therefore, required to be tested also on the
anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Respondents
discriminatingly selected the Petitioners' old established
institutions some of which are of high repute and passed the
16/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 17 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
impugned orders. We have also noted that the High Power Committee
never recommended and/or directed to take such drastic action at this
stage of academic year 2014-2015.
17 We have gone through the deficiencies so alleged and
referred to by the Counsel appearing for the respective Petitioners.
We find that some of the deficiencies are curable. Other deficiencies
relate to land, play-ground, occupation certificate, nature of
occupancy with permission and/or without permission, common play-
ground, sharing of premises, less area, running by the institutions
from campus, less land/insufficient land or built-up area, class rooms
or laboratories, the multiple use of same premises and requisite staff/
faculty/less staff are required to be dealt with as per the norms
prescribed in AICTE handbook. We have gone even through those
basic norms para 9.1.5 about land area requirements, para 9.1.6
classification of building areas norms para 12.2 and para 10 which
deal with the multi use of facilities shows that the interpretation and
submissions of Petitioners if accepted, there will be no deficiencies.
The authorities before passing order based upon their understanding
of those norms, though permitted the Petitioners to run the
17/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 18 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
institutions/colleges/courses for so many years suddenly took U-turn
and discarded the submission/explanation so given by the respective
Petitioners without giving reasons on those issues. Those norms and
standards including regulations of grant of approval for technical
education itself provide for relaxation/exemptions. We fail to
understand that if there were indeed some area/land deficiencies,
how the letters of approval were issued to the Petitioners at the
threshold. We are not here to give decisions on the respective
deficiencies at this stage, but as submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioners that those norms and standards and
regulations/rules unless interpreted and/or considered by this Court
and/or even by the supreme authority under AICTE Act and/or other
Act, such drastic action would definitely cause injustice and hardship
to all the concerned. There is nothing on record to show that any
findings and/or reasons have been given by the Council, while
interpreting these regulations. It is relevant to note that there is
power to relax, whereby the Council may in exceptional cases for
removal of any hardship and/or other reasons to be recorded in
writing, relax any of the deficiencies of this kind of any classes or
categories of institutions. No proper opportunity was given to the
18/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 19 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
Petitioners to put up their case before taking such drastic action. The
decision, therefore, so taken is arbitrary and not in consonance with
the various norms and regulations of AICTE. Due to time constraints,
as the impugned orders are passed at the eleventh hour just before the
admission process was to begin, the Petitioners have had no
opportunity to remove the deficiencies and/or file Appeals before the
Appellate Authority.
18
It is relevant to note that in some of the cases, though
there is no major deficiencies / zero deficiencies as recorded and as
there were minor deficiencies or removable deficiencies but for want
of time, they have not passed favourable order. We see no reason to
accept the drastic action so taken by the AICTE of bringing such
institutions in "no admission" category, at least, for the current year
2014-2015. It appears that AICTE has, based upon the alleged
complaint, inquiry and investigation, selected these institutions and
passed the orders without giving any explanation for their inaction
and not taking inspection at appropriate stages.
19 It is relevant to note that there is challenge also made to
19/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 20 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
the procedure and norms so declared by AICTE whereby, the
institutions/Applicants are permitted to file their Applications on-line
for approval/extension of approval for courses and/or variation in
intakes. These rules are in existence for so many years. The
Petitioners and/or such other institutions are accordingly submitting
their on-line Applications for extension of approvals from time to time.
The workable procedure is adopted as there are more than 11000
institutions which are imparting technical education in India. At this
stage, it is not possible to consider and accept the challenge to these
rules. We have to hear those matters finally, including the role of
complainants in such matters and power and authority to take such
drastic action by the supreme authority itself like AICTE in the manner
it has done. The submission on behalf of AICTE, therefore, not to
grant any ad-interim or interim relief in view of above is also
unacceptable.
20 After hearing both the parties on the last date, we have
already granted ad-interim relief in the respective matters based upon
the documents and material placed on record. Though separate
orders and the reasons so given, in view of above discussion, need to
20/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 21 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
continue till the final decision of the present Writ Petitions. We have
already stayed the impugned order of AICTE in the respective matters
and directed the Respondents-DTE to upload the Petitioners
Institutions' names in the Centralized Admission Process (CAP). The
ad-interim reliefs in somewhat following form are granted in every
matter.
"c. pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition,
this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 to upload the Petitioner's name for the
Centralized Admission Process (CAP) and be allowed
to participate in CAP round and/or Minority
Admission Procedure, for the academic year 2014-15
for the Engineering courses conducted by the
Petitioners at Pillai's Institute of Information
Technolocy, Engineering, Media Studies and Research
at 10, Sector 16, Podi 2, New Panvel, Raigad-410
206."
"However, this will be subject to the further orders of
this Court. The Petitioners will not claim any equity on
the basis of this order. The Respondents to file reply
affidavit on or before the next date."
"It is also clarified that non-listing of the Petitioners
institute/name on the AICTE Website will not affect the
21/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 22 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
admission process and implementation of prayer clause
(c)."
"The parties to act on an authenticated copy of this
order."
"It is also made clear that the Officer of Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Dr. Rajeev V. Shetkar, Assistant
Director (Tech.), Directorate of Technical Education,
M.S. Mumbai, is present in the Court and therefore,
non-availability of the present order should not be the
reason not to implement the order passed by this Court
today."
