H.L. Eri Memorial Edu. Society ... vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.
2003 Latest Caselaw 708 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. Rule. By consent of counsel for the parties the Writ Petition is disposed off by these Orders.

2. It appears that the Petitioners had applied to the Government of NCT of Delhi for the grant of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the course of BCA for the year 2002-2003, which was granted. The University has also bestowed affiliation to the Petitioners for that year and for that course. As per extant practice, the Petitioners had to apply for revalidation of the NOC for the current year 2003-04 for the BCA programme. This application was made in 3.1.2003 and was granted on 5.5.2003. So far as the grant of NOC for BCA course for the previous year is concerned it was granted in terms of letter dated 5.6.2002, which reads thus:-

"To

The Director

Beri Institute of Technology, Training & Research,

Tikri Kalan,

Delhi-110 041

Sub: Grant/Revalidation of "No Objection Certificate" for running B.C.A. Course

Sir/Madam,

1. I am directed to convey the approval of the competent authority for Revalidation of No Objection Certificate" for running B.C.A. Course by your Institute for the academic year 2002-03 subject to the following conditions:-

a) The NOC is for the academic session 2002-03 during which you are required to make permanent arrangement for running the Institution.

b) You would furnish permission/NOC of the Land/Building owning authority to the effect that it is permissible to use the land/building in your possession, for institutional purposes. Or else, you will furnish satisfactory evidence to the effect that necessary arrangements have been made by you to shift the Institute to a building constructed on land in an authorised area.

c) You are advised to get in touch with Registrar (Academic) Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University for further formalities required for affiliation.

d) The Trust/Society shall abide by all the rules in force in Delhi of the Govt. of India, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, other local authorities and the affiliating University.

e) If it comes to the knowledge of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi that the NOC has been obtained by giving any false or misleading information or by concealing or suppressing any material fact or information, the NOC granted shall be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,      

( Raj. K. Saxena )      

Director, High Education"

3. The Petitioners had applied for allocation of forty-five students in the BCA course for the current year. As per their Inspection Report dated 11.3.2003 the continuance of the BCA programme with an intake of sixty students was recommended. Along with the application for revalidation, the Petitioners had also applied for allocation of students to the BBA course and BBA (CAM) for the current academic year 2003-2004, on 3.1.2003 and 15.1.2003 respectively. Quite obviously it was pursuant to this application that the Inspection Committee mentioned hereinabove, comprising Professor P.N. Gupta (Chairman), Shri S.C. Sareen (DHE Nominee), Shri Pankaj Aggarwal (Univ. Nominee) and Mrs. Arvinder Kaur (Subject Expert) had inspected the Petitioners campus.

4. On the second hearing of this Petition on 4.7.2003, a letter purporting to be the rejection of the Petitioners application for the additional courses of BBA and BBA(CAM) for the academic year 2003-2004, dated 27.6.2003, was handed over to learned counsel for the Petitioners. This is a laconic and cryptic letter which reads as follows:

"Please refer to your letter dt. 10.6.2003 on the subject mentioned above. I am directed to say that your request for the issue of NOCs for additional courses {BBA & B(CAM)} has been considered by the competent authority but it is regretted that the same can not be acceded to as it is not covered under the Policy/Guidelines for the issue of NOCs for additional courses during the academic session 2003-04".

5. No explanation for delay is forthcoming. Inasmuch as this rejection on 27.6.2003 was in response to the Petitioner's applications of January 2003, and was well after the Inspection Committee's Report, Respondent No. 1 ought to have spelt out the reasons for their apparent inactivity in the context of a time-bound occurrence and teaching programme.

6. It is well settled that a party cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted by it in the document on which it relies. If authority is required for this proposition it can be found in the celebrated decision on Mohinder Singh Gill and Another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, of which reads as follows:

"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji :

"Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself".

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.

A Caveat".

7. In my opinion, it was imperative for Respondent No. 1 to have spelt out all the details and reasons for which it had declined to grant its NOC for the additional courses. This, to my mind, would have been sufficient reason to grant relief prayed for by the Petitioners. However, the matter has been heard in some detail which I shall therefore discuss in like manner. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 has drawn attention to a letter dated 5.6.2002 which was the grant of NOC for running the BCA course for the year 2002-2003. It contains five clauses and emphasis is now laid on Clause B thereof which requires the furnishing of permission from the Land/Building owning Authority to the effect that it is permissible to use the land/building for institutional purposes. There is substance in the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners that this stipulation pertains to the previous year and had it been brought to the notice of the Petitioners it would have disclosed that the campus is situated on property which belongs to the Chairman of the Petitioner Society. Reliance has also been placed on the Master Plan (Clause 4.0) which appears to permit the user of land lying in the rural zone for educational and research institutes. Regretfully, due to the inaction of Respondent No. 1, none of these facts had been brought to the notice of the Petitioners and could therefore have been elucidated upon. It should not be forgotten that the Petitioner has been allowed to continue the existing course for the current year. In any event it militates against the Respondent's own policy to give a fillip to the opening of new educational institutions by positively allowing a laxity or moratorium on certain necessities for the initial years.

