Aditya Institute Of Technology vs Govt. Of Delhi & Anr
2008 Latest Caselaw 1088 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             W.P. (C) No.2752/2008 & CM No.5294/2008

%             Date of Decision: 22.07.2008

Aditya Institute of Technology                     ..... Petitioner
                         Through:     Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Adv.

                      versus


Govt. of Delhi & Anr.                              ..... Respondent
                           Through:   Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
   may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?            Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be
   reported in the Digest?                       Yes

VIPIN SANGHI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed this petition to seek a writ

directing respondent No.1, i.e., the Government of NCT of Delhi to

include the name of the petitioner institute in the information

bulleting for the year 2008-2009 and to further direct the Chief

Admission Officer, CET-2008 to make admissions in the petitioner

college in the light of extension of approval granted by the All India

Council for Technical Education (AICTE), i.e. respondent No.2 vide

letter dated 5.3.2008 for the academic session 2008-2009.

2. The petitioner institute is run by Dr. R.N. Gupta

Technical Education Society which is registered under the Societies

Registration Act. The petitioner claims to be running technical

colleges all over the country. Technical education falls within the

domain of AICTE constituted under All India Council for Technical

Education Act, 1987. The controversy in this petition pertains to

four diploma courses being run by the petitioner institute since

1995-96, viz., Diploma in Computer Engineering, Diploma in

Electronics and Communication Engineering, Diploma in Medical Lab

Technology and Diploma in Pharmacy.

3. The petitioner states that vide letter dated 30.7.2007

respondent No.2 granted extension of approval to the petitioner

institute for making admission for the academic session 2007-2008.

However, the petitioner was unable to admit students to the said

courses on account of the fact that admission process had already

been closed by then. The petitioner approached this court by filing

WP(C) No.6536/2007 which was dismissed for the aforesaid reason.

The Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed

by the petitioner.

4. For the current year i.e. 2008-09 the AICTE sent an

Expert Committee of the North Western Regional Committee to

inspect the petitioner institute. This committee consisted of Dr.

Krishan Gopal, Executive Director National Institute of Technology,

Kurushetra, Dr. Kharid Mohammad Professor and Head, Department

of Civil Engineering, Jamia Milia, Delhi, Dr. B. Roy Chaydhary,

Professor and Head, Department of Electronics, Delhi College of

Engineering, Delhi and Shriom Dalal, Regional Officer, North

Western Regional Office, AICTE as a convenor of the Committee.

Based on the inspection report of the said Committee, respondent

No.2 issued the communication dated 5.3.2008 granting extension

of approval to the petitioner institute for the aforesaid four courses

with maximum intake of 40 students in each course for the

academic session 2008-2009.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the

aforesaid approval to extension granted by the AICTE for the second

consecutive year, the respondent No.1 is acting arbitrarily by not

including the name of the petitioner institute as one of the institutes

offering the said courses and by keeping the petitioner out of the

admission process undertaken on the basis of CET, 2008. The

petitioner relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of

TN & Anr. v. Adhiyaman Education and Research Institute

and Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 104 and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust V.

Commissioner & Secretary to government High Education

Dept. Thiruvananthapuram & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 1614 and

State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan

Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors, JT 2006(4) SC 201 to submit that

respondent No.1 has no authority or jurisdiction to disregard the

approval granted by AICTE after due inspection by them of the

petitioners institute. He submits that the respondent No.1 is being

unreasonable and is bent upon somehow preventing the petitioner

from running the said courses for the academic session 2008-09 by

encroaching upon the authority of AICTE and disregarding the

approval granted by them.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. V.K. Tandon,

opposes the petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner

institute is not permitting it to carry out inspection of its institutional

facilities and for this reason the request of the petitioner cannot be

entertained. It is submitted that the inspection team of respondent

No.1 has repeatedly tried to visit the petitioner's institute but on

each occasion the petitioner has denied inspection to the said

committee. Mr. Tandon submits that extension of approval letter

issued to the petitioner states that the "........observations and

specific conditions (if any) of the Expert Committee are annexed to

this letter. The Institution shall fulfill all the conditions without

any delay. Non fulfillment shall lead to withdrawal of approval".

The approval letter further states "It may please be noted that

AICTE had issued interim policy regulations, which has been notified

in the Gazette of India on November 28, 2005. All the provisions

contained in the interim policy regulations shall be applicable for all

the AICTE approved institutions."

7. Mr. Tandon also relies on the following extract from the

said letter.

"Copy to

1.The Director, Technical Education Deptt., Govt of NCT, Muni Maya Ram Marg, near TV tower, Pitampura, New Delhi.

