Telangana High Court
M/S. Sheena Agro Farms P Ltd. vs All India Council For Technical ... on 7 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.17148, 17161, 17168 of 2017 and
8877 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
The issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ Petition No.17148 of 2017 is filed by the Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society and others, seeking following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
i) the action of the 1st Respondent in conducting title dispute adjudication while processing approvals under the AICTE Act including by passing its order dated 29.04.2017 in F.No.South-Central/1-6059891/2016/EOA thereby withdrawal the approval of the 2nd Petitioner Institution order as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same;
ii) direct the 1st Respondent to grant approval for the full sanctioned intake for all the courses of the 2nd Petitioner Institution for the academic year 2017-18;"
3. Writ Petition No.17161 of 2017 is filed by the Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society and others, seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
i) the action of the 1st Respondent in conducting title dispute adjudication while processing approvals under the AICTE Act including by passing its order of approval dated 29.04.2017 in F.No.South-Central/1-
3333652321/2017/NO Admission proving for zero admissions as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same;
2
ii) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the order dated 29.04.2017 in F.No. AICTE/AOO/SCR2016 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same;
iii) Further direct the 1st Respondent to grant approval for the full sanctioned intake for all the courses of the 2nd Petitioner Institution for the academic year 2017-18..."
4. Writ Petition No.17168 of 2017 is filed by the Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society and others, seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
i) the action of the 1st Respondent in conducting title dispute adjudication while processing approvals under the AICTE Act including by passing its order of 'withdrawal of approval' dated 29.04.2017 in F.No. South-
Central/1-4414044/2016/EOA as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same;
ii) Further direct the 1st Respondent to grant approval for the full sanctioned intake for all the courses of the 2nd Petitioner Institution for the academic year 2017-18..."
5. Writ Petition No.8877 of 2019 is filed by M/s.Sheena Agro Farms (P) Limited and other private companies and individuals against the AICTE, Sultan-Ul-Uloom Society and others, seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare that the respondents 4 to 7 are not entitled for extension of approval for the Academic Year 2019-20 and subsequent years by the 1st respondent for running their respective Educational Institutions, over the extent of petitioners property admeasuring Ac.6-00 guntas, bearing No.8-2-249 to 269, forming part of in Sy. No.359, Shaikpet village, situated at Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and consequently direct the 1st respondent to withdraw the approval or not to extend the approval to the respondent 4 to 7 Institutions for the Academic Year 2019-20 and subsequent years, over the above petitioners property..."3
6. Writ Petition No.17168 of 2017 is taken up as a leading case to decide the lis in this batch of cases.
7. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petitions are:
8. It is stated that the petitioner is an Educational Society (hereinafter referred as "Society") registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, with the objective of establishing institutions to promote educational facilities within the Muslim community, established in the year 1980. It is further stated that originally, the land admeasuring Ac.24.10 gts situated at Road No.3 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, belonged to Late Nawab Mir Usman Ali Khan Bahadur, HEH Nizam-VII, Hyderabad. It is also stated that the HEH Nizam-VII has formed a Trust known as Moazzam Jah Trust (hereinafter referred as "Trust") in the year 1949 for providing living expenses and welfare of his family. It is stated that a Supplementary Trust Deed was executed by H.E.H. the Nizam of Hyderabad on 08.01.1950. It is further stated that the said Trust purchased property by obtaining permission from the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in Case No.237/2/1954-53 vide registered sale deed dated 01.05.1954 for the property bearing Municipal No.8-2-249 to 267 known as "Mount Pleasant", totally admeasuring Ac.24.10 gts. While-so, it is stated that the Government has acquired the said 4 property under Land Acquisition Proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.388, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 4-9-1976 and G.O.Rt.No.928, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 31-8-1979, and handed over the possession to Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ('BHEL'). Subsequently, at the request of Prince Moazzam Jah, the property has been released for establishing educational institution. It is stated that the Trust claiming to be purchaser, negotiated with the petitioner for disposal of the property and various amounts have been received as part sale consideration and petitioner society was put into possession. It is further stated that disputing the possession of the petitioner, Mir Shahmat Ali Khan filed suit vide O.S.No.1207 of 2000 on the file of XIV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming to be in possession of Ac.4.20 gts of the subject property and pending adjudication of the said suit, disputes arose between the plaintiff therein and the petitioner society and proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C were initiated by the Special Executive Magistrate. Assailing the validity of proceedings dated 18.8.2003 in File No B/570/98 issued by the Special Executive Magistrate Hyderabad, under Section 145 Cr.P.C, the petitioner society filed W.P.No.17739 of 2003, wherein interim orders were granted and challenging the same, S.V.Nagaraja Reddy, claiming to be Power of Attorney of Prince Mir Shahamat Ali Khan, filed W.A.No.1687 of 2003. Vide common judgment dated 04.11.2003, W.P.No.17739 of 2023 was dismissed and Writ Appeal 5 No.1687 of 2003 was allowed. Questioning the said orders, the petitioner society filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.1875-1876 of 2004 on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same were dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2004.
9. It is also stated that the Society was inducted into possession by the Trust, initially as a tenant and subsequently, as purchaser. It is stated that having come to know about acquiring the property under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "ULC Act"), the petitioner society requested the Government and the Government vide Memo No.619/ID/77-42 dated 25.09.1980 decided that the "Mount Pleasant" building in Banjara Hills covered by Land Acquisition Proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.388, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 4-9-1976 and G.O.Rt.No.928, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 31-8-1979, which was in possession of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, Secunderabad, be returned to Prince Moazzam Jah Trust for making it available for starting an Engineering College sanctioned by Government. It is stated that the property in the custody of the Government was released in favour of the Society from BHEL and handed over to the Society for the purpose mentioned in the Memo dated 25.09.1980. It is further stated that the Trust after re-securing the possession has handed over the property under lease for setting up an Engineering College and in terms of the agreement 6 with the Trust, the society has also deposited certain amount. It is the case of the petitioner-society that since the date of handing over the property, they are in possession by virtue of the agreements executed by the Trust and their successors-in-interest. Meanwhile, the Trust also submitted a representation to the State Government seeking exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the ULC Act, 1976. The Government while rejecting the request of the Society in Memo No.817/UC(II)81-17 Revenue Department dated 16.08.1994, has initiated proceedings under the ULC Act, and the Special Officer- cum-Competent Authority, ULC, has passed orders under Section 8(4) of the Act, in File No.E2/5878/76 dated 19.03.2008 declaring the Moazzam Jah Trust as surplus land holder to an extent of 89,087.07 sq.metres (Acs.22.01 gts). Aggrieved by the said orders, the Society and others filed an appeal under the provisions of the ULC Act. It is stated that pending adjudication of the said appeal, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.459 dated 26.03.2008 granting exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the ULC Act, subject to petitioner society utilizing the exempted land for running educational institution and it should not be leased out without prior permission of the Government. It is further case of the petitioner that thereafter, at the request of the Trust, the petitioner society agreed to purchase the Mount Pleasant Building and appurtenant land and paid an amount of Rs.2,05,70,000/- under various installments and the 7 society is in uninterrupted possession as a tenant under the agreement of sale and petitioner society has established various institutions on the said land. It is further case of the petitioner that out of entire extent of land, an extent of Ac.1.30 gts has been acquired by the GHMC for road widening and remaining portion is used by the institutions as playground and parking area.
