Bombay High Court
Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan vs All India Council For Technical ... on 14 August, 2015
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
ssm 1 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1365 OF 2015
Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan
A Trust registered under the Bombay
Registration Trust Act, 1950,
having its registered office at Vasantdada
Patil Educational Complex, Eastern
Express Highway, Sion-Chunabhatti,
Mumbai - 400 022. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1 All India Council for Technical
Education, a body established
Under the Provisions of All India
Council for Technical Education
Act, 1987 & having its office at
7th Floor, Chandarlok Building,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001.
1/18
::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2015 23:57:47 :::
ssm 2 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
2 The Director of Technical Education,
Maharashtra State, Directorate of
Technical Education, 3, Mahapalika
Marg, Mumbai 400 001.
3 The State of Maharashtra,
Copy to be served on the learned
Government Pleader,
ig
High Court [A.S.], Mumbai.
4 University of Mumbai,
Through the Registrar University
Of Mumbai M.G.Road, Fort,
Mumbai 400 032. ...Respondents
Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raja Ghadge for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Mali, Mr. Swaraj
Jadhav and Mr. Sariputta Sarnath for Respondent No.1-AICTE.
Mr. M.M. Vashi, Senior Advocaste with Ms. Aparna Devkar for
Respondent No.2-DTE.
Mr. J.S. Saluja, AGP for Respondent No.3.
CORAM:- ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ.
RESERVED ON:- 31 JULY 2015
PRONOUNCED ON:- 14 AUGUST 2015.
ssm 3 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
JUDGMENT (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) :-
The Petitioner a Public Trust, registered under the
provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, established in the
year 1981, is running Engineering College in the name of
"Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan's College of Engineering".
In the year 1983-84, the Government of Maharashtra
allotted plot of land to the Petitioner admeasuring 12930 sq. mtr.
(3.20 Acres) at Sion, Chunabhatti, Mumbai 400 022 and Plot of Land
admeasuring 16810 sq. mtr. (4.2 Acres) for playground. The total plot
area of land is 7.4 acres. In the year 1986, the Petitioner submitted
the plan for construction of building on the said plot of land and the
BMC approved the same. In the year 1991, the Petitioner constructed
the Building and started Engineering College, with due approval of
Ministry of Human Resources, in the name of "Padmabhushan
Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan's College of Engineering". During the year
1994 to 2013, Respondent No. 1 granted approval to the Petitioner
College continuously every year.
ssm 4 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
3 On 2 April 2012, the National Board of Accreditation, the
Apex body of AICTE, after conducting physical verification of
infrastructure and facilities, has granted accreditation status for all the
courses conducted by Petitioner's College for three years i.e. from
15.03.2012 to 14.03.2015.
ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-14
4 The Petitioner was running Engineering College with five
courses; (1) Computer Engineering, (2)Electronics Engineering, (3)
Electronics & Telecommunication Engineering, (4) Information
Technology and (5)Marine Engineering and was also running (6)
Diploma College, (7) Management College (Branches/College at Sr.
No. 5,6 and 7 are now closed down). On 19 March 2013, Respondent
No. 1 granted approval for Academic Year 2013-14. There was a
complaint by Citizen Forum against the Petitioner college to
Respondent No. 1 and on the basis of the said complaint, Respondent
No. 1 started taking action against the Petitioner College. On 18 April
2013, Respondent No. 1 appointed Expert Committee for Inspection
on the basis of complaint. On 30 April 2013, Respondent No.1 issued
a show cause notice on the basis of report of Expert Committee as to
ssm 5 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
why their affiliation should not be withdrawn. The Petitioner filed a
reply to show cause notice and also appeared before the Committee
and submitted all the relevant documents. On 20 June 2013,
Respondent No. 1 withdrawn the affiliation on the grounds of
deficiency shown by the Expert Committee in their Report. On 28
June 2013, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 1733 of
2013 challenging the order of withdrawal dated 20 June 2013 and
this Court, (Coram:- Mr. S.J.Vazifdar and Mr. M.S.Sonak JJ.), has
granted stay to impugned order dated 20 June 2013. The said
Petition is pending for disposal.
