Bombay High Court
Maratha Shikshan Sanstha Thr. ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 2 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/10 0208WP2702.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2702 OF 2016
PETITIONER:- Maratha Shikshan Sanstha, through its
Secretary, Besides Computer Circle, Rathi
Nagar, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. All India Council for Technical Education,
through its Secretary, 7th Floor, Chanderlok
ig Building, Janpath, New Delhi.
2. Regional Officer, All India Council for
Technical Education, Industrial Assurances
Building, 2nd Floor Veer Nariman Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.S. Kilor, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 02.08.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is
heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the
communication of the respondent-All India Council for Technical
2/10 0208WP2702.16-Judgment
Education, dated 30.04.2016 refusing to grant permission to the
petitioner to start the Diploma Course in Pharmacy from the Academic
Session 2016-17. The petitioner seeks a direction against the
respondent No.2 to grant permission to the petitioner to start the
Diploma Course in Pharmacy.
3. The petitioner-registered Society is running several colleges
for imparting education in different courses in Amravati and Wardha
districts. The petitioner was desirous of starting a Diploma Course in
Pharmacy at Talegaon, Taluka Ashti in District Wardha. With the said
desire, the petitioner made an application to the respondent-All India
Council for Technical Education for grant of permission to start the said
course, after making a payment of Rs.7,00,000/- towards the processing
fees. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's proposal was complete
in all respect, but the Inspection Team that was deputed by the All India
Council for Technical Education to the college premises where the
course was sought to be conducted, noticed certain deficiencies. It is
the case of the petitioner that the petitioner removed the deficiencies,
from time to time and the respondent-All India Council for Technical
Education directed the petitioner by a communication issued in the
month of April, 2016 to remain present before the Standing Appellate
or the Review Committee of the All India Council for Technical
Education on 26.04.2016 at New Delhi. In the said communication, it
3/10 0208WP2702.16-Judgment
was specifically informed to the petitioner that three deficiencies were
noted in the proposal, they being -
1. Barrier free environment and toilets created for physically
challenged (ramp or working lift, etc.).
2. Internet Bandwidth.
3. Library Management software, Multimedia P.C., etc.
According to the petitioner, the petitioner appeared before
the Standing Appellate or Review Committee at New Delhi on
26.04.2016 along with documents and pointed out to the Appellate
Committee that all the three deficiencies, that were noted by the
Inspection Team on 23.04.2016 were removed. It is the case of the
petitioner that without informing the petitioner about the decision of
the Review Committee in the matter of removal of deficiencies, the
Member Secretary, of the All India Council for Technical Education, by
the impugned communication dated 30.04.2016 informed the petitioner
that the petitioner's application for permission to start the new Diploma
in Pharmacy Course was rejected, in view of the three deficiencies that
were found in the inspection, dated 23.04.2016, and referred to herein
above.
4. Shri A. S. Kilor, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the application of the petitioner for permission to start a
4/10 0208WP2702.16-Judgment
Diploma in Pharmacy Course was rejected by the All India Council for
Technical Education for two consecutive years without recording any
reasons. It is stated that the petitioner was specifically asked to appear
before the Standing Appellate or Review Committee on 26.04.2016 and
the petitioner substantiated on the basis of the documents that the three
deficiencies, that were found on 23.04.2016 and mentioned in the
communication of April, 2016 were either non-existed or were
removed. It is stated that by the impugned communication, the
petitioner was merely informed that the application of the petitioner is
rejected. It is stated that the impugned communication is sans reasons,
as the Standing Appellate Committee before which the petitioner had
appeared on 26.04.2016 along with the documents has not made any
observations and has not recorded any reasons for the rejection of the
claim of the petitioner that the three deficiencies were removed. It is
stated that within three days of the appearance of the petitioner before
the Standing Appellate Committee the application of the petitioner for
permission to start the Diploma in Pharmacy Course is rejected with a
cryptic order, which does not disclose whether the Standing Appellate
Committee had applied its mind to the submissions made on behalf of
the petitioner before the Committee on 26.04.2016. It is stated that
every year, the institutions that are desirous of opening new colleges or
starting a new course, are required to deposit the processing fees of
5/10 0208WP2702.16-Judgment
Rs.7,00,000/- and if the applications are rejected in such a fashion, the
institutions like the petitioners would be penalised by making them
deposit the processing fees every year for seeking permission to start the
new course. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, a direction
may be issued to the respondent-All India Council for Technical
Education to reconsider the matter in the proper perspective and pass
the order by applying its mind to the claim of the petitioner that all the
three deficiencies, that were noticed by the Inspecting Squad of the All
India Council for Technical Education, have been removed.
5. Shri R.S.Sundaram, the learned counsel for the respondents,
supported the order of the All India Council for Technical Education.