10. While the matter stood thus, Mrs.Princess Fathima Fouzia, claiming to be eldest daughter of Late Prince Muzzam Jah Bahadur and granddaughter of HEH Nizam-VII, Mir Osman Ali Khan, instituted suits vide O.S.Nos.154 of 2003 and 181 of 2003 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the property in Sy.No.359 of Shaikpet Village, bearing Municipal No.8-2-249 to 269 situated at Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, with abutting open land admeasuring Ac.6.00 gts. In the said suit, the Trust along with other purchasers were made as defendants. The property claimed thereunder is the property forming part of Ac.24.10 gts which was originally acquired by the Government and subsequently handed over vide Memo dated 25.09.1980 to the Trust and thereafter, the said property was given on lease in favour of the petitioner society. The said suits, after contest were dismissed vide common judgment and decree dated 21.07.2003. The petitioner society as third party to the litigation has 8 filed City Civil Court Appeal No.21 of 2004 on the file of this Court assailing Para 15.8 of the judgment and condition No.8 of the decree alone passed in O.S.Nos.154 and 181 of 2003 and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 18.06.2007 and the impugned findings of the learned Trial Court given in Para 15.8 and condition No.8 of the decree drawn inconformity therewith were set aside allowing the petitioner society to prosecute its suit vide O.S.No.297 of 2004 instituted seeking declaration of right against the owners and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.05.2014.
11. In the meanwhile, M/s. Seena Agro Farms (Pvt) Limited and others represented by its authorized signatory, S.V.Nagaraja Reddy, filed suit vide O.S.No.496 of 2015 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, stating that they have purchased various extents of property through registered sale deeds, and the suit schedule property therein constitute a single block admeasuring Ac.6-00gts and said block forms part of Sy.No.359 of Shaikpet Village with MCH No.8-2-249 to 269 and situated at Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. In the said suit, interim injunction was granted vide I.A.No.2576 of 2015, restraining the society from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or parking any vehicles in plaint schedule property pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner 9 society filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.364, 365, 430 and 438 of 2016 on the file of this Court. After contest, the said appeals were allowed with costs vide order dated 29.12.2016 and interim injunction granted in I.A.No.2576 of 2015 in O.S.No.496 of 2015 was set aside. Questioning the said orders, the petitioners in W.P.No.8877 of 2019 have filed S.L.P.No.7777 of 2017 on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 24.04.2017 observing that there are various disputed facts and mixed questions of law and facts involved in the case and the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year and the parties to the said appeal were directed to maintain status quo with regard to alienation or creation of any charge. It was further observed that the observations made by the trial Court and the High Court shall not come in the way of the trial Court to decide the matter finally.
12. While-so, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.496 of 2015 filed W.P.No.19291 of 2016 on the file of this Court questioning the G.O.Ms.No.459 dated 26.03.2008 issued by the respondent No.1 granting exemption to the petitioner society under Section 20(1)(a) of the ULC Act, 1976. This Court vide interim order dated 21.06.2016 passed in WP MP No.23672 of 2016 in WP No.19291 of 2016 suspended the said exemption orders in respect of the land claimed 10 by the petitioners in W.P.No.19291 of 2016 i.e, plaintiffs in O.S.No.496 of 2015 and the said Writ Petition is pending for adjudication. It is stated that pending adjudication of said W.P, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.496 of 2015 (petitioners in W.P.No.19291 of 2016) filed a complaint on the file of AICTE stating that part of the land in occupation of the petitioner society belongs to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.496 of 2015 and the petitioner society falsely representing that they are owners of the property has obtained permission from AICTE and therefore, requested to take appropriate action. Acting on the said complaint, AICTE has issued notice to the petitioner society vide proceedings in reference No.CVO/AICTE/2010/SCRO/16 (SUUS)79(ii)/1412 directing the petitioner-society to appear before the One-Man Committee for enquiring into the said complaint. It is stated that the petitioner society has submitted a detailed reply dated 15.03.2016 to the Committee constituted by the AICTE, stating the facts relating to title and possession of the subject property. Pending adjudication of the said complaint, the alleged successors, Ameena Merzia and Ooliya Kulsum claiming that they are the successors/beneficiaries of the Trust and the society is not having any right over the properties and the colleges established, requested the AICTE, to take necessary action. It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to the said complaint before the Committee constituted by the AICTE on 29.11.2016. Since the 11 complicated issues are involved to decide the title and lawful possession and as the AICTE is not expertised to decide those issues, a Two-Man Justice Committee headed by Justice N.L.Tibrewal (Retired Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court) and Sri G. Shankar, Architect, was constituted for rendering opinion on the claims of inter se parties. The Committee, after hearing the petitioner as well as all the contesting parties submitted its report dated 25.04.2017 stating that the petitioner society has not fulfilled the requirements of the AICTE regulations for granting permission/ extension of permission, after the enactment of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 ("AICTE Act") w.e.f. 28.12.1987. Acting on the expert committee report, the AICTE issued proceedings dated 29.04.2017 directing the petitioner society to produce all the documents for granting recognition/extension of Approval. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the AICTE stating that copy of the expert opinion report has not been furnished and that the AICTE has not taken into consideration the long possession and pendency of various cases and also stating that the complainants are not having any locus standi and that the observations made in O.S.No.496 of 2015 is the subject matter of status quo orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the disputes among the inter se parties have not attained the finality and that Standing Appellate Committee of AICTE cannot recommend for passing of the impugned orders in rejecting 12 the recognition/extension of approval, Writ Petition Nos.17161, 17148 and 17168 of 2017 have been filed.
