Global Educational & Social Trust vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 48 Del

12.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      LPA 655/2010

       GLOBAL EDUCATIONAL & SOCIAL TRUST ..... Appellant
                   Through Mr. Rajiv Bansal & Mr. Amandeep,
                   Advocates.

                       versus

       GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY &
       ANR                                         ..... Respondents
                     Through Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with Mr.
                     Sradhananda Mohapatra, Mr. Sadan Farasat &
                     Mr. Avneesh, Advocates for respondent No. 1.
                     Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
                     Amitesh Kumar, Mr. Mayank Manish & Ms.
                     S. Pathak, Advocates for AICTE.
                     Mr. Manjit Singh, Additional Advocate
                     General for State of Haryana.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                   ORDER

% 06.01.2011

Heard Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.

Parag P. Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General for respondent-

University, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate for respondent-AICTE

and Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State

of Haryana.

2. In this intra-court appeal, the assail is to the order dated 31st

August, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil)

No. 5831/2010 whereby the learned single Judge has refused to grant

LPA NO. 655/2010 Page 1 interim stay. Ordinarily this Court would have been averse to interfere

with such an order but however when the matter was taken up, certain

suggestions came from Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned counsel for the

appellant, Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General for

the respondent-University, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel

for AICTE and Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General

for the State of Haryana and accordingly the matter was dwelled upon.

3. Keeping in view the suggestions, on 15th September, 2010 this

Court had passed the following order:-

" Heard Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel with Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the AICTE and Mr. Mukul Talwar, learned counsel for the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University.

After a considerable debate, without prejudice to the contentions that have been raised or to be raised, a consensus was arrived at that the educational institution, namely, Delhi Global Institute of Management situated at Jasana, Faridabad run by Global Educational and Social Trust, shall be inspected by a three- member committee of the AICTE and a three-member committee of the respondent-

University by 20th September, 2010. The committees of both the statutory authorities shall work in harmony and if there is any deficiency, the same shall be brought to the notice of the appellant-institution and also to this Court. Needless to say, both the committees shall go together and inspect the premises. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Mr.Mukul Talwar and Mr.Rajiv Bansal shall accompany the committee members. The expenses made for the visits of the committees as well as the

LPA NO. 655/2010 Page 2 counsel who are accompanying the committees shall be borne by the appellant-institution as conceded to by Mr. Rajiv Bansal. All other expenses as are requisite shall also be borne by the appellant on being intimated by fax or e- mail by the University as well as by the AICTE.

As an ad interim measure, it is directed that in case of success of appeal, the respondent-University shall hold another counseling for filling up the seats that have been allocated to the appellant-institution by the AICTE.

Call on 22nd September, 2010."

4. When the appeal was taken up on 22nd September, 2010, the

following order came to be passed:-

"This Court on 15th September, 2010 had constituted two committees of the respondent No.1-University as well as the AICTE and directed the committees to visit the appellant-institution along with three counsel, namely, Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Mr. Mukul Talwar and Mr. Rajiv Bansal. Be it noted, Mr. Bansal had not accompanied the team.

When the matter was taken up today, Mr. Talwar submitted a report on behalf of the respondent-university and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, submitted a report on behalf of AICTE. If we allow ourselves to say so, that was not the intention of the order which was passed on earlier occasion. We are really at a loss as to why there is so much of cavil between the AICTE and the University on a factual position. However, let the reports be exchanged and a meeting be held by the AICTE authorities with the University authorities and a decision be taken whether

LPA NO. 655/2010 Page 3 the appellant-institution meets the requisite criteria as per the norms/guidelines framed by the AICTE.

Matter be listed on 1st October, 2010."

5. Thereafter, as evincible, various orders were passed and

eventually on 25th November, 2010 this Court recorded that an inspection

as directed had not taken place and granted some more time to complete

the said exercise. When the matter was called today, we have been

apprised that a joint inspection has been taken up by the AICTE and the

respondent-University and the inspection committee of both the statutory

authorities have found that there is no deficiency in the institution in

praesenti.

6. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that if the appellant files an

application for grant of recognition/approval to the course before the

AICTE, the same shall be placed before the Board, which shall take a

decision within three weeks from the date of submission of the

application for the academic session 2011-12. Regard being had to the

joint committee inspection, after the AICTE takes a decision, the same

shall be communicated to the respondent-University, which shall follow

the same in letter and spirit.

7. Needless to say that the respondent-University shall act promptly

after getting the communication from the AICTE. Mr. Parag P.

Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the

LPA NO. 655/2010 Page 4 respondent-University has fairly stated that the University always acts

expeditiously and would not cause any delay or hindrance. Mr. Manjit

Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has

stated that the State shall abide by the law. Needless to say that when

there is concurrence by the AICTE and University, the State Government

in a case of the present nature has no role to refuse the NOC.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of. As nothing

remains to be adjudicated in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5831/2010, the

same also is deemed to have been disposed of. No order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       JANUARY 06, 2011
       VKR




LPA NO. 655/2010                                                      Page 5