He is requested to closely monitor the compliance of Norms and Standards stipulated by the Council and keep this Regional Office and the AICTE informed of the same.

2. The Principal Aditya Institute of Technology, 107/9 Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi A request to fulfill the deficiencies as annexed (if any) to this letter and submit the compliance by the start of the session to this Regional office."

8. The submission of Mr. Tandon is that for the purpose of

mandatory compliance of the norms and standards stipulated by

the AICTE and to keep the North Western Regional Committee of

AICTE informed of the same, it is necessary for respondent No.1 to

conduct the inspection which has been denied by the petitioner. He

submits that similar inspection has been conducted by respondent

No.1 for various other institutes. Mr. Tandon also relies on the

revised norms and standards and approval process for diploma level

technical institute circulated by AICTE on 18.9.2007. A copy of this

communication has been placed on record by Mr. Tandon. He

emphasizes that in paragraph 4 of this communication the AICTE

has laid down that "The Applicant Institution to whom Letter of

Intent was issued will submit necessary documents for grant of

Letter of Approval to the concerned Director of Technical Education

of the concerned State Govt./U.T. based on which the Director of

Technical Education will arrange an Expert committee visit to verify

the facilities created by the applicant institution". The submission

of Mr. Tandon then is that from the aforesaid, it cannot be said that

a clear approval has been granted to the petitioner. Mr. Tandon

specifically refers to the communication dated 6.6.2008 written by

respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 containing the

recommendations of the State level committee for the academic

session 2008-2009 in respect of the various technical institutes

including that of the petitioner. He submits that the State level

inspection committee has not recommended the inclusion of

petitioner institute in the "admission category" since the same was

found closed. Mr. Tandon further states that vide communication

dated 20.6.2008 as well, the petitioner was required to grant

inspection to the State level inspection committee on 25.6.2008 at

10 a.m. However, even on that occasion the same was denied.

9. Respondent no.2, AICTE has filed a short counter

affidavit. Pertinently, respondent No.2 does not say anything in its

counter affidavit to support the impugned action of respondent No.1

for the reasons disclosed by respondent No.1. The stand taken by

respondent no.2 in its counter affidavit is that the petitioner

institute is running in a rented accommodation and till date has not

acquired its own land. Respondent no.2 had required all

educational institutions to shift their activities to their own premises

vide notification dated 18.2.2005. It is further stated that the

approval granted by respondent no.2 vide letter dated 5.3.2008 is

subject to the petitioner filing a compliance report showing the

removal of deficiencies mentioned in the extension of approval

letter dated 5.3.2008.

10. Before proceeding further, I think it appropriate to deal

with the stand of respondent no.2 at this stage itself. First and

foremost, at the time of arguments, which were spread over two

days, the counsel for respondent no.2 did not even appear to

oppose the petition on the second day i.e. today. Secondly, as

aforesaid, respondent No.2 does not sympathize with the

respondent No.1 in its grievance that the petitioner is refusing

inspection to the State level committee, and it does not support the

decision of respondent No.1 for that reason. Thirdly, if the

requirement of running the institute in its own premises was

considered by AICTE of such importance as to deprive the

petitioner of approval for the academic year 2008-09, it is not

understood as to why in the first place, the approval was granted to

the petitioner as late as on 5.3.2008. The petitioner has pointed out

that the respondents have themselves not strictly enforced the said

requirement of an institution running in its own premises or

adhering to the norms with regard to the area that the institute

should be possessed of to set up and run the institute. He refers to

the information furnished by the Department of Training and

Technical Education dated 10/11.4.2008 in response to the queries

raised under the Right to Information Act by one Tejvir Singh. It is

pointed out that six of the seven institutes who have been granted

approval by respondent No.2, and who are a part of the admission

process of respondent No.1 do not meet the norms with regard to

the institute being run on institutional land of an area of 1.5 acres

(which was earlier 4 acres and now stands reduced to 1.5 acres).

The details of these seven institutes are as follows:

S.             Name of the Polytechnic               Status of land
No.
1.    Chhotu    Ram     Rural  Institute  of     12 acres, Agricultural
      Technology     Kanjhawala    (Ghevra),     Land
      Delhi-110041
2.    Father Agnel Polytechnic                1 acre, Earmarked
      Gautam Nagar (Opp. Neeti Bagh), New     for polytechnic from
      Delhi-110049.                           school land of 3
                                              acres
3.    Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic           2 acres, Earmarked

(G.H.P.S. Premises), Poorvi Marg, for polytechnic out of Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057. 8 acres school land

4. International Polytechnic for Women 0.5 acres, Laldora 171A, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-17.

5. Marathwara Institute of Technology Temporary site, Mundka, New Delhi-110040. School building/ Laldora land

6. Rao Tula Ram Polytechnic 4 acres, Institutional Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi- land 110021.

7.    Subramaniam       Bharati   College  of 0.5 acres, Laldora
      Science & Technology                    land
      Holambi Khurd, Delhi-110082.