13. This Court vide common order dated 09.06.2017 in W.P.Nos.17161, 17148 and 17168 of 2017 granted interim suspension of impugned orders dated 29.04.2017 passed by the AICTE on the following conditions:
a) The petitioners shall disclose to the students, who are seeking admission in the 2nd petitioner/college about the pendency of the civil case and this writ petition.
b) An undertaking shall be taken from the students, who are joining in the 2nd petitioner/college indicating their awareness about the litigation and that they will not claim any equities later.
14. Aggrieved by the common order dated 09.06.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.17161, 17148 and 17168 of 2017, the respondents filed Writ Appeal Nos.782, 784, 787, 796 and 800 of 2017 on the file of this Court and the same were dismissed vide common judgment dated 27.06.2017. Subsequently, the AICTE also filed Writ Appeal Nos.943, 944 and 953 of 2017 on the file of this Court and the same were also dismissed vide common judgment dated 14.07.2017. Assailing the same, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.32973, 34546 and 34508 of 2017 have been filed on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the same were dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2017 with an observation that the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, shall not come in the way of final decision. 13
15. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.
16. Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.17148, 17161 and 17168 of 2017, submitted that Two-Man Justice Committee Report, which is the sole basis for passing of the impugned orders, was not provided to the petitioners. It is further submitted that constitution of Two-Man Justice Committee is without jurisdiction and there is no provision under the AICTE Act, its Regulations, or the AICTE Approval Process Handbook (APH) that permits the formation of such a Committee. The Regulation 16.7 of the APH mandates a quorum, which the committee does not meet and thereby rendering it wholly without jurisdiction. The Committee exceeded its authority by adjudicating title disputes between the parties, which is impermissible in law. It reviewed the society's ongoing legal disputes and rendered a decision on ownership, which statutory authorities are not empowered to do. The complaints considered by the AICTE were limited to title issues. Despite the same, the AICTE improperly investigated matters unrelated to the complaint, such as building plans and Occupancy Certificates (OCs). Even the final impugned order only addresses title, requesting the petitioner institution to produce a title deed, confirming that building plans or OCs were not relevant to the 14 decision. Further, the learned Senior Counsel argued that the complainant, Mr. S.V. Nagaraja Reddy, has no locus standi to file complaint as the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of Shahmath Ali Khan, since the GPA was canceled. The suit vide O.S.No.942 of 2011 filed challenging the cancellation of GPA, was dismissed. Therefore, the AICTE should not have entertained the complaint. The Standing Appellate Committee (SAC), which reviewed the committee's report, acted contrary to the APH. According to Regulations 1.11 and 2.24, the SAC can only be constituted if an appeal is filed by the institution. In this case, no such appeal was filed, making the SAC's involvement illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner society has fulfilled the AICTE's title requirements. It entered into an agreement of sale with the Muazzam Jah Trust, paying full sale consideration and filed a suit for specific performance vide O.S.No.297 of 2004. It is further submitted that in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was recorded that Shahmath Ali Khan had no claim over the property, and the Trust expressed its willingness to execute a registered sale deed. Accordingly, a compromise memo was recorded, confirming payment of entire sale consideration and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, the society has established possessory title, and no one, including the trust, can claim better title than the society. The AICTE's requirement under Regulation 6.17(b) of the APH is satisfied 15 by valid document under the Transfer of Property Act or other applicable law. The petitioners have complied with the requirements through possessory title recognized under Article 141 of the Constitution. The society could not execute a formal sale deed due to pending legal proceedings. It is further submitted that in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing to maintain status quo further alienation of the property has been prevented. However, those proceedings do not affect the possessory title of the society. The claim of the respondents that the petitioner-society is not in possession of Ac.6-00gts of land is false. Although proceedings under Section 145 CrPC initially granted possession to S.V.Nagaraja Reddy, those orders were challenged and set aside in the judgment dated 18.06.2007 passed in CCCA No.21 of 2004. As a result, the petitioner-society retains possession of entire land admeasuring Ac.24.10 gts. The focus of the AICTE to produce building plans and Occupancy Certificates is irrelevant to the complaint. Further, the petitioner has produced building plans and Fire Services Certificate, structural stability and fitness certificates confirming compliance with regulatory requirements. The AICTE's infrastructure requirements aim to ensure building safety and adequate facilities and the petitioner society meets those standards, as confirmed in the inspection report, 2024 and there is no allegation of unsafe structures or inadequate infrastructure. Thus, the action of the 16 AICTE amounts to an impermissible review of title disputes, which is not within its jurisdiction. Withdrawing approval despite compliance would cause significant hardship to over 6,000 students presently enrolled in the petitioner-institution. The AICTE has consistently granted approvals to the institution since its inception in the year 1987. In the year 2012, the AICTE defended those approvals in response to legal challenges, and the Courts upheld them, recognizing the AICTE's awareness of the title disputes. The AICTE cannot now revisit or revoke those approvals arbitrarily. Thus the learned Senior Counsel submits that the constitution of the Two-Man Justice Committee and the impugned order are without jurisdiction and failure to provide committee's report violates principles of natural justice, and the AICTE's attempt to conduct a title inquiry is unlawful. Further, the petitioner society satisfied all the requirements of AICTE including title and infrastructure norms. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions viz., ECIL v. B.Karunakar 1, Hyderabad Potteries vs. Collector 2, P.Subba Rao vs. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) 3, K. Pavan Raj vs. MCH 4, Rame 1 (1993) 4 SCC 727 2 2001 (3) ALD 600 3 Common Judgment dated 17.11.2022 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.513 and 516 of 2022 by the Division Bench of this Court.
4(2008) 1 ALD 792 17 Gowda vs. M.Varadappa Naidu 5 and Poona Ram vs. Moti Ram 6 and ultimately prayed to allow the writ petitions.
