Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3404 Bom

                                                                            WP 7706/17  
  
                                               - 1 -


                     
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD                                                 
                                              

                                            WRIT PETITION NO.7706/2017


                                    Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal's,
                                    Kamlatai College of Architecture, 
                                    Madadgaon Takli Kazi 
                                    Tq. & Dist.Ahmednagar.
                                    Through its President
                                    Shri Dr.Pramod Uttamrao Shinde,
                                    age___yrs.,occu.___
                                    r/o Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad. 
                                                      ...Petitioner..

                         Versus


                          1]        The State of Maharashtra,
                                    through the Secretary for
                                    Higher and Technical Education
                                    Department, Mantralaya,
                                    Mumbai.

                          2]        Director of Technical Education,
                                    3, Mahapalika Marg,
                                    Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

                          3]        All India Council for Technical
                                    Education, 7th Floor,
                                    through its Western
                                    Chandralok Building, Janpath,
                                    New Delhi.  Through its
                                    Member Secretary.

                          4]        Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Technical
                                    University, 
                                    Through its Registrar, Lonere,
                                    Taluka Mapan, Dist.Raigadh. 
                                                      ...Respondents... 



     ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:50:35 :::
                                                                      WP 7706/17  
  
                                        - 2 -

                                                      
                          .....
Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.V. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2.
Shri S.V. Advant, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Shri A.R. Borulkar, Advocate for respondent no.4. 
                          .....
  
                       CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA &
                               SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. 

DATE: 21.06.2017

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

1] Heard learned counsel appearing for parties.

Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent,

petition is taken for final hearing and disposal.

2] As the issue involved here is of starting

college of Architecture at Madadgaon Takli Kazi Tq. &

Dist.Ahmednagar based upon the permission / approval

granted by All India Council for Technical Education

(AICTE), which is the final authority for granting and

dealing with technical education revolving around

provisions of the All India Technical Education Act,

1987 (for short AICTE Act) and Rules made thereunder.

The law and the judgments with regard to supremacy of

AICTE have a binding effect of approval / sanction

granted by AICTE on / upon the concerned University /

WP 7706/17

- 3 -

Board / respective State or such other authorities

dealing with the education and related institutions in

the State / area.

3] This Court in Writ Petition Nos.6259/2017 and

6281/2017, after considering the scheme of AICTE Act and

Regulations made thereunder and judgments of the Supreme

Court and High Courts dealing with the similarly situated

cases, today has granted permission / prayer and allowed

such petitioner institution to start and continue with

the colleges as prayed / approved by AICTE.

4] Petitioner's application for starting college of

Architecture for academic year 2017-18 of intake of 40

students on permanently non grant-in-aid basis on

10.4.2017 has been allowed thereby granted permission /

approval so prayed. Respondent - State by communication

dated 16.5.2017 also accorded the permission to

petitioner accordingly. Though opposed by reply dated

16.6.2017, in view of above settled position of law and

facts, in our view, as role of State Government is

limited and the fact that they have already granted

permission / approval, we are not inclined to accept

their opposition to the prayer so made by petitioner.

WP 7706/17

- 4 -

5] The main contest in the present petition is

again by respondent no.4 - University. Basic submission

is that the application filed by petitioner for

affiliation was in the month of May, 2017. Therefore,

there was no occasion for them to complete the formality,

as required. There is much force in the contentions o

raised by the learned counsel appearing for respondent

no.4 that the timely action is required to be taken even

by the institution for moving and/or taking steps to

establish any educational institution / college for the

concerned academic session / year.

6] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

read and, therefore, various judgments including

judgments of the Supreme Court whereby it is reiterated

that once AICTE, which is supreme authority in the matter

of grant of approval, the other authorities including the

University and/or the State permission / affiliation /

approval is a mere formality. This Court has accepted

this situation in many cases, as referred in the

following judgments -

1] State of Tamilnadu & another v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute & others JT 1995 (3) SC 136;

WP 7706/17

- 5 -

2] Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council For Technical Education (2013) 3 SCC 385;

3] The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Dr.D.Y. Patil Pratishthan's Padmashree Dr.D.Y. Patil Polytechnic, Kolhapur v. Directorate of Technical Education, Mumbai & others 2014 (5) Mh.L.J., 590;

4] Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati & Anr. vs. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & Ors.

2012(1) Mh.L.J.799;

5] Jaya Gokul Education Trust vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Deptt., Thiruvananthapuram and Another AIR (2000) 5 SC 231;

6] Sant Dnyaneshwar V/s. State of Maharashtra 2006 (9) S.C.1;

7] Order dated 6.1.2016 of the Supreme Court in Orissa Technical Colleges Association v. AICTE & others, in Civil Appeal No.6938/2015

8] Mahatma Gandhi Missions Institute, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra & others 2008(5) Mh.L.J., 913; and

9] Judgments dated 21.6.2017 in Writ Petitions Nos.6259/2017 and 6281/2017 passed by this Court.