ACADEMIC YEAR 2014-15
5 The Petitioner closed the Marine Engineering Course and
Management College and running only Engineering and Diploma
College. On 23 May 2014, the Petitioner applied for grant of
extension of approval for academic year 2014-15 through online. The
Petitioner received no Deficiency Report through online. Respondent
No. 1 not granted extension of approval along with other college
having no deficiency report as per the scheduled program. On 26
June 2014, Respondent No. 1 appointed Expert Visit Committee (EVC)
ssm 6 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
for inspection and they submitted the report recommending not to
grant EOA. On 2 July 2014, Respondent No. 1 refused to grant EOA
and withdrawn the affiliation of the college on the basis of
recommendation of Standing Complaint Committee. On 8 July 2014,
the Petitioner challenged order dated 2 July 2014 by filing Writ
Petition No. 2532 of 2014 and this Court has granted ad-interim relief
in the same. On 14 July 2014, the Division Bench has granted interim
relief in Writ Petition No. 2532 of 2014. The said Petition is pending
for final disposal.
ACADEMIC YEAR 2015-16
6 The Petitioner applied for closure progressive of Diploma
Course and Respondent No. 1 has granted permission on 8 April 2015.
Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 passed order on 15 May 2015 to close
the Diploma College and thus the Petitioner is running only one
college. The Petitioner is having 3.2 acres land for college building
and 4.2 acres land for playground. The Petitioner also having
sufficient infrastructure for Degree College. Respondent No. 1 has
refused to grant EOA for the academic year 2015-16 on the ground,
for want of Occupation Certificate, though the Standing Complaint
ssm 7 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
Committee granted time to submit Occupation Certificate and the
workshop is in temporary shed. The Petitioner after complete closure
of Diploma, shifted workshop into building. Therefore, the said
deficiency is also removed.
7 On 27 February 2015, the Petitioner submitted the
application for seeking Extension of Approval for the academic year
2014-15 to Respondent No. 1 and they received "No Deficiency
Report". On 27 March 2015, Respondent No. 1 appointed EVC to
verify the details mentioned in the EOA application. EVC visited the
college and submit the report to Respondent No. 1 showing certain
deficiencies in area of the laboratories, faculties and Occupancy
Certificate etc.. EVC recommended not to grant EOA. On 7 April
2014, Respondent No. 1 issued order of rejection, informing that they
refused to grant EOA on any one of the 17 grounds, without hearing
the Petitioner. On 13 April 2015, EVC at the time of visit, orally
informed about deficiency in the area of laboratories and classrooms.
The Petitioner therefore, immediately gave letter to Respondent No. 1
explaining the status of the Institution. Respondent No. 1, placed the
matter for hearing before Standing Complaint Committee. On 22
ssm 8 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
April 2015, hearing took place before the Standing Complaint
Committee at New Delhi. The Petitioner filed a detail reply pointing
out that all the deficiencies except Occupation Certificate, have been
complied with. The Petitioner gave application to the Standing
Complaint Committee to give four months time to submit Occupancy
Certificate, which they have granted. From the impugned order it is
clear that, Standing Complaint Committee was satisfied about
compliance of deficiency and also granted time to obtain Occupancy
Certificate, but inspite of that the SAC recommended to put Petitioner
college in 'No Admission Category' for the academic year 2015-16.
The SAC has not given any specific reason as to why the Petitioner
College be put into the "No Admission" category. On 26 April 2015,
Respondent No. 1 placed the report of the Standing Complaint
Committee for approval before the competent authority and the
competent authority without hearing the Petitioner approved proposal
submitted by SAC. On 30 April 2015, the Advisor-II (Approval) of
Respondent No. 1, communicated the decision of the competent
authority by letter dated 30 April 2014, informing the Petitioner that,
they have refused to grant Extension of Approval to Petitioner's
College. This order was also issued by advisor II (Approval) without
ssm 9 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
hearing the Petitioner. On 1 May 2015, Respondent No. 1, by email
informed the Petitioner that they have rejected the intake capacity of
the Petitioner College and enclosed the copy of order dated 30 April
2015, refusing to grant EOA for the academic year 2015-16.
Respondent No. 1 had withdrawn the affiliation of the Petitioner
college in the academic year 2013-14 and the same is continued in the
year 2014-15. However, both the orders passed by Respondent No. 1
are stayed by this Court. Respondent No. 1 restored the intake of the
college, it means that they have withdrawn the order of withdrawing
affiliation of the entire college and only refused to grant EOA for the
year 2015-16. On 1 May 2015, the Petitioner applied to Respondent
No.1, requesting them to supply the copy of the Report of Standing
Complaint Committee. On 2 May 2015, the Petitioner filed a Petition
and challenged impugned order dated 30 April 2015.