17. Mr.B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.8877 of 2019 vehemently contended that the petitioners purchased the property under registered sale deeds and they have also instituted a suit vide O.S.No.496 of 2015, wherein initially injunction was granted and the same was reversed vide judgment dated 29.12.2016 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.364, 365, 430 and 438 of 2016 by a Division Bench of this Court. Questioning the same, the petitioners in W.P.No.8877 of 2019 filed S.L.P.No.7777 of 2017 on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 24.04.2017 directing both parties to maintain status quo in all respects. It is further submitted that exemption proceedings issued by the Government in favour of the petitioner-Society under 20(1)(b) of the ULC Act, 1976 vide G.O.Ms.No.459 dated 26.03.2008 has been assailed in WP No.19291 of 2016 and this Court vide interim order dated 21.06.2016 in WP MP No.23672 of 2016 suspended the said exemption orders in respect of the land claimed by the petitioners in W.P.No.19291 of 2016 i.e, plaintiffs in O.S.No.496 of 2015. Therefore, the petitioner society is not entitled to say that it is the 5 (2004) 1 SCC 769 6 (2019) 11 SCC 309 18 owner/agreement holder of the property, more particularly, when the validity or otherwise of the exemption orders is sub judice before the Court. It is further contended that the property in question has been purchased by the petitioners in W.P.No.8877 of 2019 and as such, they are having locus to agitate their grievances before all the forums including AICTE, which granted approval in favour of the society based on invalid documents and contrary to the AICTE Regulations. It is further submitted that as petitioner society failed to fulfil the requirements of AICTE Regulations, the AICTE is conferred with the power of withdrawal of Approval. The society having participated before the expert committee/Two-Man Justice Committee is not having right to dispute the opinion rendered by the said Committee for contemplating the impugned action by the AICTE and Writ Petition Nos.17148, 17161 and 17168 of 2017 filed by the petitioner- society are not maintainable.
18. On the other hand, Mr. K.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the AICTE would submit that AICTE being the statutory authority is empowered under the Regulations to insist the institutions to produce the documents to the satisfaction of the requirements of Approval as prescribed in Clause 4.9(a) of All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2020. It is also submitted that all the 19 existing educational institutions shall invariably fulfill the conditions imposed in Clause 6.17(a)(b) of AICTE Regulations and all the new institutions have to fulfill the requirements of Clause 1.5.1(a)(b)(c). It is further submitted that as per Clause 4.9 of the AICTE Regulations, all the Technical Institutions shall fulfil the requisite norms as specified in the Approval Process Handbook and further produce the documents showing ownership of Land/Building as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or any other Law for the time being in force relating to transfer of property to or by Companies, Associations or bodies of individuals, in the name of the Applicant in the form of Registered Settlement Deed/ Registered Sale Deed/ Irrevocable Gift Deed (Registered)/ Irrevocable Government/ Private Lease Deed (Registered) (for a period of minimum 30 years with at least 25 years of live Lease at the time of submission of application). It is also stated that as per Clause 5.6(h) of AICTE Regulations, for extension of Approval, the institutions have to file an affidavit that institutions will abide all the terms and conditions laid down in the Approval Process Handbook, issued from time to time stating that the declaration of information and documents submitted for Extension of Approval is true, complete and nothing is false and that there is no dispute pertaining to the land and if any information is found to be false, misleading, the AICTE shall free to take any action, including withdrawal of the Approval. It 20 is stated that the affidavit filed by the petitioner is in the nature of half-disclosure of the facts about pendency of the litigation and as such, the AICTE is conferred with the power for withdrawal of the approval. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in the reply filed before the Two-Man Justice Committee, the petitioners admitted that they do not have ownership documents in their name and have not produced the approved building plans issued by the GHMC or the Occupancy Certificates as required under the Municipalities Act. Therefore, in the absence of these documents, the petitioner society cannot assert that it has complied with all requirements relating to ownership, title, and built-up area details concerning the institutions, as stated in their affidavit. On this ground alone, the petitioner society is not entitled to the grant of Approval or Extension of Approval. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that the AICTE has not adjudicated any title disputes but has required the petitioner to comply with the instructions in the Handbook and provide valid title documents as per AICTE Regulations. It is also submitted that, since the AICTE lacks the technical expertise to conclude that the documents provided by the petitioner society confer ownership or lawful possession, a Committee has been constituted to render an opinion on the documents submitted for appropriate action. This action does not amount to violation of the petitioner's guaranteed rights; rather, 21 it reflects an appreciation of the case from a proper perspective. It is further submitted that, as the petitioner society was given an opportunity to submit the necessary documents with sufficient time, this does not constitute punitive action against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has not made a case to claim that the non- furnishing of copy of the Opinion/Report violates the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner's rights have not been adversely affected by the report. In fact, granting of the initial approval itself is legally unsound, and this cannot be perpetuated through continuous renewals. In the absence of any illegality or legal infirmities in the impugned orders, this Court, in its summary jurisdiction, cannot arrive at a conclusion to review the decision taken by an authority constituted under the Statute. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions viz., Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others 7, AICTE v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan 8, A.M. Kanniappa v. AICTE 9, AP Christian Medical Society v. Govt. of AP 10, Dr. Ambedkar Institute v. Vaibhav Singh 11, Haryana 7 (2013) 3 SCC 385 8 (2009) 11 SCC 726 9 (1998) SCC Online Mad 1673 10 (1986) 2 SCC 667 11 (2009) 1 SCC 59 22 Financial Corp. v. Kailash 12, Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali 13 and Gadde Venkateshwara Rao v. Govt. of AP 14 -
19. Mr.M.Govind Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that his clients are successors of the Trust and in the absence of their consent, any sale or agreement created in favour of the petitioner society is invalid. It is argued that the petitioner society is not entitled to claim any rights of the Trust, unless its right is established before a competent Court. Therefore, it has no basis to claim ownership, and its alleged possession cannot be considered lawful under the AICTE Regulations. Consequently, the action taken by the AICTE in withdrawing approval is legal and does not warrant interference in the light of the facts of the case and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
20. Before adverting to the various issues raised in this batch of writ petitions, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the provisions of AICTE Act and the Regulations made thereunder for granting Approvals to technical institutions.