8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 has referred to Annexure-R1/2 on page 153 in order to sustain her argument that the NOC cannot be granted to an institution unless it has been running the course, after affiliation with the University, for two academic years. Again, it has been rightly contended by learned counsel for the Petitioners that these stipulations pertain to the Policy of Sponsorship of land and has no bearing whatsoever, on the grant of the NOC for commencement of an additional course.

9. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 has stated that the conditions which apply for the grant of NOCs, as well as revalidation thereof, would also apply to the grant of NOCs in respect of fresh courses. She also reiterates that no NOC has been granted to any institution for starting an additional course unless they have already been in operation for two years. This stance has not been articulated in the highly belated rejection letter dated 27.6.2003 reproduced hereinabove. I have already observed that if this stand is sought to be sustained on the sponsorship of land policy, it appears to be wholly erroneous. There is a clear distinction between assisting in the sponsorship of land, and the grant of an NOC for commencing an additional fresh course. The rationale is obvious. The Government is not expected to assist a party in obtaining the allotment of land unless it has already manifested and demonstrated its bonafides and its resolve to continue with an educational institution.

10. On a perusal of the Inspection Report, it is quite clear that the Committee of five eminent persons had, inter alia, made the following recommendation:

"Further, considering the available and proposed infrastructure and instructional facilities, the commencement of new BBA programme from 2003-04 with an intake of 90 students is recommended".

No reason is forthcoming as to why these recommendations have been ignored and have not been implemented by Respondent No. 1 by the grant of NOCs for the additional courses.

11. This document i.e. The Inspection Report has been filed only along with the Reply. It has not been contested that a copy thereof had not been supplied to learned counsel for the Petitioners. If this recommendation was available in March, 2003, I fail to appreciate why the Government of NCT of Delhi has slept over the matter and did not call upon the Petitioners for making clarifications, if any, were required.

12. The following Guidelines have also been adverted to on both sides of the Bar.

"It should be kept in mind that Delhi being the capital of the country, any educational institution in it should be of very high standard. Getting good faculty is a major problem, our efforts should therefore be to consolidate what we have and new institutions could be considered in areas which are not already covered and in emerging fields only.

NOC may be given to new institutions providing medical, paramedical, pharmaceutical, banking, insurance and finance and other emerging fields like bio-technology, bio-engineering, bio-informatics, product design technology and energy & environment technologies. The existing institutions could be considered for these courses and others provided their existing faculty is able to cover 50% of the new subjects. If they are not in a position to do so, unconnected courses should not be encouraged.

As recommended by the Minister of Training & Technical Education, NOC may be given to Societies/Institutions having land and have commenced construction and would be in a position to complete 75% of the infrastructure by July-August.

The institutions which are in existence for the last two years or more and which do not have land and have their own permanent premises with the required infrastructure, should not be considered for additional course/increase in intake. The existing institutions which have been established more than 5 years back and have yet not acquired land, and constructed permanent building at site may be given NOC only after verification in regard to the quality of education that the 7 are providing including valid reasons for not getting land therefore on a case to case basis.

The existing institutions may be given NOC for revalidation provided they have rectified the deficiencies pointed out by AICTE/Departments/I.P. University.

Once the Institution is affiliated to G.G.S.I.P. University, it should be banned from running Courses not recognised by G.G.S.I.P. University.

To avoid duplicity of inspections, a joint inspection team consisting of experts from the University, officials from the concerned department/agency, and one officer nominated by Delhi Government, be constituted. Directorate of Higher Education will be the nodal agency to co-ordinate all inspections".

13. Mr. Wadhwa has attempted to rely on second Clause to mandate the Respondents to grant NOC for the additional courses applied for. I am unable to agree with him, since the courses have been spelt out and identified in the Clause itself; and BBA and/or BBA(CAM) has not been mentioned. However, to my mind the last Clause cannot be overlooked by the Respondents and there has to be good reason for them not to follow the recommendations of the Inspection Team, which in this case has recommended the intake of 90 students in the additional courses. Not only has the reasons for not following the recommendations not been mentioned in he impugned Order dated 27.6.2003, but none has been disclosed before me. It would indeed be a travesty of the efforts of the Joint Inspection Team if its recommendations are disregarded for no plausible reason. However, I am convinced that the NOC in respect of additional courses ought to have been granted for the current year.

14. Normally, this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India always ventures into the academic field with some trepidation. The Court is slow to pass directions which would overrule a decision of the administration. In the present case, however, Orders have been passed by me, although with some hesitation, since the circumstances have compelled me to do so. These Orders shall also apply only in respect of the present academic year, and shall also be construed as granting any recognition or imprimatur to the compliance by the Petitioners of all the conditions which are applicable for the grant of NOCs for the following years. On the basis of material before me, Respondent No. 1 is directed to grant its NOC within seven days to the Petitioners for the BBA course for the year 2003-2004.

15. So far as the University is concerned, a prerequisite for consideration of affiliation is the grant of the NOC by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioners may accordingly apply to the University for affiliation in the prescribed manner and the University is directed to dispose of the application in accordance with Rules expeditiously and not later than two months from today.

16. Petition stands disposed of.

17. A copy of this Order be given dusty under the signature of the Court Master.