Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On 18 May 2010, a notice to show cause was issued by the First Respondent to the First Petitioner stating that according to AICTE norms, an institute has to run courses only from an approved site.

Morever, if an institution desires to shift to another location, due process had to be followed under AICTE norms to get the approval of AICTE.

The allegation against the First Petitioner was that the Engineering College was shifted to another location together with a Pharmacy College without obtaining the approval of AICTE. The Petitioners submitted a reply on 21 May 2010 to the notice to show cause. In the reply, the Petitioners admitted in the following extract that after filing a proposal for shifting the engineering and pharmacy colleges, both the colleges were being conducted from the new premises :

 Dmt                                  10                                           WP460-11


         (vi)    Under AICTE Regulations, 2008, approval of AICTE is




                                                                              

necessary before shifting or changing the location of a college. The Trust is also required to furnish the NOCs of the State Government and of the affiliating University.

despite the fact that a completion certificate had not been granted by the Municipal Corporation of Thane; and

(d) The College had been shifted without the mandatory approval of AICTE.

On these grounds, the approval has been cancelled.

10. During the pendency of these proceedings, an ad-interim order was passed by the Division Bench on 29 June 2011 staying the operation of the order passed by AICTE on 7 January 2011 subject to the direction that the Petitioners would be permitted a total intake of 270 students, namely, 45 students for each of the six branches for which approval was originally granted by AICTE.

A settlement was arrived between the First Petitioner and the Sixth and Seventh Respondents. The admitted position as it stands is that the transfer of title in favour of the First Petitioner is not complete.

Consequently, a mandatory condition which forms part of the norms enunciated by AICTE in Para 9.22 of the Approval Process Hand Book has not been fulfilled. The location of the college was yet changed without waiting for the approvals of AICTE. An extension of yearly approval cannot be mistaken to be an approval for change in location.