8 On 15 May 2015, the Petitioner moved before the Vacation
Court for seeking interim relief and the Vacation Court observed that
"apart from the deficiency concerning occupancy certificate, which the
Petitioner Institute has been allowed to comply within 4 months period,
there are deficiencies even concerning the faculties. The impugned order
ssm 10 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
of AICTE refers to the failure of the Petitioner to submit Selection
Committee Proceeding and Paper Notification about the methodology
adopted in recruiting staff. So also the impugned order refers to non
furnishing bank salary statement and acquaintance register of existing
staff of the petitioner." The Vacation Court further observed that,
"subject to Petitioner complying with the requirement of AICTE referred
above and AICTE accepting such compliance, the Petitioner Institute is
allowed to participate in the centralize admission process. The Petitioner
shall comply with the required referred above within a week from today.
AICTE shall consider the same within a period of one week after such
compliance. Subject to compliance being found satisfactory the
respondents are directed to upload the Petitioners name for centralize
admission process and allow the Petitioner in CAP round admission
procedure for academic year 2015-16". On 19 May 2015, as per the
order of the Vacation Court, the Petitioner submitted all the
documents regarding recruitment of faculty before Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 1 passed the order for complete closure of Diploma
College of the Petitioner on 15 May 2015, which received by the
Petitioner on 19 May 2015. The Petitioner has not filed any appeal
challenging the order passed by Respondent No. 1 refusing to grant
ssm 11 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
EOA before Standing Appellate Committee, however they only
submitted the documents before Respondent No. 1 as per the
directions of the vacation Court. Respondent No. 1 however, fixed the
hearing before Standing Appellate Committee on 29 May 2015. On
29 May 2015, there was a hearing before Standing Appellate
Committee, at New Delhi and the Standing Appellate Committee,
satisfied about the compliance of the deficiency in faculty. However,
new grounds were added by the Standing Appellate Committee stating
that there is a deficiency in maintaining Cadre Ratio, and therefore,
refused to grant EOA. This is clearly in violation of the order passed
by Vacation Court, as the scope of the enquiry was limited to only
faculties. On 9 June 2015, the Advisor Approval of Respondent No. 1,
passed the order on the basis of Report of Standing Appellate
Committee, refusing to grant EOA though the Petitioner complied with
the deficiency of faculty. There is a deficiency only in Cadre Ratio and
area of classroom to the extent of only 5%. The Standing Complaint
Committee has granted time to submit Occupancy Certificate. The
detail chart of deficiencies pointed out by EVC, Standing Complaint
Committee and Standing Appellate Committee is annexed to the
additional affidavit filed on 3 July 2015. The Petitioner is challenging
ssm 12 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
Impugned orders passed by Respondent No. 1 dated 30 April 2015
and 9 June 2015, by way of present Petition.
9 The Petitioner, therefore, filed the present Petition and
prayed as under:-
"a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue
appropriate writ and/or direction under article 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India calling for record and
proceeding of the impugned order dated 30.04.2015
and report of the Standing Appellate Committee dated
29.05.2015 and the impugned order dated
09.06.2015 refusing to grant EOA to the Petitioner's
College namely Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil
Pratishthan's College of Engineering for the year
2015-2016 and after looking into legality and
propriety of the impugned order, the same be quashed
and set aside and direct the Respondent no.1 to grant
EOA for the year 2015-2016 and thereafter.
b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of
this petition, the execution and/or implementation of
the impugned order dated 30.04.2015 and report of
the Standing Appellate Committee dated 29.05.2015
and the impugned order dated 09.06.2015 passed by
Respondent No. 1 refusing to grant extension of
approval to Petitioner's college namely
"Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan's
College of Engineering" for the year 2015-16 which
is at EXHIBIT. "R" be stayed.
c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of
this petition, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed
to:
ssm 13 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
(i) grant extension to approval to the
Petitioner's College i.e. Padambhushan
Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan's College of
Engineering for the year 2015-2016 as per
their application.
(ii) uphold the Petitioner's college name i.e.
"Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil
Pratishthan's College of Engineering",
Vasantdada Patil Educational Complex,
Eastern Express Highway, Near Everard
Nagar, Sion Chunabhatti, Mumbai - 400
022 for the Centralise admission process
(CAP) and be allowed to participate in CAP
round for academic year 2015-16 for the
Engineering Courses conducted by them."
10 Both the parties have referred and relied on the Supreme
Court and High Court Judgments, as noted noted in Writ Petition No.
4586 of 2015.
11 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
has pointed out, referring to the comparative chart of deficiencies for
the year 2015-16 with the deficiencies in the year 2014-15.
Deficiencies in the year 2014-15 were not the major deficiencies of
this year, except deficiencies of 5% in the area of classrooms.