7] The position of law so declared and announced,

therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, though

there are one or two judgments cited by the learned

counsel for respondents opposing the prayer to say that

WP 7706/17

- 6 -

such prayers should not be granted at such delayed stage.

We have considered those judgments. We have read and

referred those judgments and noted that facts and

circumstances are totally different. The judgments cited

by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner here

directly deal with the importance / need to be given to

the supremacy of the approval and sanction of AICTE over

the other authorities. We have taken note of the same

and granted the relief to the other petitioners, but

again also on the foundation of giving importance to

AICTE approval and sanction first.

8] Additional factor in the present case is that

the concerned Council of Architecture by communication

dated 18.5.2017 on application moved by petitioner for

Bachelor of Architecture degree course from the academic

session 2017-18 issued letter of intent for the same

intake for five years. There is no objection, therefore,

even from the concerned Council / another authority

referring to the degree of Architecture.

9] The role of University and its affiliation is

definitely important as it concerns with the examination

of students concerned and/or all related aspects.

WP 7706/17

- 7 -

Respondent no.4 being the University whose affiliation

is, therefore, necessary to proceed with the course in

question by petitioner institution and, therefore, in the

interest of justice and to avoid further complications,

at this stage itself we are inclined to direct the

University to take all necessary steps as required within

the frame-work of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological

University Act as early as possible and do the necessary

things. We permit the University to inspect the premises

/ institution as early as possible and if defects are

pointed out, we also direct the petitioner to remove all

deficiencies and defects within shortest possible time.

Petitioner is required to take steps including payment of

requisite fee and compliances of various requirements so

insisted by the University, if any. We are inclined to

pass this order basically in view of th approval already

granted by AICTE, State Government and also by the

concerned Council of Architecture. The infrastructure

and every other aspect are ready as the same are within

the frame-work of Rules and Regulations so prescribed by

the concerned authority. Therefore, in the interest of

students at large of the area, we are inclined to grant

WP 7706/17

- 8 -

the relief so prayed.

10] Learned counsel for the petitioner has also

pointed out order passed by this Court in Writ Petition

No.5900/2017 dated 8.6.2017 where after considering the

similar situation by giving importance to the AICTE

permission / approval and there also respondent no.4

University was involved, by mandatory order, this Court

directed respondent University to grant affiliation to

petitioner for the academic year 2017-18 for the subject.

11] It is made clear that in view of the letter of

intent dated 18.5.2017 itself, it is mandatory for the

petitioner institution not to admit any students in the

course until a letter of approval is received by it from

the Council of Architecture though letter of intent is

issued for the academic year 2017-18. Therefore, the

petitioner to take steps to get appropriate permission /

Approval and/or letter before commencement of the

session. At this stage, we are inclined to observe that

in case of conflict, if any, in view of above

observations including the judgments of the Supreme

Court, AICTE's approval / decision would prevail.

11] Therefore, taking over all view of the matter

WP 7706/17

- 9 -

and in view of the orders we have passed in other

similarly placed matters and as sufficient case is made

out, we are inclined to pass similar order in following

terms.

O R D E R

a] Respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 are directed to

include the name of the petitioner institution / college

for admission process for new Architecture with intake of

80 students for the academic year 2017-18 and allot

students through Central Admission Process.

b] Respondent nos.2 & 4 are directed to grant

affiliation / permission to petitioner to start college

of Architecture for the academic year 2017-18, as

approved / sanctioned by the AICTE.

c] It is made clear that petitioner needs to comply

with all the formalities, including payment of fees as

early as possible and take steps to get appropriate

permission / approval from Council of Architecture before

commencement of the academic session 2017-18.

d] The Council of Architecture to take inspection,

if required and do the needful, as early as possible to

avoid and/or delay the commencement of course for the

WP 7706/17

- 10 -

academic year 2017-18.

e] Respondent no.4 University to have complete

inspection within 10 days. Deficiencies, if any, need

to be removed at the earliest before commencement of

session of this year by the petitioner institution.

f] Above order is made subject to final order of

the Supreme Court as it is stated that the issue of

supremacy of AICTE over Pharmacy Council and/or Council

of Architecture, is pending.

g] As the judgment / order is dictated in open

Court in presence of all parties / learned counsel, the

concerned respondents need not wait for the certified

copy of judgment / order. They should act forthwith, as

ordered.

h] Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

ndk/c2161711.doc