11. It is also pertinent to note that the categorical stand of

the petitioner that in the approval letter dated 5.3.2008, absolutely

no conditions or deficiencies had been pointed out and, therefore,

there is no further compliance required of the petitioner, has

remained uncontroverted by respondent no.1 and respondent no.2.

12. From the aforesaid it appears that the requirement of

the institute running on its own land allotted on institutional basis

has not been made strictly applicable by respondent no.2 and there

is no reason to discriminate against the petitioner when at least six

other institutions, who are not satisfying the said norms are being

permitted to run the technical courses year after year. It appears

that the Inspection Committee of respondent no.2 was conscious of

the aforesaid position while issuing the approval letter dated

5.3.2008, else, either the approval letter would not have been

issued or a specific condition would have been laid down by

respondent no.2 in that regard before the approval letter took

effect. The current is the second successive year when approval

has been granted to the petitioner by the respondent no.2 even

though the petitioner has continued to run the institute from rented

accommodation. Though it is not necessary for me at this stage to

go into this issue any further, it may also be noted that the learned

counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments stated

that it had already applied for allotment of institutional land for

running its institute to the DDA which enjoys a monopoly status in

Delhi for allotment of institutional lands, and that the said issue is

also pending before this Court in a separate writ petition.

13. In Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute

(supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with the issue relating to

the conflict between the powers and functions of AICTE on the one

hand and a state legislation, namely, Tamil Nadu Private College

(Regulation) Act on the other hand. The Supreme Court in paras 22,

27 and 30 of the said decision held as follows:-

"22. The aforesaid provisions of the Act including its preamble make it abundantly clear that the Council has been established under the Act for coordinated and integrated development of the technical education system at all levels throughout the country and is enjoined to promote qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth. The Council is also required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and standards in the

technical education system. The Council is, further to evolve suitable performance appraisal system incorporating such norms and mechanisms in enforcing their accountability. It is also required to provide guidelines for admission of students and has power to withhold or discontinue grants and to derecognize the institutions where norms and standards laid down by it and directions given by it from time to time are not followed. This duty and responsibility cast on the Council implies that the norms and standards to be set should be such as would prevent a lopsided or an isolated development of technical education in the country. For this purpose, the norms and standards to be prescribed for the technical education have to be such as would on the one hand ensure development of technical educational system in all parts of the country uniformly; that there will be a coordination in the technical education and the education imparted in various parts of the country and will be capable of being integrated in one system; that there will be sufficient number of technically educated individuals and that their growth would be in a planned manner; and that all institutions in the country are in a position to properly maintain the norms and standards that may be prescribed by the Council. The norms and standards have, therefore, to be reasonable and ideal and at the same time, adaptable, attainable and maintainable by institutions throughout the country to ensure both quantitative and qualitative growth of the technically qualified personnel to meet the needs of the country. Since the standards have to be laid down on a national level, they have necessarily to be uniform throughout the country without which the coordinated and integrated development of the technical education all over the country will not be possible which will defeat one of the main objects of the statute. This country as is well-known, consists of regions and population which are at different levels of progress and development or to put it differently, at differing levels of backwardness. This is not on account of any physical or intellectual deficiencies but for want of opportunities to develop and contribute to the total good of the country. Unnecessarily high norms or standards, say for admission to the educational institutions or to pass the examinations, may not only deprive a vast majority of the people of the benefit of the education and the qualification, but would also result in concentrating technical education in the hands of the affluent and elite few and in depriving the country of a large number of otherwise deserving technical personnel. It is necessary to bear this aspect of the norms and standards to be prescribed in mind, for a major debate before us centered around the right of the States to prescribe standards higher than the one laid down by the Council. What is further

necessary to remember is that the Council has on it representatives not only of the States but also of the State Universities. They have, therefore, a say in the matter of laying down the norms and standards which may be prescribed by the Council for such education from time to time. The Council has further the Regional Committees, at present, at least, in four major geographical zones and the Constitution and functions of the Committees are to be prescribed by the regulations to be made by the Council. Since the Council has the representation of the States and the professional bodies on it which have also representation from different States and regions, they have a say in the Constitution and functions of these Committees as well. What is further important to note is the subject covered by this statute is fairly within the scope of Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III. Further, these regulations along with other regulations made by the Council and the rules to be made by the Central Government under the Act are to be laid before the Parliament. Hence, on the subjects covered by this statute, the State could not make a law under Entry 11 of List II prior to Forty-Second Amendment nor can it make a law under Entry 25 of List III after the Forty-Second Amendment. If there was any such existing law immediately before the commencement of the Constitution within the meaning of Article 372 of the Constitution, as the Madras University Act, 1923, on the enactment of the present Central Act, the provisions of the said law if repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act would stand impliedly repealed to the extent of repugnancy. Such repugnancy would have to be adjudged on the basis of the tests which are applied for adjudging repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution.