21. It is apt to refer the object of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short "AICTE Act") and the Regulations issued thereunder from time to time for granting Approvals to 12 (2008) 9 SCC 31 13 (2000) 7 SCC 529 14 AIR 1966 SC 828 23 technical educational institutions. The Parliament enacted the AICTE Act in the year 1987 with a view to organizing the technical education system throughout the country, promoting qualitative improvement in education, and regulating and maintaining norms and standards in the technical education system. Section 3 of the AICTE Act provides for establishment of All India Council for Technical Education. Section 10 of the AICTE Act deals with functions of the Council and it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under the Act. Section 10(i) states that the Council may lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations. As per Section 10(r), the Council shall take steps to strengthen the existing organisations, and to set up new organisations to ensure effective discharge of the Councils responsibilities and to create positions of professional, technical and supporting staff based on requirements. Section 23 of the AICTE Act, confers power on the council by notification in the Official Gazette to make regulations and the Rules to carry out purposes of the Act. 24
22. As per the AICTE Approval Process Handbook (APH) for the academic year 2012-13, all existing institutions were mandated to comply with the provisions of AICTE Act, 1987 which outlines specific requirements necessary to establish and operate technical education programs in India. Clause No.2.4(a) of APH states that the promoter society/trust/A company established under Section 25 of Companies Act 1956, of a new technical Education Institution shall have the land as required and prescribed in its lawful possession with clear title in the name of the promoter society/trust/A company established under Section 25 of Companies Act 1956, on or before the date of submission of application.
23. In exercise of its powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 23 read with Section 10 and Section 11 of the AICTE Act, and in supersession of the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for the Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2012 regarding grant of approval for starting new Technical Institutions, introduction of Courses or Programmes and increase/variations of intake capacity of seats for the Courses or Programmes, Extension of Approval, the All India Council for Technical Education framed Regulations called as "All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2016". As per Clause 4.11 of Regulations, 2016, the Council shall publish, from 25 time to time, Approval Process Handbook detailing the documents to be attached to the application, the fee to be remitted, the norms and standards, requirements and the procedure by which the applications are processed for grant of approval of existing Institutions/Promoters. As per Clause 4.12 of Regulations, 2016 the applications received under Clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of Regulations shall be processed as per the procedures, norms and standards prescribed in the Approval Process Handbook as notified by the Council from time to time in addition to the existing Central, State and Local Laws. As per Clause 4.35, the applicants are expected to provide the Council true and complete information and documents required for various purposes. If the information given and/or the documents provided to the Council are found to be false, incomplete and/or the applicants have failed to disclose factual information and/or suppressed/misrepresented the information, the Council shall initiate action including Withdrawal of Approval/or any other action as deemed necessary against the applicants. As per Clause 4.36, AICTE shall also conduct from time to time inspections with or without notifying dates in such cases where specific complaints of falsification of documents, misrepresentation, violation of norms of standards, malpractices, etc. are received. Clause 6 of the Regulations specifically deals with the requirement of the land and built-up area. Clause 6.1 states that the Promoter Society/Trust/ 26 Company of a new Technical Education Institution shall have the required land as mentioned in Approval Process Handbook in its lawful possession with clear title in the name of Promoter Society/ Trust/ Company on or before the date of submission of application. Further to that it shall be open for the Promoter Society/Trust/ Company to the proposed Institution to mortgage the land after the receipt of letter of approval, only for raising the resources for the purpose of development of the Technical Education Institution situated on that land. Further to that it shall be open for the Promoter Society/Trust/Company of the existing Institution to run other Educational Courses/Institutions (Technical/Non-Technical) in the surplus land arising out of prevailing/reduced norms of land requirement. However, such surplus land can be used as per the land use certificate given to the Society/Trust/Company by the concerned authority subject to such Courses/Institutions having their own facilities to conduct such Programmes without sharing the essential facilities such as class room, laboratory etc. with the already approved Technical Institution. However, Common amenities such as Canteen, Auditorium, Playground, Parking, etc. may be shared provided it caters to all the students of all the Programmes. Clause 8 which deals with withdrawal of Approval states that if any Technical Institution contravenes any of the provisions of relevant Regulations, the Council after making appropriate inquiry through 27 Standing Hearing Committee (SHC) and after providing an opportunity of being heard through the Standing Appellate Committee (SAC) shall withdraw the approval granted. In case of Withdrawal of Approval to the Institution, the Technical Institution/Society/Trust/Company shall apply afresh for approval after completion of two Academic Years for setting up a new Institution as per the procedure defined in Approval Process Handbook. Clause 11 which deals with Complaint Cases states that in case of receipt of any complaint(s) about an Institution, the same shall be processed by Grievance Redressal Cell (GRC) of AICTE. The complaint shall be placed before a Standing Complaint Scrutiny Committee (SCSC) for further necessary action. If necessary the complainant may be called to appear before SCSC at his/her own cost. Based on the recommendation of SCSC, a warning or Show Cause Notice may be issued to the Institution or EVC may be conducted. If an EVC was conducted or Show Cause notice was issued based on complaints, the same shall be placed before the Standing Hearing Committee (SHC). A representative of the Institution shall be called to place their point of view before the Standing Hearing Committee. If necessary, the complainant may be called to appear before SHC at his/her own cost. The recommendations of SHC shall be placed before the EC for approval. The decision of the EC shall be communicated to the Institution by a 28 detailed Speaking Order. If the Institution is aggrieved by the decision of the EC, the Institution shall have the right to appeal as per the procedure in Chapter I of Approval Process Handbook.
24. The petitioner-institution was established as society and registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Originally the land admeasuring Ac.24.10 gts situated at Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, belonged to Late Nawab Mir Usman Ali Khan Bahadur, HEH Nizam-VII, Hyderabad. It is stated that HEH Nizam-VII formed a Trust in the name of Moazzam Jah Trust in the year 1949. The petitioner society has obtained the land initially as a tenant and subsequently, claiming right as an agreement holder from the said Trust. The Government issued a Memo No.619/ID/77-42 dated 25.09.1980, which reads as under:
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (ID) DEPARTMENT.
Memorandum No.619/ID/77-42 Dated 25-9-1980.
