Bombay High Court
Akhil Bharatiya Maratha Shikshan ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 7 June, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
dgm 1 901-wp-7394-16.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7394 OF 2016
1 Akhil Bharatiya Maratha Shikshan
Parishad, Survey No.103, Parvati Ramana,
Shahu College Road, Pune 411 009,
through Secretary, Smt. Pramila
Bhagwat Gaikwad, Adult, Occ. Wel-to-do
and social service, Residing at: As above
2 Anantrao Pawar College of Engineering
and Research, through its
Principal, Dr. Sunil Bhimrao
Thakare, adult, occ: Service,
Survey No.103, Paravati Ramana,
Shahu College Road, Pune 411 009
(Through Power of Attorney holder
namely Petitioner No.1 Akhil Bharatiya
Maratha Shikshan Parishad, Pune,
Secretary Smt. Pramila Bhagwat Gaikwad .... Petitioners
vs
1 All India Council for Technical Education,
7th Floor, Chandralok Building,
Janapath, New Delhi 110 001.
2 Member Secretary,
All India Council for Technical Education,
7th Floor Chandralok Building,
Janapath, New Delhi 110 001
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:13:32 :::
dgm 2 901-wp-7394-16.sxw
3 Director of Technical Education
Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai
(summons to be served on the
learned Government Pleader appearing
for State of Maharashtra under Order
XXVII, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908) .... Respondents
Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.A. Anturkar i/by Mr.
Tanaji Mhatugade for the petitioners.
Mrs. Meena H. Doshi for respondent No.1-AICTE.
Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for respondent No.3.
CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : June 07, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J.):
1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of
the parties, heard finally.
2 The Petitioners have approached this Court praying for
quashing and setting aside the order dated 23rd June, 2016 issued by
Respondent No.1 through the Member Secretary as well as the order
passed by the Advisor (Approval Bureau) of Respondent No.1 dated
11th May 2006.
dgm 3 901-wp-7394-16.sxw
3 The bare facts necessary for adjudication of the present
Petition are thus:
The Petitioner No.1 is an educational institution and is
managing Petitioner No.2- Engineering College. As per the
regulations of All India Council for Technical Education (for short,
AICTE), the Petitioners are required to get approval on year to year
basis for sanctioning their intake capacity of students. Accordingly, for
the Academic Year 2016-2017, the Petitioners had applied and the
original Authority vide its order dated 11 th May 2016 had reduced the
intake capacity by 50% finding out certain deficiencies. As such, the
intake capacity was reduced to 150 from 300. Being aggrieved
thereby the Petitioners filed statutory appeal before the Appellate
Authority. However, the Appellate Authority in an Appeal filed by the
Petitioners reduced the intake capacity of the Petitioners to nil. In so
far as Post Graduation Course is concerned, similarly the original
Authority had reduced the intake capacity from 49 to 24. In an
Appeal, the Appellate Authority reduced it to zero. Being aggrieved
by the same, the Petitioners have approached this Court.
dgm 4 901-wp-7394-16.sxw
4 The Division Bench of this Court (Ranjit More & Smt.
Anuja Prabhudessai, JJ.) vide interim order dated 21st July 2016 had
stayed the Appellate order dated 23 rd June, 2016 and by an interim
order had directed the Respondent No.3 to allow the Petitioners-
Institution to participate in the Centralized Admission Process on the
basis of the intake capacity as per Order dated 11th May 2016.
5 During the intervening period, the Petitioners have also
applied for the continuation of approval for the Academic Year 2017-
2018. The Respondent-AICTE for the present Academic Year has
found no deficiencies in the functioning of the Petitioners and has
granted the intake capacity to the full i.e. 300. However, in view of
the pendency of the present Petition, in the portal of the Respondent
No.3 against the name of College of the Petitioner, it is mentioned that
"pending court case".
6 Though Mr. Anturkar, learned senior counsel, initially
insisted that the original order with regard to the reduction of capacity
by 50% itself is liable to be set aside and the capacity is directed to be
restored to 300 students for the Academic Year 2016-2017, inasmuch
dgm 5 901-wp-7394-16.sxw
as the Petitioners can utilise the said strength for the Second year B. E.
by admitting the students who have passed Diploma in Engineering,
on instructions, he has given up the said claim. The Petitioners have
now restricted the challenge in the present Petition only to the
Appellate Order.
7 That leaves us to decide the validity of only the Appellate
Order which reduces the capacity of 150 students which was
determined by the first Authority to nil. To say the least, the order of
the Appellate Authority is a classic example of an order passed in
breach of the principles of natural justice. Firstly, in an Appeal of the
Petitioners, an order adverse to the Petitioners could not have been
passed. In any case, such an order could not have been passed by an
Appellate Authority without issuing a show cause notice to the
Petitioners and giving them an opportunity of hearing for the same.
8 To give an example, the said order would amount to a
High Court converting a life sentence into a capital punishment by
putting an accused without notice for enhancement of sentence.
dgm 6 901-wp-7394-16.sxw
9 In that view of the matter, on the short ground, the
Appellate Order dated 23rd June 2016 is liable to be quashed and set
aside. For the same reason, we find that the Appellate Authority was
also not justified in reducing the intake capacity in so far as the Post
Graduation Course is concerned to zero.
10 Insofar as the Academic Year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 is
concerned, we find that since the same is not the subject matter of the
present Petition and since the AICTE has been gracious enough to
grant the intake capacity of 300 students, there was no occasion on
the part of Respondent No.3 to put an endorsement against the name
of the Petitioner-College of "pending court case".
11 In that view of the matter, we allow the Petition and pass
the following order:
ORDER
(i) The interim order passed by this Court
permitting the Petitioners to admit 150 students for
Academic Year 2016-2017 stands confirmed.
(ii) The Petitioners would be at liberty to fill in the
dgm 7 901-wp-7394-16.sxw
vacant seats remaining out of the said 150 seats in the
Second Year from the candidates who are eligible for
same in accordance with rules.
(iii) Needless to state that insofar as Academic Year
2017-2018 is concerned, since the AICTE itself has
sanctioned the strength of 300, the Respondent No.3
shall forthwith delete the endorsement "pending court
case" and shall treat the Petitioners for admission
process on par with all other eligible Colleges.
(iv) In so far as the Post Graduation Course is
concerned, the interim order which permits the
Petitioners to admit 24 students for the Academic Year
2016-2017 is confirmed.
(v) Rule made absolute accordingly in the above
terms.
(vi) There shall be no order as to costs.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.) (B. R. GAVAI J.)