27. The provisions of the State Act enumerated above show that if it is made applicable to the technical institutions, it will overlap and will be in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act in various areas and, in particular, in the matter of allocation and disbursal of grants, formulation of schemes for initial and in-service training of teachers and continuing education of teachers, laying down norms and standards for courses, physical and institutional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instruction assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes, taking steps to prevent commercialisation of technical education, inspection of technical institutions, withholding or discontinuing grants in respect of courses and taking such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring the compliance of the directions of the Council, declaring technical institutions

at various levels and types fit to receive grants, the Constitution of the Council and its executive Committee and the Regional Committees to carry out the functions under the Central Act, the compliance by the Council of the directions issued by the Central Government on questions of policy etc. which matters are covered by the Central Act. What is further, the primary object of the Central Act, as discussed earlier, is to provide for the establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education with a view, among others, to plan and coordinate the development of technical education system throughput the country and to promote the qualitative improvement of such education and to regulate and properly maintain the norms and standards in the technical education system which is a subject within the exclusive legislative field of the Central Government as is clear from Entry 66 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule. All the other provisions of the Act have been made in furtherance of the said objectives. They can also be deemed to have been enacted under Entry 25 of List III. This being so the provisions of the State Act which impinge upon the provisions of the Central Act are void and, therefore, unenforceable. It is for these reasons that the appointment of the High Power Committee by the State Government to inspect the respondent-Trust was void as has been rightly held by the High Court.

30. A comparison of the Central Act and the University Act will show that as far as the institutions imparting technical education are concerned, there is a conflict between and overlapping of the functions of the council and the University. Under Section 10 of the Central Act, it is the Council which is entrusted with the power, particularly, to allocate and disburse grants, to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems incorporating norms and mechanisms for maintaining accountability of the technical institutions, laying down norms and standards for courses, curricula, staff pattern, staff qualifications, assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition fee and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions or introducing new courses or programmes, to lay down norms or granting autonomy to technical institutions, providing guidelines for admission of students, inspecting or causing to inspect colleges, for withholding or discontinuing of grants in respect of courses and programmes, declaring institutions at various levels and types fit to receive grants, advising the Commission constituted under the Act for declaring technical educational institutions as deemed universities, setting up of National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation on the basis of guidelines and standards specified and to make recommendations to it or to the Council or the Commission or other bodies under the Act regarding

recognition or derecognition of the institution or the programme conducted by it. Thus, so far as these matters are concerned, in the case of the institutes imparting technical education, it is not the University Act and the University but it is the Central Act and the Council created under it which will have the jurisdiction. To that extent, after the coming into operation of the Central Act, the provisions of the University Act will be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges like the Engineering Colleges. As has been pointed out earlier, the Central Act has been enacted by the Parliament under Entry 66 of the List I to coordinate and determine the standards of technical institutions as well as under Entry 25 of List III. The provisions of the University Act regarding affiliation of technical colleges like the Engineering Colleges and the conditions for grant and continuation of such affiliation by the University shall, however, remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the University for grant and continuance of affiliation will have to be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Council in respect of matters entrusted to it under Section 10 of the Central Act." (emphasis supplied)

14. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra), the

appellant was desirous of establishing a self financing engineering

college and submitted its application to the University of Kerala as

well as to the AICTE. An inspection team of the university

recommended favorably the case of the appellant. AICTE also

granted conditional approval for establishment of engineering and

technical college. The appellant applied to the State Government

for grant of its permission, which was refused by the Government.