The learned counsel relied on several documents that are annexed to
the affidavit-in-reply show that several deficiencies were found in the
college in which the petitioner desired to start the Diploma in Pharmacy
Course. It is submitted that apart from three deficiencies that were
noticed in the last inspection, the Appellate Committee found some
other infrastructural deficiencies. It is submitted that permission to start
the new college or new course cannot be granted until all the
requirements for starting the new college or course are satisfied. It is
stated that if permission is granted to such institutions to start the
colleges or course despite deficiencies, the standard of education would
be compromised. It is, however, admitted that after 26.04.2016, no
6/10 0208WP2702.16-Judgment
communication was issued to the petitioner, except the impugned
communication, dated 30.04.2016 rejecting the application of the
petitioner.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that a
direction to the respondent-All India Council for Technical Education to
pass a fresh order after considering the documents submitted by the
petitioner at the time of hearing on 26.04.2016, within a time frame
would be necessary. We are not inclined to believe the statement on
the part of the All India Council for Technical Education that there are
several deficiencies in the college in which the course was sought to be
started. We find that by the last communication issued by the All India
Council for Technical Education to the petitioner in the month of April,
2016, by which the petitioner was asked to remain present before the
Standing Appellate or the Review Committee of the All India Council for
Technical Education on 26.04.2016, the petitioner was informed only
about three deficiencies that we have already referred to herein above.
Certain documents including some photographs are annexed to this
petition to show that none of the three deficiencies are subsisting. The
petitioner was asked to remain present before the Review Committee
only to explain about the three deficiencies that were mentioned in the
communication issued in April, 2016. We would, therefore, not permit
the All India Council for Technical Education to now state before this
7/10 0208WP2702.16-Judgment
Court by producing some old documents i.e. prior to 26.04.2016 that
some other deficiencies were also found. We find that the petitioner
had appeared before the Standing Appellate Committee on 26.04.2016
and had pointed out that all the three deficiencies were cured. Despite,
the production of the documents and the oral hearing that was afforded
to the petitioner, the All India Council for Technical Education has not
placed anything on record in writing, to show that the Standing
Appellate Committee found that the petitioner had not cured the three
deficiencies. Nothing was communicated to the petitioner in respect of
the satisfaction reached by the Standing Appellate or the Review
Committee of the All India Council for Technical Education in respect of
the non removal of the deficiencies by the petitioner. The impugned
order, dated 30.04.2016 is as vague as it could be. The three
deficiencies as were stated in the chart, in the communication that was
issued to the petitioner in April, 2016, asking the petitioner to remain
present on 26.04.2016, are mentioned in the impugned order in the
similar chart with the same endorsements. If a hearing was granted to
the petitioner and the petitioner had produced the documents to prove
that the deficiencies were removed, it was necessary for the Standing
Appellate or the Review Committee to state at least in a few words why
it was of the view that the three deficiencies were not removed by the
petitioner. We find that the Standing Appellate or the Review
8/10 0208WP2702.16-Judgment
Committee has not applied its mind to the matter in respect of the
removal of the three deficiencies, after the petitioner was heard on
26.04.2016. We find that the Review Appellate Committee with the
closed mind, took a decision of rejecting the proposal of the petitioner
in view of the three deficiencies, which according to the All India
Council for Technical Education, were not removed. The rejection
order is not issued by the Review Appellate Committee or the Standing
Appellate Committee of the All India Council for Technical Education.
The Member Secretary of the All India Council for Technical Education
has informed the petitioner about the rejection of the application. We
find that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the application
of the petitioner, without recording any reasons for rejecting the claim
of the petitioner of removal of the three deficiencies. In the
communication issued to the petitioner in April, 2016 also it is stated
after mentioning the deficiencies that "Not accepted" and in the
impugned communication also after mentioning the three deficiencies
the words "Not Accepted" are mentioned. We find that the action on
the part of the All India Council for Technical Education in rejecting the
application of the petitioner without applying its mind and without
recording any reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner in respect
of removal of the three deficiencies is indefensible. The impugned order
cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In the circumstances of
9/10 0208WP2702.16-Judgment
the case, we are not inclined to direct the petitioner to apply again with
the processing fees of Rs.7,00,000/- and in the interest of justice, it
would be necessary to direct the respondents to re-decide whether the
petitioner has cured the three deficiencies and whether the petitioner is
entitled to permission for starting the Diploma in Pharmacy Course, if
not from the Academic Session 2016-17, from the Academic Session
2017-18. The respondents are free to call the petitioner for hearing, if
so desired or else the respondents may pass an appropriate order on the
basis of the submission made by the petitioner on 26.04.2016 and the
documents tendered by it on the said date before the Standing
Appellate Committee of the All India Council for Technical Education.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. We hereby
direct the respondents to take a fresh decision in the matter of grant of
permission to the petitioner to start the Diploma in Pharmacy Course in
the light of the observations made herein above. A decision in this
regard should be conveyed to the petitioner within three months. Rule
is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
10/10 0208WP2702.16-Judgment
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : G.S.Khunte, Uploaded on : 05/08/2016
P.A.to Hon'ble Judge