21 We have passed such orders and granted similar ad-interim
reliefs in all the Petitions. The statement is made that accordingly the
institutions names are listed. The students have been submitting
their Applications on-line till this date. All the Respondents are,
therefore, required to follow the time-table so fixed by the Supreme
Court in all respect.
22/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 23 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
22 The scope of writ jurisdiction is wide and so also it's
restrictions. It depends upon facts, circumstances and situations
specifically when dealing with the expert body's decision. The time
schedule fixed in Parshvanath (supra) has been re-scheduled by the
Supreme Court. If case is of perversity, illegality in following due
procedure of law, it is settled that any decision/order passed in breach
of principles of natural justice, fair play and equity and which causes
injustice, hardship and prejudice and specially when it relates to
students and higher education and which affect the people at large,
High Court in writ jurisdiction, may interfere with the same, to test
the validity, illegality of such action. A Division Bench of this Court in
Dental College & Hospital of the Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society vs.
Government of India & ors5 while dealing with the provisions of
Dentists Act, 1948 and the power of supreme Authority under the Act
referring to the establishment of New Dental College and courses held
that apart from others "There is no bar to interfere in expert body's
decision.". There also similar objection was raised by the Respondents
and opposed for the grant of any relief in favour of the institutions.
The Division Bench, based upon the facts, even directed the
5 2013 (5) ALL MR 830
23/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 24 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
respective Council to reconsider the representation made by the
Petitioners and further ordered to have fresh inspection and to pass
order in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to the
Petitioners. It is also noted in the said judgment as follows :
"32 The peculiarity of the fact in the present
case which the Court just cannot overlook merely
because the impugned decision is taken by the expert
body. As noted above, the expert and/or expert body
and/or institution and their power just cannot be
decided by the Court so far as the matter pertained to
and/or related to the students and/or academic
sessions. Any Tribunal/body even of experts, if takes
certain quasi judicial or administrative decisions by
which they take away and/or infringe the rights of any
person and/or institution and if there is breach of
principles of natural justice, we are inclined to observe
that the High Court need to test the decision/oder if
case is made out. There is no bar whatsoever that the
decision of the expert body in such a situation cannot
be interfered with and/or the High Court has no power
24/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 25 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
to test the decision."
23 The interim relief, therefore, if not granted, as case is
made out, the position of students as well as institutions would be
irreversible. The balance of convenience, equity lies in favour of the
students, people at large and the Petitioners. The extension of
approvals as prayed for running and long standing establishment
cannot be rejected abruptly in such fashion. The reasonable
opportunity should be given to remove the deficiencies, if any and if
representation is made, the Respondents also need to consider to relax
and/or exempt the Petitioners from such conditions with a view to
permitting such established institutions to run the courses in their
respective places/locality/area. The space constraints in cities and
their respective permission of less space/less land/ pending
occupation certificate and/or related aspect definitely require
reconsideration/ interpretation of the same. The Authorities of
AICTEC are therefore required to consider the representation and/or
application for relaxation of certain deficiencies and/or permit the
Petitioners to point out that there are no deficiencies by giving
opportunity to the party concerned before taking drastic action. Prima
facie we find that the manner and haste in which AICTE has passed
25/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 26 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
the impugned orders is unjustifiable. We also prima facie find that
there are infirmities in decision making process in passing the
impugned orders.
24 It is not in dispute that it was AICTE itself has granted
extension of approval to these institutions for last many years. It is an
admitted position that AICTE has acted merely on the complaints filed
by the Citizens Forum of Fairness in Education. AICTE in its Affidavit-
in-reply has averred that that it was based on the complaints of the
Citizens Forum of Fairness in Education that a CBI enquiry was
conducted and the then AICTE Chairman and Secretary were arrested
in 2009. We are not intending to interfere with the pending
investigation or inquiry, if any.
25 We are inclined to allow the Petitioners to admit the
students provisionally at this stage by treating the Applications of the
Petitioners as having been approved provisionally subject to conditions
and further orders.
26 We have, as recorded above, by ad-interim orders stayed
26/28
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::
ssm 27 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw
the impugned orders and permitted the institutions to participate in
the Centralized Admission Process (CAP) and to admit the students as
per the intake capacity of the previous years and/or last Letter of
Approval (LOA)/EOA. For the reasons discussed above, by way of
interim reliefs, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
(a) The Respondents, including Director of Technical Education (DTE) to allow the admission of the students as per the intake capacity of the previous years/last LOA/EOA, based on the respective Applications of the Petitioners.
(b ) The admission of the students would be provisional.
The concerned students shall be intimated accordingly and the admissions would be subject to further orders and/or outcome of the Writ Petitions.
(c) The Petitioners and/or students shall not claim any equity on the basis of this order.
(d) The Petitioners are directed to file additional affidavits dealing with the deficiencies, if any, and the objections so raised about the deficiencies and in 27/28 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 ::: ssm 28 wp6021.14gp-16-7-14.sxw what manner the alleged deficiencies can be cured and what steps they propose to take to remove those deficiencies and the time frame therefor.
(e) Additional affidavits referred to above shall be filed by the Petitioners within four weeks, failing which it may entail vacation of interim orders. The Additional affidavit in reply be filed by the Respondent -AICTE also.
(f) The impugned order of AICTE shall not affect the admissions of existing students and the classes and the courses.
(g) It is made clear that the ad-interim order continues to operate notwithstanding this interim order and the protection granted by these orders shall not extend in any case to the next academic year. The approvals for the next academic year shall be decided on its own merits.
(h) The parties are at liberty to apply for appropriate clarification, if any.
(A.A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) 28/28 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2014 23:50:42 :::