The same was challenged before the Court. The Supreme Court

relied upon Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute

(supra) and in paras 22 and 23 of the said judgment held as

follows:-

"22. As held in the Tamil Nadu case (1995 AIR SCW 2179), the Central Act of 1987 and in particular, Section 10(K) occupied the field relating the 'grant of approvals' for establishing technical institutions and the provisions of the Central Act alone were to be complied with. So far as the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act or its statutes were

concerned and in particular statute 9(7), they merely required the University to obtain the 'views' of the State Government. That could not be characterized as requiring the "approval" of the State Government. If, indeed, the University statute could be so interpreted, such a provision requiring approval of the State Government would be repugnant to the provisions of Section 10(K) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and would again be void. As pointed out in the Tamil Nadu case there were enough provisions in the Central Act for consultation by the Council of the AICTE with various agencies, including the State Governments and the Universities concerned. The State Level Committee and the Central Regional Committees contained various experts and State representatives. In case of difference of opinion as between the various consultees, the AICTE would have to go by the views of the Central Task Force. These were sufficient safeguards for ascertaining the views of the State Governments and the Universities. No doubt the question of affiliation was a different matter and was not covered by the Central Act but in the Tamil Nadu case, it was held that the University could not impose any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulation or the conditions imposed by the AICTE. Therefore, the procedure for obtaining the affiliation and any conditions which could be imposed by the University, could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act. The University could not, therefore, in any event have sought for 'approval' of the State Government.

23. Thus we hold, in the present case that there was no statutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State Government and even if there was one, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act. The University statute 9(7) merely required that the 'views' of the State Government be obtained before granting affiliation and this did not amount to obtaining 'approval'. If the University statute required 'approval', it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act."

15. In Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra

Mahavidyalaya (supra), which is a case relating to the NCTE and

which relies on Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute

and Others (supra ) and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra),

the Supreme Court in paragraphs 57 and 59 held as follows:-

"57. It is thus clear that the Central Government has considered the subject of Secondary Education and Higher Education at the national level. The Act of 1993 also requires Parliament to consider Teacher Education System "throughout the country". NCTE, therefore, in our opinion, is expected to deal with applications for establishing new B.Ed. colleges or allowing increase in intake capacity, keeping in view 1993 Act and planned and co-ordinated development of teacher-education system in the country. It is neither open to the State Government nor to a University to consider the local conditions or apply 'State policy' to refuse such permission. In fact, as held by this Court in cases referred to hereinabove, State Government has no power to reject the prayer of an institution or to overrule the decision of NCTE. The action of the State Government, therefore, was contrary to law and has rightly been set aside by the High Court.

59. .................................. In accordance with the provisions of 1993 Act, final decision can be taken only by NCTE and once a decision is taken by NCTE, it has to be implemented by all authorities in the light of the provisions of the Act and the law declared by this Court. It has been so held in St. John Teachers training Institute." (emphasis supplied)

62. Before parting with the matter, we may state that at one stage, the High Court has observed that "in so far as the University is concerned, considering the provisions of Section 15 of the NCTE Act, once permission has been granted under Section 14, the University is bound to grant affiliation in terms of the Act, Rules and Statutes. Section 83 requires the University to grant affiliation only after permission is granted under Section 82 of the Maharashtra University Act. To that extent the provisions of Section 82 and 83 are inconsistent with the provisions of NCTE Act and are null and void.

63. In our opinion, the observations that the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra University Act are "null and void" could not be said to be correct. To us, it appears that what the High Court wanted to convey was that the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 would not apply to an institution covered by 1993 Act. As per the scheme of the Act, once recognition has been granted by NCTE under Section 14(6) of the Act, every university ('examining body') is obliged to grant affiliation to such institution and Sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply to such cases." (emphasis supplied)

16. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid three decisions has

repeatedly dealt with the scope of powers and jurisdiction of

AICTE/NCTE which are organizations set up by the Parliament in

exercise of its powers under Entry 66 of List-I of VIIth Schedule to

the Constitution specially to provide for coordinated and integrated

development of technical education/teacher education throughout

the country. The Supreme Court has held that it is entirely for the

AICTE/NCTE to lay down norms and in respect of areas where norms

have been laid down by these Councils the field stands occupied

and it is not open either to the State Government concerned, or

even to the University to which affiliation is sought, to lay down any

other norms whether higher or lower in contravention of norms laid

down by the Council, and on that basis either to deny their consent

or no objection or affiliation to the concerned university.

17. Despite the aforesaid clear rulings of the Supreme

Court, I find that in various cases the tussle between the Council

and the State Government/affiliating university continues, with the

State Government/affiliating university trying to exercise their

authority over the institutions concerned, with the result that the

institutions and the students who are waiting for seeking admission

to the concerned courses suffer in the process. This case also

presents a similar picture.

