Mahatma Education Societys ... vs All India Council For Technical ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 212 Bom

                                       1/6                            wp_4589_2015




                                                                        
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                
                      WRIT PETITION NO.4589 OF 2015

    Mahatma Education Society's 




                                               
    Pillai's Institute of Information 
    Technology, through its authorized 
    signatory /representative 
    Mr. Raveendran Pillai.                             ...Petitioner




                                      
                     Versus
                         
    All India Council for Technical 
    Education (AICTE) through its 
    Acting Chairman & Ors.                          ...Respondents
                        
                                    .....
    Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr. C.K. Thomas 
    for the Petitioner.
    Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S. Jadhav 
      


    and Mr. Sarnath Sariputta for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
    Ms S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
   



    Mr. R.A. Rodrigues for Respondent No.7.
                                    .....

                                   CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA  & 





                                              A.A. SAYED, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 24, 2015.

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of

the parties, taken up forthwith for final hearing.

2/6 wp_4589_2015

2. The Petitioner is a linguistic minority educational

institution and engineering college conducting courses in various

streams since 1999. Counsel appearing for the parties conceded

the position that in view of the judgment dated 3rd /14th August,

2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4586 of 2015

(Saraswati Education Society's Saraswati College of

Engineering V/s. All India Council for Technical Education

(AICTE) & Ors.) and in Writ Petition No.4620 of 2015

( Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil college of Engineering V/s. All India

Council for Technical Education & Ors.), this petition must

succeed as the majority issues are identical in present writ petition

and, therefore, it can be disposed of for the reasons so recorded in

the said judgments.

3. The Petitioner has placed on record a detailed chart

referring to the deficiencies and their respective compliances and

justifications / reply to the same, which are supported by

documents. After going through the same, even on merits, we are

3/6 wp_4589_2015

of the view that a case is made out for the reliefs so sought by the

Petitioner.

4. Even on merits we have noted that there are eight

buildings in the campus allotted to the institution. The EVC of

2014 in their observation clearly noted the same. Plot No.10A is

allotted by CIDCO on leave and license agreement for a period of

60 years to the Petitioner for the exclusive use of the college and

not open to the general public. The said document has been

accepted by Respondent No.1 as a part of the requisite land area for

the engineering college right from the inception of the college. All

the colleges have their own independent buildings with adequate

infrastructures and same have been approved and accepted every

year by AICTE and also observed EVC in 2014-2015. The

occupation certificate in respect of the eight buildings issued by

CIDCO for the total constructed area is also brought on the record.

Separate boys and girls common rooms and cafeteria and all other

facilities have been accepted by SCC in 2014 and even recorded by

4/6 wp_4589_2015

EVC in 2015. Separate language lab have been provided. Each

building has independent lift and separate stair cases. The

Petitioner-Society are in possession of the requisite plots alongwith

other plots. The total land area is 7.15 acre, which is sufficient to

run all the programmes. The land documents have already been

submitted and are part of the record.

5. We have observed that the same reasons are applicable

in this matter also. Apart from the above additional fact that the

person who heard the basic objections of the Petitioner was also

party to the appellate forum as the Chairman of the appellate

forum. However, considering the total reasons and the records and

also the facts, we are convinced that the Petitioner is entitled for

the reliefs sought and claimed and, therefore, following order is

passed :

ORDER

(a) The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer

5/6 wp_4589_2015

clauses (a) and b-(i) & (c).

(b) Interim order passed by this Court on 6 May 2015

is confirmed.

(c) The Respondents are directed to consider the

representation/case of the Petitioner specifically on

the issue of cadre and faculty and related aspects

by giving an opportunity of hearing and pass a

reasoned order, at the earliest.

(d) The Respondent-University is directed that in order

to avoid the delay in appointments of teaching

faculty in the institution like the Petitioner, 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 an expeditious and

6/6 wp_4589_2015

time bound manner so as to avoid deficiencies in

respect of the same being shown by the AICTE in

the proposals of such institution for extension of

approval.

(e) The Petitioner to take 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.
      


             (A.A. SAYED, J)                         (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)