Sub: - Land Acquisition - Ranga Reddy District, Shaikpet Village -
Building "Mount Pleasant" in Banjara Hills in possession of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. - Handing over to the Prince Mussan Jah Trust - Instructions - Issued.
Ref:- 1) From the General Manager, Hanagement Development Institute, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Secunderabad, letter No.BHE/MDI/OM/30, dated 2-6-1980.
2) From the Secretary, Prince Muzzam Jan Trust, Hyderabad, letter dated 18-9-1980 to the Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department.29
The Government have considered the request made by the Prince Muzzan Jah Trust, Hyderabad in their letter second cited to return the building "Mount Pleasant" in Banjara Hills covered by Land Acquisition Proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.388, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 4-9-1976 and G.O.Rt. No.928, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 31-8-1979, now in possession of M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Secunderabad to the above Trust to start an Engineering College, recently sanctioned by Government. The Government have considered the request and decided that the building may be taken possession of from M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Secunderabad and returned to Prince Muzzam Jah Trust for making it available for starting an Engineering College recently sanctioned by Government, as decided by the Trust.
2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District is requested to take possession of the said building from M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Secunderabad and return it to the above Trust immediately and report compliance to Government.
B. PRATAP REDDY, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.
To The District Collector, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad.
Copy to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries), Hyderabad Copy to the Secretary, Prince Muzzam Jah Trust, Parade Villa, Hyderabad-1.
Copy to the General Manager, Management Development Institute, 39, Sarojini devi Road, Secunderabad-500003."
25. A careful reading of the aforesaid memo reveals that the "Mount Pleasant" building in Banjara Hills, acquired by the Government through Land Acquisition Proceedings via G.O.Rt.No.388, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 4-9- 1976, and G.O.Rt.No.928, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 31-8-1979, and the possession of which was with M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Secunderabad, was handed over to the Prince Moazzam Jah Trust for establishing an Engineering College. Except 30 issuing the said Memo, the Government has not executed any conveyance deed transferring the property in favour of the petitioner- society complying the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. There is no material on record to show that the land acquired as stated in the Memo dated 25.09.1980 was released in favour of the petitioner on payment of market value or any conveyance deed was executed. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.459 dated 26.03.2008 granted exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the ULC Act, subject to petitioner society utilizing the exempted land for running educational institution and it should not be leased out without prior permission of the Government. Admittedly, as on date, there is no valid transfer in favour of the Society, strictly following the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Further, in Appendix 17 of the Approval Process Handbook 2016-17, Clause 17.0 deals with documents to be submitted for issuance of Extension of Approval of Existing Institutions. The required documents are:
i) A copy of the Registration Certificate and Trust Deed / Registration Certificate of the Society.
ii) Memorandum of Association and Rules.
iii) Details of Board of Governors of the Institute constituted as per Appendix 18.
iv) The registration document establishing that the land on which the concerned technical Institution is located is in legal possession of sponsoring trust / society as the case may be;
v) Land use Certificate establishing that Competent Authority has allowed the use of the land on which the concerned Institution is located is for educational purpose and for the purpose of establishment of the Institution concerned.31
vi) Khasra plan (Master plan) to show that the land is contiguous issued by the Competent Authority.
vii) Final building and floor plan duly approved by the competent authority.
viii) Certificate from an architect registered with Council of Architecture regarding total built up area of the building and carpet area of each room.
ix) The Letter of Approval, initially given by the AICTE, at the time of establishment of the Institution approved by the AICTE;"
26. After the AICTE Act, came into force, the petitioner institution has made an application for granting Extension of Approval. The AICTE, relying on the affidavit filed and documents enclosed has granted Extension of Approval to the petitioner-institutions. While- so, petitioners in W.P.No.19291 of 2016 (plaintiffs in O.S.No.496 of 2015) has submitted a complaint on the file of the AICTE stating that the petitioner society has not submitted valid documents either for title or for possession for seeking approval or extension of Approval as per the provisions of the AICTE Act or complied with the AICTE Regulations and requested to cancel the Grant of Approval/ Extension of Approval. Acting on the said complaint, AICTE has issued notice to the petitioner society vide proceedings in reference No.CVO/AICTE/2010/SCRO/16(SUUS)79(ii)/1412 directing to appear before the One-Man Committee for enquiring into the said complaint. It is stated that the petitioner society has submitted a detailed reply dated 15.03.2016 to the Committee constituted by the AICTE, stating the facts relating to the title and possession of the 32 society. Pending adjudication of the said complaint, the alleged successors, Ameena Merzia and Ooliya Kulsum claiming that they are the successors/beneficiaries of the Trust had submitted a complaint stating that the society is not having any right over the properties and the colleges and requested the AICTE to take necessary action. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to the said complaint before the Committee constituted by the AICTE on 29.11.2016. Since the complicated issues are involved to decide the validity of the documents and as the AICTE is not expertised to decide such issues, a Two-Man Justice Committee headed by Justice N.L.Tibrewal (Retired Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court) and Sri G. Shankar, Architect, was constituted for rendering opinion on the claims of inter se parties.
27. The Expert Committee has issued notice to both parties and afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and directed the petitioner-society to submit the following documents:
(i) The ownership/land title documents with regard to the land and building meant for running the above three institutions approved by the AICTE.
(ii) Approved building plan of all the buildings which are related to the institutions approved by the AICTE along with the division of land for each of the approved institutions. A competent architect registered with the Council of Architecture need to sign the documents along with mandatory approvals from local municipal authorities.
(ii) The completion certificate from the Competent Authority with regard to the buildings meant for the above three educational institutions approved by the AICTE.33
28. It is revealed from the record that in terms of the directions issued by the Two Man Justice Committee, the petitioner has not produced any document and in fact the petitioner's representative admitted that the society/institute is not having ownership of the land and as such no building plain is sanctioned in favour of the society by the competent authority. Except stating that the civil suits vide O.S.No.496 of 2015 and O.S.No.387 of 2006 instituted in respect of the subjects lands are pending, the petitioner society has failed to produce the documents. As there is no other option, the Committee directed the Regional Officer, SCRO, AICTE, to produce the photocopies of the following documents relating to approvals granted to the petitioner society, as mentioned below:
"(i) Land title documents showing ownership submitted by the institutes at the time of first approval granted by the AICTE or subsequently.