18. As aforesaid, the petitioner institute was granted

extension of affiliation on 30.7.2007 for the academic session 2007-

2008. However, even for that year the petitioner could not avail of

the said extension on account of the fact that the admissions had

closed by then. For the current year once again the approval has

been granted by the AICTE after an inspection conducted by a

team as aforesaid, and despite the said approval the petitioner is

again facing obstruction at the hands of respondent no.1 in being

able to undertake the said courses for the academics session 2008-

2009. The reason for the aforesaid attitude of the respondent No.1

is stated to be the refusal of the petitioner to allow inspection to

their team. The petitioner objects to the assertion of the right to

carry out inspection by respondent No.1.

19. The right to carry out inspection is asserted by

respondent No.1, inter alia, on the basis of the approval letter dated

5.3.2008. As aforesaid Mr. Tandon has relied upon the extract

narrated above to derive such a right. However, I am not convinced

that the respondent has a right to carry out inspection to decide

whether or not to honour the recognition/approval already granted

by AICTE and no such right can be asserted either on the basis of

the approval letter dated 05.03.2008 or on the basis of any of the

aforesaid documents. In fact, the said stand of respondent No.1 is

contrary to the legal position as aforesaid. As noticed hereinabove,

the definite case of the petitioner is that the Expert Committee did

not make any observations or lay down any specific conditions that

the petitioner was required to fulfill, at the time of issuance of the

approval letter dated 5.3.2008. This position has not been

controverted by either of the respondents. A perusal of the

approval letter dated 5.3.2008 itself shows that the conditions,

subject to fulfillment of which, the approval letter was issued were

only the following:-

1. Admissions shall be made through the Central Counseling by the State/Central Govt. only.

2. If this letter of approval is received by you after the closing date of State/National Level Central Counseling for

Admissions in the concerned State/Union Territory, this Letter of approval will not be valid for making any admission during the above specified academic year, and shall be treated as withdrawn.

3. No excess admission shall be made by the Institution during any academic year.

4. The approval is valid only for the academic year as mentioned in the table. If no further extension of AICTE approval is received beyond the academic year, this Approval Letter will not be valid for making any admission for the subsequent years.

5. Name of the Institution, Name of the Society/Trust, is not allowed to change without prior approval of AICTE. The name and title of the institution should be such that "the Emblems and Names (Prevention of improper use) Act(1950)" of government of India is not violated in any manner.

6. In exercise of power conferred under 10(p) of the AICTE Act, AICTE, may inspect the institution any time it may deem fit to verify the progress/compliance of the Institution or for any other purpose.

7. Any other condition(s) as may be specified by AICTE from time to time."

20. It is also the case of the petitioner that the interim

policy regulations stated to have been issued by the AICTE and

notified in the Gazette of India on 28.11.2005 also do not in any

way prevent the petitioner from undertaking the aforesaid courses.

Once again, neither of the two respondents have disclosed as to

which interim policy regulation, stated to have been notified by

AICTE on 28.11.2005 has not been complied with by the petitioner.

Therefore, the reliance placed by Mr. Tandon on the said interim

policy regulations appears to be vague. It is also pertinent to note

that the reason for placing the petitioner institute in "no admission"

category by respondent no.1, as disclosed from the

recommendations of the said level committee of respondent no.1 is

not that the petitioner does not fulfill the so called specific

conditions of the Expert Committee of AICTE on 28.11.2005.

21. The reliance placed by Mr. Tandon, on the request made

to the Director, Technical Education Department of respondent no.1

(in the approval letter dated 5.3.2008) to monitor the compliance of

norms and standards stipulated by the Council and to keep the

North Western Regional Office and the AICTE informed of the same,

to claim a right to inspect also appears to be misplaced. Firstly, if

the respondent No.1 were to be vested with such a right it would

completely defeat the very object and purpose of vesting the

Council with the sole power and authority to grant

recognition/approval since in every case the concerned State

Government would then be able to nullify the recognition/approval

by insisting that it should first be granted inspection of the institute

even though the institution has already obtained the recognition/

approval after an inspection by the Council. The object and purpose

of the request made by AICTE to the Director in the letter dated

5.3.2008 is not to inspect the institute for the purpose of grant of

approval. That has already been granted. The question of closely

monitoring the compliance of norms and standards would arise once

the institute begins its functioning. The inspection had been

conducted by the AICTE in December, 2007 and the letter of

approval has been issued in March, 2008. There is nothing to

suggest that AICTE has empowered the respondent No.1 to again

carry out inspection afresh and on that basis to block the

petitioner's move to admit students for the academic session 2008-

2009. AICTE has not empowered respondent No.1 or delegated its

authority/function to respondent No.1 to override the findings of its

own Expert Committee which has carried out inspection of the

petitioner institute. No doubt, respondent No.1 even otherwise may

be entitled to observe the progress of the courses at the petitioner

institute and to report to AICTE and/or its Regional Office with

regard to the compliance/non-compliance of standards and norms.

