Bombay High Court
Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal, ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 4 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 3884/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3884/2016
1. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal,
through its Secretary,
Dr. Prakash Bhaskarrao Nandurkar,
Waghapur Road, Yavatmal.
2. Dr.Bhausaheb Nandurkar,
College of Engineering and Technology,
through its Principal, Waghapur Road,
Yavatmal. PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
1. All India Council for Technical Education,
through its Director (Approval), 7th floor,
Chandralok Building, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001.
2. All India Council for Technical Education,
through Regional Officer, 2nd Floor,
Industrial Assurance Building, V.N. Road,
Opposite Church Gate, Railway Station,
Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020.
3. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Technical and Higher Education,
Mantralaya, Annex Building, Mumbai.
4. The Director of Technical Education,
Government of Maharashtra, 3,
Mahapalika Marg, Dhobi Talav,
Chatrapati Terminus Area, Mumbai. RESPONDENTS
Shri A.S. Kilor, counsel for the petitioners.
Ms U.R. Tanna holding for Shri R.S. Sunderam, counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
Ms N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 4 TH AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
WP 3884/16 2 Judgment
2. By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the
respondent-All India Council for Technical Education, dated 24.06.2016
cancelling the permission to the petitioner no.2-College to admit the
students in the engineering courses, in the academic session 2016-17.
3. The petitioner no.1-Society runs the petitioner no.2-College of
Engineering and Technology in Yavatmal since the year 2007. The
Director of Technical Education conducted an inspection of the college
and found that there were certain deficiencies in the engineering college
run by the petitioner no.1-Society. By the order dated 11.05.2016, the
A.I.C.T.E. reduced the intake capacity in the engineering college to the
extent of 25%. The petitioners challenged the order, dated 11.05.2016
before the Appellate Authority of the A.I.C.T.E. During the pendency of
the appeal, by the order dated 24.06.2016, the Appellate Authority of the
A.I.C.T.E., recommended that there should be 'no admission' to the
engineering courses in the college run by the petitioner no.1-Society.
The 'no admission' order is impugned by the petitioners in the instant
petition.
4. Shri Kilor, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted
that the Appellate Authority of the A.I.C.T.E. was not justified in passing
the order of 'no admission' in the engineering course conducted by the
petitioner no.2-College in the academic session 2016-17. It is stated that
WP 3884/16 3 Judgment
since certain deficiencies were found in the college, the intake capacity of
the petitioner no.2-College was reduced by 25% and the said order was
challenged by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority of the
A.I.C.T.E. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority of the A.I.C.T.E.
could have at the most rejected the appeal of the petitioners but, the
Appellate Authority could not have, during the pendency of the appeal,
passed the order of 'no admission' by observing that the petitioner no.2-
College did not have the completion certificate. It is stated that the
Appellate Authority of the A.I.C.T.E. was required to decide the appeal
filed by the petitioners and it could not have considered any other
deficiencies while considering the appeal filed by the petitioners against
the order reducing the intake capacity by 25%.
5. Ms Tanna, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1
and 2, has supported the order of the Appellate Authority. It is submitted
that certain other deficiencies were also found in the petitioner no.2-
College and, therefore, the impugned order is passed by the Appellate
Authority. It is submitted that the petitioner no.2-College did not have
the completion certificate and there were certain infrastructural
deficiencies in the college. It is stated that in this background, the
Appellate Authority of the A.I.C.T.E. passed the impugned order of 'no
admission'.
WP 3884/16 4 Judgment
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that
the impugned order is illegal and the same cannot be sustained. The
intake capacity of the petitioner no.2-College was reduced by 25% and
the petitioners had challenged the said order before the Appellate
Authority of the A.I.C.T.E. The Appellate Authority did not have
jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of cancellation of admissions in
the entirety while dealing with the appeal. The Appellate Authority could
have only considered whether the order reducing the intake capacity by
25% was correct or not. In our considered view, the Appellate Authority
did not have the jurisdiction to reduce the capacity to more than 25% in
the appeal against the order reducing the intake capacity by 25%. Since
the Appellate Authority travelled beyond the issue that fell for
consideration before the Appellate Authority, the impugned order
dated 24.06.2016 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order, dated 24.06.2016 is quashed and set
aside. The Appellate Authority of the A.I.C.T.E. is free to decide the
appeal filed by the petitioners in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
WP 3884/16 5 Judgment
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on : 09.08.2016.