Occupation Certificate deficiency, in concern now the Standing
Complaint Committee in view of the earlier orders passed by this
Court (vacation Judge) granted time to submit the Occupation
ssm 14 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
Certificate. The time is not yet expired therefore, that deficiency is
also not deficiency for this year. The cadre ratio deficiency was the
deficiency of the last year and this year also. It is pointed out that in
view of chapter VI of norms and requirement, Rule No.1.8, cadre ratio
shall be maintained. The detailed explanation about faculty and the
ratio has been provided in the affidavit in rejoinder of the Petitioner,
which reads thus:-
"13. The Petitioner Institute submits that there is no
requirement of the cadre ratio. The AICTE's Hand Book
for the year 2015-2016 in clause 5 of chp. IV provides for
the faculty Student ratio. The AICTE's Hand Book
stipulates that ordinarily the cadre ratio be maintained.
Without prejudice to the said arguments the Petitioner
Institute has with its consistent efforts been able to
appoint the required faculty. As regards the cadre ratio
the Petitioner Institute submits that continuous and
sincere efforts are being made to ensure that the same is
ordinarily maintained by appointing faculty as per the
AICTE norms and approval process hand book."
Role of the State Government and the DTE and the DTE Report:-
12 The DTE has no role to play in the procedure so
prescribed, when the Petitioner and/or such institution seeks
extension of approval. The DTE officers only facilitate the Centralize
Admission Process and is bound to include the AICTE in the CAP
round now, as per the Maharashtra Ordinance No. VII of 2015 [The
ssm 15 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions
(Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Ordinance, 2015], dated 12 May
2015. Therefore, the role of the State and the DTE, is restricted. The
handbook so read nowhere provides such role of DTE, except the
initial stages so recorded in the schedule by the Supreme Court in
Parshvanath.
13 The submission of the Petitioner that the impugned order
violates the basic principle of natural justice and the documents,
reports, recommendation not furnished to the Petitioner's institution
and no hearing given to the Petitioner institution, at the relevant time,
though subsequently it was given in view of the Judgment/order
passed by this Court (Vacation Judge). The hearing not given, at the
appropriate time and stage before passing the order on 30 April 2015
still remains, are also decided. The person, who heard the Petitioner,
did not decide, which specifically not observed the last year order and
judgment and the same is again reinforced and maintained. There is
force in the submission that the time lines, as laid down by the
Supreme Court in Parshvanath (supra) have not been followed by the
AICTE. The Petitioner institution's right of Appeal was denied due to
ssm 16 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
the delay on the part of the AICTE, in passing order on 30 April 2015
at the relevant time, though now granted after filing of the Writ
Petition on 5 May 2015. The submission on the point of
discrimination and decision based upon the pre-determined mind and
bias attitude are also dealt with in favour of the Petitioner. The
permission is not granted and/or denied to such institution. In the
background, the case of prejudice and injustice is definitely made out.
The AICTE- Respondents again followed and proceeded on the earlier
complaint made in the year 2014. The Public Interest Litigation, as
well as, the Criminal Appeals against the AICTE are also pending
referring to the various issues and mismanagement and challenging
the whole affairs of the AICTE. The selection of the Petitioner along
with other 11 and taking action against them, inspite of the earlier
Judgments/orders passed by this Court and by overlooking the same
and even by not challenging the same, taken such unsustainable
action based on the consideration other than law. "No admission
category" for the year 2015-16, definitely caused injustice and
hardship, therefore, affects not only to the institution, but the students
of the area also.
ssm 17 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
14 In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs
and taking overall view of the matter for the reasons in detail already
recorded in connected Writ Petition i.e. Saraswati Education Society's,
Saraswati College of Engineering Vs. All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE), Writ Petition No. 4586 of 2015, decided on 14
August 2015, we are inclined to allow the Petition and pass the
following order:-
ig ORDER
a) Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a).
b) Interim order passed by this Court on 23 June
2015, is confirmed.
c) The Respondents are directed to consider the
representation/case of the Petitioners, specifically
on the issue of cadre and faculty ratio and related
aspects by giving opportunity of hearing to
Petitioner and pass the reasoned order, at the
earliest.
d) The Respondent-University is directed that in order
to avoid the delay in appointments of teaching
ssm 18 Judgment-wpl1365.15.sxw
faculty in the institution like the Petitioners, the
proposals received for approval of draft
advertisement, roaster, nomination of the subject
experts, nomination of nominee of the Vice
Chancellor and approval of the candidates selected
through duly constituted Selection Committee, such
proposals be decided in expeditious and time bound
manner so as to avoid deficiencies in respect of the
same being shown by AICTE in the proposals of
such institution for extension of approval.
e) The Petitioner is directed to take necessary steps to
remove the deficiencies, even if any, as early as
possible.
f) Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
g) Rule made absolute accordingly.
h) There shall be no order as to costs.
(V.L. ACHLIYA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