However, that does not mean that the said opportunity can be

exploited by respondent No.1 to override the approval granted by

AICTE after inspection by its team.

22. Mr. Tandon has also relied upon the instruction issued

to the Principal of the petitioner institute to fulfill the deficiencies,

"as annexed (if any) to" the letter of approval. However, Mr.

Tandon has failed to point out if, in fact, any deficiency has been

communicated. Since there are no specific pre conditions set out in

the said letter of approval that the petitioner is required to fulfill

before the approval could take effect, in my view the submission of

Mr. Tandon that the approval was conditional and could not take

effect until inspection was granted by the petitioner to respondent

No.1., cannot be accepted.

23. The communication dated 18.09.2007of AICTE relied

upon by respondent No.1 to assert its right to carry out inspection is

also of no avail, particularly in the facts of this case. A perusal of

the said letter shows that the AICTE by that letter conveyed the

procedure to be adopted while dealing with an application made to

seek the approval of AICTE for "starting new diploma level technical

institutions, additional courses/increase, variation in intake and

existing courses". The relevant extract of this letter reads as

follows:

"1. The applications for grant of approval for starting new diploma level technical institutions, additional courses/increase, variation in intake and existing courses will be submitted by applicant to the concerned Directorate of Technical Education of the concerned State Govts/UT, which will be scrutinized by a Committee constituted by the Secretary dealing with technical education of the concerned State Govts/UT.

2. The State Level Committee chaired by the Secretary dealing with technical education of the concerned State Govt./UTs shall decide on the issuance of Letter of Intent or other wise based on the recommendations of Scrutiny Committee.

3. Based on the recommendations of the State Level Committee the Regional Officer of AICTE will issue Letter of Intent to Applicant Trust/Society.

4. The Applicant Institution to whom Letter of Intent was issued will submit necessary documents for grant of Letter of Approval to the concerned Director of Technical Education of the concerned State Govt./UT based on which the Director of Technical Education will arrange an Expert Committee visit to verify the facilities created by the applicant institution.

5. The State Level Committee chaired by the Secretary dealing with technical education of the concerned State Govt./UTs will decide on the issue of Letter of Approval based on the recommendations of the Visiting Expert Committee.

6. Based on the recommendations of the State Level Committee the Regional Officer of AICTE shall issue Letter of Approval."

24. Firstly, the aforesaid procedure prescribed in the said

communication does not appear to be relevant for the purpose of

renewal of approval. It is not the case of respondent No.1 that any

application was made to it by the petitioner, or that respondent

No.1 had issued a letter of intent to the petitioner in terms of para 2

of the said letter. It is also not the respondents case that AICTE

issued a Letter of Intent to the petitioner. Therefore, neither party

has, at any stage, sought to rely upon or adhere to the procedure

contained in the communication dated 18.09.2007. Pertinently, the

reason for placing the petitioner in "No Admission" category is not

the non-adherence to the procedure contained in the letter dated

18.09.2007 of respondent No.2. Secondly, assuming that the said

procedure were to apply to a case like the present, the approval

already having been granted by AICTE/its North Western Regional

Committee, the said procedure contained in para 4 of the letter

dated 18.09.2007 became redundant. The ultimate authority to

issue recognition/approval lies with the AICTE/its regional

Committee. The approval in the petitioner's case has been granted

by the competent authority. If respondent No.1 has any grievance

with regard to non-adherence by respondent No.2 to the procedure

evolved by respondent No.2, it may take up the issue with

respondent No.2, but that cannot give the respondent No.1 a handle

to render the approval granted by respondent No.2 ineffective.

25. Even it were to be assumed that the petitioner ought to

have allowed respondent No.1 to send its State level inspection

team to the petitioner institute, the refusal of the petitioner to allow

the said inspection team cannot by itself empower the respondent

No.1 to place the petitioner institute in a "No Admission" category.

The right course of action for respondent No.1 to adopt would have

been to report the matter to the AICTE and its North Western

Region Committee since the approval had been granted by the

AICTE and its North Western Region Committee, and it is only the

AICTE/its committee which can withdraw the said approval. The

said approval cannot be interdicted by respondent No.1 in the

manner that it has been done in the present case. Pertinently, the

counter affidavit of respondent No.2 does not support the action of

respondent No.1 in placing the petitioner institute in "No Admission"

category on the ground that the petitioner has failed to provide the

inspection to the State level committee of respondent No.1. Even if

it is assumed that the petitioner had granted an inspection to the

State level committee and the State level committee had found any

non-compliance of the norms and standards stipulated by AICTE,

even then the only action that respondent No.1 could have taken

would have been to immediately notify the AICTE and its North

Western regional office. The respondent No.1 could not have

proceeded to place the petitioner in "No Admission" category.

