Delhi High Court
Kanchan Kumari & Ors. vs All India Council For Technical ... on 25 April, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 25th April, 2012
+ LPA No.319/2012
KANCHAN KUMARI & ORS. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. D.R. Nigam, Mr. V. Dalmia &
Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, Advs.
Versus
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL
EDUCATION & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for R-
2/AICTE.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 11.01.2012 of the
learned Single Judge dismissing the CM No.427/2011 preferred by the
three appellants along with 178 others for impleadment in W.P.(C)
No.7310/2011, though permitting the counsel for the appellants to assist
the counsel for the respondent No.3 Alice Institute of Technology, Ranchi
which has filed the writ petition. The writ petition is filed, impugning the
order dated 21/24.09.2011 of the respondent All India Council for
Technical Education (AICTE), withdrawing the approval earlier accorded
to the respondent No.3 Institute.
2. It appears that respondent AICTE vide further order dated
05.10.2011 directed distribution of students studying in the respondent
No.3 Institute (approval granted to which had been withdrawn) to nearby
college / colleges subject to availability of vacancies. The respondent
No.3 Institute filed application for interim relief in the writ petition
aforesaid seeking stay of the said order dated 05.10.2011. The learned
Single Judge finding that approximately 200 students were enrolled in the
respondent No.3 Institute and who were likely to be affected by the
withdrawal of approval to the respondent No.3 Institute, vide order dated
20.10.2011 directed the respondent No.3 Institute and respondent AICTE
to give an option to the students then enrolled with the respondent No.3
Institute to either migrate to the nearby colleges or to continue studying in
the respondent No.3 Institute on their own risk and peril.
3. It was in pursuance to the aforesaid order that the respondent No.3
Institute and the respondent AICTE informed the students of the
withdrawal of approval.
4. The appellants and the other 178 students who had filed the
application for impleadment in the writ petition, are the students of the
respondent No.3 Institute. They, in pursuance to the aforesaid order
dated 20.10.2011 exercised the option to continue in the respondent No.3
Institute. They at the same time sought impleadment.
5. The learned Single Judge has rejected the application for
impleadment vide order dated 11.01.2012 (supra).
6. The said students of the respondent No.3 Institute thereafter filed a
writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand seeking mandamus against
respondent No.2 AICTE and the Ranchi University to grant affiliation to
the respondent No.3 Institute. The said writ petition was dismissed vide
order dated 07.02.2012 inter alia on the ground that the issues raised
therein were the same as in the writ petition filed by the respondent No.3
Institute and pending before this Court. The intra-court appeal preferred
thereagainst also remained unsuccessful.
7. It is thereafter that the present appeal against the refusal of
impleadment has been filed.
8. We are unable to find as to how the appellants are a necessary or a
proper party to the writ petition, though they definitely are a party likely
to be affected by adverse order, if any in the writ petition. The respondent
No.3 Institute, in the writ petition seeks judicial review of the order of
respondent AICTE of withdrawal of approval earlier accorded to the
respondent No.3 Institute. Thus what is for consideration in the writ
petition is, whether the respondent No.3 Institute complies with all the
conditions required to be met / complied with for having the approval.
The appellants have no role in the said adjudication. Neither can it be
said that in their absence no effective order can be made (for them to be
necessary party) nor is their presence necessary for complete and final
decision on the question involved in the proceeding (for them to be a
proper party). In fact the appellants are strangers to the dispute between
respondent No.3 Institute and AICTE. However, their interest has
already been protected by the learned Single Judge. The appellants have
of their own volition, notwithstanding withdrawal of approval to the
respondent No.3 Institute, continued to pursue their studies therein.
9. Though the Jharkhand High Court did dismiss the writ petition
filed by appellants in that Court, for the reason of pendency of writ
petition from which the application arises, but the senior counsel for the
appellants agrees that the relief which was sought by the appellants in the
writ petition in the Jharkhand High Court cannot be granted in the writ
petition in this Court since the Ranchi University is not a party thereto.
In fact the senior counsel candidly admits that the appellants are
preferring a Special Leave Petition against the rejection / dismissal of
their writ petition by the Jharkhand High Court.
10. We are in the circumstances of the view that the learned Single
Judge has rightly rejected the application for impleadment. No useful
purpose will be served thereby. The right / claim, if any of the appellants
is separate and distinct from the challenge by the respondent No.3
Institute subject matter of the writ petition before the learned Single
Judge.
11. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the
same. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
APRIL 25, 2012
'gsr'
