Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is not possible for us to discredit the two inspection reports—one by the AICTE and the other by the team headed by the Director, IIT. No doubt there is an apparent variation between the observations made in these two reports and the earlier reports of AICTE, as well as the report of CSIO which was prepared at the instance of the appellant. In fact, this Court directed constitution of an independent team of experts when it was brought to the notice of the Court that there were conflicting reports. Such report should be given its due weight. Even though some of the comments, especially with regard to the buildings, are too widely made and even if there are some inaccuracies here and there as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the report cannot be simply ignored. Even if basic infrastructure in the form of buildings and land is available, that is not all. The latest report of the team constituted under the orders of this Court as well as the report of AICTE furnished to the High Court and the earlier report of the University inspection team unmistakably indicate that there were deficiencies in many respects, especially in regard to IT course and all was not well with the functioning of the college. However, there seems to be good deal of improvement after the Administrator took over. The obligation to make up the deficiencies and to improve the general academic atmosphere lay on the shoulders of the College Management, but unfortunately, no positive steps were taken. Undoubtedly, there was discontentment amongst the students and the teachers. The High Court, taking stock of this factual situation and in order to ensure better administration and management, thought it fit to appoint an Administrator. However, the High Court apparently did not realize that there was no provision under which the management of an unaided private college could be taken over by the Administrator. In spite of our repeated query, none of the counsel was able to point out any provision either under the AICTE Act or the HP Education Act or University Act permitting the authorities to take over the management of institution. However laudable the objective behind the steps taken by the High Court, it cannot be justified under law. The imposition of an Administrator to take over the reins of administration for an indefinite point of time would undoubtedly amount to interference with the right of administering and managing a private educational institution which is now recognized to be a part of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) as held by this Court in TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (Supra). It would go against the principle of autonomy in regard to administration which has been emphasized by this Court in the said case. In the circumstances, the jurisdiction under Article 226 could not have been exercised by the High Court to oust the private management and transfer the management to a Court-appointed official.