Pertinently the respondent No.1 has ample representation both in

the AICTE and in the North Western regional Committee of the

AICTE.

26. During the course of hearing the petitioner has filed a

supplementary affidavit with a few documents. The same have

been relied upon by the petitioner without any objection from the

respondents. Even otherwise, the nature of documents sought to

be placed on record by the petitioner alongwith supplementary

affidavit is such that there can hardly be any dispute about their

veracity. I may also note that the respondents have also not

controverted the documents placed by the petitioner with the

supplementary affidavit. Mr. Mehrotra has pointed out by reference

to the supplementary affidavit and the documents filed therewith

that the petitioner institute is even now a running institute,

inasmuch as, it had admitted students in the academic year 2005-

2006 for the aforesaid four courses, out of which Diploma in

Computer Engineering, Diploma in Electronics and Communication

Engineering and Diploma in Medical Lab Technology are three years

courses. These courses have, therefore, continued for 2005-2006,

2006-2007 and upto 2007-2008. The stand of respondent No.1 that

the petitioner institute was found locked or closed when its

inspection team visited the institute is therefore challenged. The

petitioner has placed on record the semester-wise result of these

courses which show the good performance of the students enrolled

with it semester after semester. A large number of these students

have passed with distinction. The petitioner has also placed on

record documents to show that petitioner institute has been

designated as an examination center by the respondent No.1 and

that the Principal of the petitioner institute has also been nominated

as a Central Superintendent by the respondent as late as on

10.04.2008.

27. For the aforesaid reasons I allow this petition and direct

respondent No.1 to include the name of the petitioner college as

one of the colleges offering the four courses, namely, Diploma in

Computer Engineering, Diploma in Electronics and Communication

Engineering, Diploma in Medical Lab Technology and Diploma in

Pharmacy with maximum intake of 40 students for the academic

session 2008-2009.

28. When the matter had come up before the Court on

13.6.2008 and the petitioner was pressing for interim relief, Mr.

Tandon had made a statement that the counseling will start from

23.7.2008. In view of the said statement of Mr. Tandon made on

behalf of respondent No.1 the matter had been adjourned from

time to time. However, that statement has been belied. The

petitioner has pointed out that respondent No.1 has required all the

candidates to register themselves online from 10.7.2008 onwards

uptil 18.7.2008. It is further stated that it is mandatory for every

candidate to do online registration which include campus counseling

(choice submission), without which the candidates would not be

eligible for campus counseling. The petitioner submits that since the

respondent has removed its name from the list of institutes offering

the said four courses, (as is evident from the reply given by the

respondent on 8.4.2008 in response to queries under the R.T.I. Act

to one Mr. Tejveer Singh), no student would obviously have opted

for any of the aforesaid courses in the petitioner institute and when

they appear for on campus counseling from 23.7.2008 onwards,

there would be no student who could be allocated to petitioner

institute. The aforesaid conduct of respondent No.1, to say the

least, is highly deplorable and is designed to hoodwink the Court to

somehow scuttle the endeavour the petitioner from admitting

students on the basis of CET, 2008. Respondent no.1 has misled

the petitioner as well as this Court. The least that respondent No.1

could have done before undertaking the said process of online

registration was to inform the Court as well as the petitioner about

the same, so that orders could have been passed to protect the

interest of the petitioner and the students who may be interested in

pursuing any of the aforesaid four courses in the petitioner institute.

29. Since the petitioner institute's name was not included

as one of the colleges offering the aforesaid four courses earlier,

and the students could not undertake online registration in respect

of courses offered by the petitioner in the petitioner institute, in the

process of counseling to be held from 23.7.2008 onwards, at the

time when the students appear for counseling, each of them would

be made aware of the availability of the petitioner institute for the

aforesaid four courses and would be permitted to opt for the

courses offered by the petitioner institute without insisting upon

online registration in that regard. The respondent No.1 shall display

a notice to this effect prominently at each of the counseling centers

and shall also issue a notice to the same effect on its website within

24 hours without waiting for a copy of the detailed judgment. Since

the judgment has been dictated in the open Court in the presence

of Mr. Tandon who is representing respondent No.1 and the same

will take some time for the same to be prepared, I direct respondent

No.1 to proceed to implement the judgment without waiting for a

copy thereof.

Petition stands disposed of.

VIPIN SANGHI JUDGE JULY 22, 2008 aj