(ii) Copies of the Approved building plan by the Competent Authority of all the three institutes referred to above.
(c) Copies of Completion Certificate/Occupancy Certificate of the building where the above institutes are located.
(iv) Land requirements as per AICTE norms at the time of first approval.
(v) Copy of today's proceedings be also sent to both the complainants and the society/institutes while intimating them next date of hearing."
29. The Two-Man Justice Committee after considering the entire records relating to Grant of Approval and pending cases on the file of the various forums and after meticulous examination of the AICTE 34 Regulations, submitted a detailed report. The crucial observations of the Committee as recorded in the Report, are extracted hereunder:
"f) From the above discussions/ observations it can be safely concluded that the above Society/Institutions neither had nor have any title of ownership in their favour which is mandatory for approval/extension of approval by the AICTE.
It may be further observed that this aspect was not considered at any time by the concerned officers of the AICTE either at the time of granting first approval to the above three institutions or thereafter while granting Extension of Approval for the reasons best known to them.
g) From the discussions made earlier, it is further clear that there is no approved building plan of the institution by the Competent Authority, as well, Occupancy Certificate which are also mandatory requirements for grant of approvals and extension of approvals, Recommendations:-
Based on the above observations and conclusions, it is recommended that a copy of this final report be forwarded to the Approval Bureau with all documents submitted by the parties to proceed to take action against the institutions.
Note: So far the Engineering college is concerned it is functioning from the year 1982 or so and taking this aspect in consideration, the AICTE may give sometime to the Society conducting the said institution for getting proper Registered Conveyance Deed of ownership in its favour from the current owners of the land. However the other two institutions have been started subsequently after the AICTE was constituted under the Act of Parliament, as such, the other two institutions are not entitled to get any favour for grant of time. However it is for the Approval Bureau or the Competent Authority of the AICTE to take action under the Approval Process Handbook.
A copy of this report be sent to Approval Bureau today for doing the needful.
Sd/-xxxxx Sd/-xxxxx
Justice (Retd.) N.L. Tibrewal Sham Shri G. Shankar,
Chairman Architect (Member)".
30. On keen examination of the observations of the Committee would reveal that from the inception of establishment of the 35 petitioner-society, it was not having valid documents in its favour.
The case of the petitioner society is that the Government vide Memo No.619/ID/77-42 dated 25.09.1980 has re-delivered/handed over the land acquired vide G.O.Rt.No.388, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 4-9- 1976 and G.O.Rt.No.928, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 31-8-1979. Except producing the said memo dated 25.09.1980, the petitioner society has not filed any documents or the conveyance deed. It is settled law that the acquired property vested in the State is free from all encumbrances unless the petitioner society or their alleged vendor (Trust) produces any conveyance deed transferring the property. Be that as it may, as per Clause 6 of the AICTE Regulations, 2016, the petitioner has to submit documents relating to title and lawful possession. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the AICTE, the Two-Man Justice Committee (Expert Committee) except suggesting that the documents produced by the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of the AICTE Regulations for granting approval, has not decided the validity or otherwise of the title of inter se parties. Further, the petitioner was provided ample opportunity to produce documents to demonstrate compliance with the conditions, specifically regarding whether sanctioned permission for the construction of the buildings had been obtained. In fact, the representative of the petitioner who appeared before the Committee on 02.09.2016 had admitted that ownership of the land does not vest 36 in the petitioner society and as such, no building plan is sanctioned in favour of the society/institute by the Competent Authority. In view of the admission by the petitioner society, there is nothing erroneous in the observations made by the Expert Committee (Two- Member Justice Committee) and the findings recorded in the report, which indicate that the petitioner society has not complied with the AICTE regulations. The decision in ECIL vs. B. Karunkar's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner society was present before the Committee and admitted that it does not possess any valid documents of ownership or construction permissions. The non-supply of copy of expert report does not vitiate the impugned orders as the petitioner society was given reasonable opportunity to produce the documents. Furthermore, in line with the Committee's recommendations, the respondents have not canceled the approval but have only granted time to the petitioner institution to comply with the regulations. Further, in State Bank of Patiala and others vs. S.K.Sharma 15, the Hon'ble Apex Court clarified that the principles laid down in ECIL vs. Karunkar case (supra), cannot be put into a strait-jacket formula and its applicability depends upon the context and the facts and circumstances of the case. AICTE has provided all the reasonable opportunities to the petitioner society such as issuing 15 (1996) 3 SCC 364 37 show cause notice dated 01.11.2016 and thereafter, appointed the expert committee for rendering opinion on the documents submitted by the petitioner society and procedure adopted by the AICTE is inconsonance with the principles of natural justice and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner on account of non-furnishing the copy of the Two Man Justice Committee Report and even in the absence of said report also, invariably the petitioner has to fulfil the requirements of producing the title deeds, relating to ownership and possession in terms of Section 8 of the Transfer Property Act.
31. In the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust vs AICTE (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"25. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by the Central authorities such as AICTE have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the courts would normally not substitute their view in this regard. Such expert views would normally be accepted by the court unless the powers vested in such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act. In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726] , this Court, while stating the principles that the courts may not substitute their opinion in place of the opinion of the Council, held as under: (SCC pp. 732-33 & 736, paras 17-18 & 32) "17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436 : (1980) 2 LLJ 175] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424-26, paras 11-17) '11. ... Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. ...
17. ... While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.' 38 (emphasis supplied)
18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27 : (1985) 1 SCR 29] this Court reiterated: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29) '29. ... the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.'
32. This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new course or programme requires examination of various academic/technical facets which can only be done by an expert body like AICTE. This function cannot obviously be taken over or discharged by courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge course was permitted for four-year advance diploma-holders who had passed the entry-level examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in another case, what was a one-time measure was extended for several years and was also extended to post diploma-holders. Again by another mandamus, it was extended to those who had passed only 10+1 examination instead of the required minimum of 10+2 examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better their career prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure. But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses. Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education."
