Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The petition was entertained and ordered to be taken up for hearing along with certain writ petitions filed by the respondent No.4 IIPM against the respondents UGC and AICTE. Vide order dated 27th January, 2011, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) was also impleaded as a respondent to the petition. The other petitions along with which this petition was being taken up for hearing were however disposed of inter alia in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education (2013) 8 SCC 271 holding that MBA is not a technical course within the definition of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act) and AICTE does not have jurisdiction concerning the same. The order dated 2nd December, 2013 in this writ petition records that the respondent UGC vide its order dated 19th November, 2013 had found the advertisement issued by the respondent No.4 IIPM to be having the potential to mislead the students and public at large and having taken a decision that the respondent No.4 IIPM should forthwith stop the practice of issuing such dubious advertisements to attract students deceptively; faced therewith, the counsel for the respondent No.4 IIPM stated that till IIPM takes recourse against the said order of the UGC, it shall not print / publish / insert / issue / place any advertisement either in any newspaper, journal or Television or website without the prior approval of this Court. This Court in the order dated 2 nd December, 2013 recorded the said statement of the counsel and accepted the same and ordered the respondent No.4 IIPM to be bound thereby.

10. Per contra, the senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.4 IIPM is also in violation of the statement made before this Court on 2nd December, 2013 and by which it was ordered to be bound. It is stated that though it was stated before this Court that the respondent No.4 IIPM shall not print / publish / insert / issue / place any advertisement either in any newspaper, journal or Television or website without the prior approval of the Court but the respondent No.4 IIPM on its website continues to display advertisements including for admissions for the year 2014. Snapshots of such advertisements downloaded from the website of the respondent No.4 IIPM were handed over in the Court and which show the respondent No.4 IIPM having advertised for admission to "open MBA / (BBA + MBA - Integrated)" programmes for the year 2014 and having also represented that the same will lead to "UG/PG Courses IMI, Brussels". The senior counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the Prospectus published by the respondent No.4 IIPM and copy of which has been filed along with the writ petition, wherein the respondent No.4 IIPM had represented that the undergraduate programmes undertaken with it resulted in the award of Degree in B.Sc. in management. It is contended that though the senior counsel for the respondent No.4 IIPM today has acknowledged that the respondent No.4 IIPM was/is not entitled to confer Degree in management but was misrepresenting to the students. It is further contended that in accordance with the statements made by the senior counsel for the respondent No.4 IIPM today, the respondent No.4 IIPM is clearly a non-professional, non-technical Institution and nothing more than a private teaching (PT) Institution like several other PT Schools/Colleges operating in the country. It is yet further contended that the use by the respondent No.4 IIPM of the nomenclature „Business School‟ or „B- School‟ as used by other approved Institutions imparting education in BBA/MBA courses is also deceptive and misleads the students. Lastly, it is contended that though the respondent No.4 IIPM before this Court stated (as recorded in the order dated 27th June, 2008 in WP(C) No.4567/2008 (supra) filed by IIPM) that it is not having any affiliation with IMI, Belgium but its advertisements misleadingly convey otherwise. It is yet further informed that IMI, Belgium is not even recognized as per the law of Belgium.

In our opinion, the aforesaid is clearly a maze created by the respondent No.4 IIPM to entrap students to enlist with it in the hope of acquiring a qualification which the respondent No.4 IIPM is not entitled to confer and thereby enriching the respondent No.4 IIPM to a considerable extent as is evident from the huge expenditure earlier as well as now being incurred by the respondent No.4 IIPM in publicity in print and electronic media.

15. The respondent No.4 IIPM and its Dean Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri are undoubtedly also in violation of the statements given to this Court on 2 nd December, 2013 and with which they were ordered to be bound. The senior counsel for the respondent No.4 IIPM in fact had no reply also to the snapshots from the website of IIPM shown to us during the hearing and which are in violation of the said statement, as recorded in the order dated 2nd December, 2013. Neither could the senior counsel for the respondent No.4 IIPM deny that the same were from the website of IIPM nor could inform of any order by which IIPM may have been released from the said statement. The respondent No.4 IIPM, its concerned officials including its Dean Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri are accordingly liable to be proceeded against and punished for such breach of statements in the nature of undertaking given to this Court. However, considering that the said statement is of 2 nd December, 2013 and admission only for the year 2014 would be taking place / would have taken place thereafter, we take a lenient view of the matter and, "DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IIPM AND ITS RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS INCLUDING ITS DEAN MR. ARINDAM CHAUDHURI TO FORTHWITH REMOVE THE SAID ADVERTISEMENTS FROM THEIR WEBSITE AND TO COMPLY IN LETTER AND SPIRIT WITH THE SAID STATEMENT GIVEN AND RECORDED IN THE ORDER DATED 2ND DECEMBER, 2013. THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IIPM AND ITS RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS INCLUDING ITS DEAN MR. ARINDAM CHAUDHURI TO ALSO WITHIN ONE WEEK HEREOF, DISPLAY ON THEIR WEBSITE AN APOLOGY FOR HAVING SO VIOLATED THE STATEMENT IN THE NATURE OF UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO THE COURT.

18. In the face of the admission of the senior counsel for the respondent No.4 IIPM today that the respondent No.4 IIPM is not entitled to confer any Degree, the prospectus issued by the respondent No.4 IIPM showing itself as conferring a Degree, is evidently false and misleading. The respondent No.4 IIPM is not entitled to represent so in any manner directly or indirectly. Further in view of the admission that the respondent No.4 IIPM is not recognized by any statutory body / authority, the respondent No.4 IIPM also is not entitled to directly or indirectly in any manner convey that it is so recognized. Similarly, with respect to foreign Degrees / Institutions also, the respondent No.4 IIPM is required to make a clean breast of the status and to vividly and clearly inform its prospective customers / clients / students thereof, including the status of the said foreign Institutions and/or its Degree or Certificate in the country of its origin and/or to which it belongs.