(emphasis in original)
28. We have already noticed that the compliance with the conditions for approval as well as regulations and provisions of the Aicte Act is an unexceptionable condition. Clause 9.22 of the Handbook of Approval Process issued by Aicte provides a complete procedure for change of location, station and the same is permissible subject to compliance with the procedure. It contemplates obtaining of "no-objection certificate" from the State Government or UT Administration and affiliating body concerned. The same clause also requires submission of the land documents in original and clearly provides that the same may be a registered sale deed, irrevocable government lease for a minimum period of 30 years, etc. by the authority concerned of the Government. Further, it provides that site plan, building plan for new site should be prepared by a registered architect and should be approved by the competent plan sanctioning authority designated by the State.
32. It is further to be seen that mere granting of permission/ approval at the initial stage, or subsequent extension thereof, does not confer any vested right. The AICTE is empowered to conduct 39 periodic inspections to verify whether the petitioner-Society has met all requirements as per the undertaking furnished in the prescribed proforma. The Society is not entitled to compel the AICTE to grant approval or extension, nor can it seek a declaration from this Court that the AICTE's action is arbitrary or illegal. The said contention is nothing but compelling the respondent-authority to repeat an illegality or to issue another unwarranted order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jagjit Singh 16, has observed that "illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose."
33. Chapter IV of Approval Process Hand Book for the Academic Year 2016-2017, confers power on the AICTE for withdrawal of the Approval, if any of the Regulations are violated. The following points would clarify that the petitioner society has not fulfilled the requirements of AICTE Act and the Regulations made thereunder:
i) The Government vide Memo No.619/ID/77-42 dated 25.09.1980 decided that the "Mount Pleasant" building in Banjara Hills covered by Land Acquisition Proceedings in 16 (1995) 1 SCC 745 40 G.O.Rt.No.388, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 4-9-1976 and G.O.Rt.No.928, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 31-8-1979, which was in possession of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Secunderabad, be handed over to Prince Muzzam Jah Trust for making it available for starting an Engineering College but no conveyance deed has been executed transferring absolute rights in favour of the Trust or Society.
ii) Clause 1.1 of the AICTE Regulations states that an Institution running any Program/Course in Technical Education in violation of Regulations/Approval Process Handbook (APH) 2016-17, shall be liable to appropriate initiation of Penal /Civil action including fine, no admission, reduction in sanctioned intake, withdrawal of approval and/or criminal action by the Council against defaulting Societies/Trusts/Companies/ Associated Individuals and/or the Institution, as the case may be.
iii) As per Clause 6 of the AICTE Regulations, 2016, for establishing Technical Education Institution, it is a condition precedent that the Promoter Society/Trust/Company of a new Technical Education Institution shall have the required land as mentioned in Approval Process Handbook in its lawful possession with clear title in the name of Promoter 41 Society/Trust/Company on or before the date of submission of application. No such documents have been filed by the petitioner society as on date.
iv) The representative of the petitioner society while appearing before the Two Man Justice Committee, has admitted that the petitioner-society is not having ownership/construction permission granted by the competent authority and the same was recorded in the Report dated 02.09.2016.
v) It is mandatory to produce building plan/Occupancy Certificate issued by the competent authority, under Clause 6 of the AICTE Regulations, 2016, for grant of affiliation or for extension of approval. The petitioner has failed to produce the approved plan/Occupancy Certificate issued by the competent authority in accordance with the Building Rules, 2012 issued in G.O.Ms.No.168 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 07.04.2012 read with G.O.Ms.No.245 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 30.06.2012.
vi) The inter se disputes among the legal heirs of the Trust and also purchasers are pending for adjudication in the suit vide O.S.No.496 of 2015 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, 42 Hyderabad. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.7777 of 2017 vide order dated 24.04.2017 directed both parties to maintain status quo in all respects over the subject lands, which would amply establish that as on date, no valid transfer has been made in favour of the petitioner society.
vii) The exemption granted by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.459 dated 26.03.2008 in favour of the petitioner society has been suspended by this Court vide interim order dated 21.06.2016 in WP MP No.23672 of 2016 in WP No.19291 of 2016 and the said writ petition is pending for adjudication.
viii) The claim of the petitioner that it is in long possession of the subject property by virtue of interim orders granted by this Court or by the Civil Court does not confer any right, unless the said possession has been recognized by granting declaratory decree by competent Court.
ix) The Two-Man Justice Committee has issued notice and considered the documents submitted by the petitioner to evaluate whether the documents submitted by the petitioner would fall within the Clause 6 of the AICTE Regulations, 2016 and that does not amounts to rendering any opinion on the civil disputes between the inter se parties. Non-furnishing 43 copy of the Report does not vitiate the impugned proceedings as the petitioner was given fair opportunity to represent his case before the Committee for production of the documents.
x) The AICTE, being the competent authority is conferred with the power to grant approvals subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down under the Regulations and it has rightly passed the impugned orders and the same does not suffer from any legal infirmities warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
xi) The claim of the petitioner society that it has paid certain amounts to the successors of the Trust and the claim of the respondents (petitioners in WP No.8877 of 2019) as purchasers are required to be decided by the competent civil court after considering the evidence adduced in support of the claim. Pending adjudication of the said issues, neither of the parties to these writ petitions can claim any right over the property under dispute. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought in W.P.No.8877 of 2019.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders passed by the AICTE on the ground of non-compliance of AICTE Regulations, do not warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, these writ petitions 44 are liable to be dismissed. The observations made by this Court in this common order are confined only for the purpose of disposal of the writ petitions and shall have no bearing on any proceedings pending between the parties or on any proceedings initiated by any third party against any of them. Furthermore, the findings of this Court and the dismissal of the writ petitions will not affect the admission of students in the petitioner institutions for any of these Academic Years, nor the consequential issuance of certificates to the students.
35. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable by the petitioners in each writ petition to Sri Vidhyas Centre for the Special Children (Orphanage) (Regd. No. 1559/99) situated at Plot No.24, Block No.3, Seva Mandal Society, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad, Telangana 500026, within a period of two (02) weeks from today and copy of the receipt shall be filed in the Registry.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.
____________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J 45
36. After pronouncement of the above order, Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel seeks to stay the operation of this order for a period of two weeks. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it would be just and appropriate to grant stay of the operation of this order for a period of two weeks from today. Accordingly, there shall be stay of operation of this order for a period of two weeks from today.
____________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 07.11.2024 Note: 1) Issue C.C in two(2) days.
2) L.R copy to be marked.
(b/o) SCS