Delhi High Court
Guru Premsukh Memorial College ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 15 September, 2014
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4007/2014 & CM APPL. 8061/2014 AND 9405/2014
GURU PREMSUKH MEMORIAL
COLLEGE ENGINEERING & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Soayib Qureshi and Mr. Anshumaan
Sahni, Advocates.
versus
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for
respondent No.1/AICTE.
Mr. Mukul Talwar, Advocate with
Mr. Sradhananda Mohapatra and
Mr. Vipin Singh, advocates for GGSIPU.
Ms. Bandana Shukla, Advocate for
Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
Reserved on : 3rd September, 2014
% Date of Decision : 15th September, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J:
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24 th
June, 2014 whereby respondent-All India Council for Technical Education
(for short 'AICTE') decided to place the petitioner-institute under
"withdrawal of approval status" for 2014-15 and requested the Principal
Secretary (Higher and Technical Education) Delhi and also Registrar,
GGSIP University to shift affected students of the institute to other AICTE
approved institutes affiliated to their University in consultation with the
State Government.
2. The relevant facts of the present case are that Petitioner No.1-Institute
has been functioning under the aegis of petitioner No.2 since 2000. In 1999-
2000, petitioner No.1 was granted approval for establishment of a college.
3. On 13th March, 2000, petitioners applied to Delhi Development
Authority for five acres of land for construction of a college building at a
permanent site in accordance with the norms of respondent-AICTE. Though
the petitioners were allotted three acres of land in Rohini by Delhi
Development Authority, yet the same was subsequently cancelled in 2004-
2005.
4. In 2005, petitioners approached this Court by way of a writ petition
being W.P.(C) 2459/2005 seeking a direction to Delhi Development
Authority to give effect to the recommendation of allotment as well as a
direction to AICTE not to withhold the approval to the petitioners for
running the Engineering Degree College for the Academic Year 2005-2006.
5. On 09th February, 2005, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an
interim order that respondent-AICTE could not unreasonably withhold
approval to the petitioner for its undergraduate Engineering Course for the
Academic Year 2005-2006 only on the ground that it did not possess a
permanent site.
6. Between 2006-2011, petitioners approached this Court before the start
of each academic session and were granted relief inasmuch as the interim
order dated 05th February, 2005 was continued for subsequent academic
years.
7. By a detailed order and judgment dated 25th March, 2011, petitioners'
writ petition along with a batch of matters was dismissed by a Division
Bench of this Court. However, extension of approval for two Academic
Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 was granted to the petitioners.
8. In the meantime, on 29th January, 2010, the SP, CBI, vide its letter
informed the Chief Vigilance Officer, AICTE that from 1999, petitioner-
institute had been continuing to operate from temporary accommodation
despite significant shortage of area and marginal shortage in built-up area,
students cadre ratio, computer, internet etc. The relevant portion of the CBI
letter is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Since, the year 1999, when approval at the first instance was
granted at the outset, the institute continued to operate from
temporary accommodation till date. There is significant
shortage as regards the area but there is marginal shortage as
regards the built up area, students cadre ratio, computer,
internet etc. were pointed out to be deficient by various Expert
Committee that visited the College."
9. In pursuance to the aforesaid CBI letter/report, respondent-AICTE
issued a show cause notice dated 14th June, 2013 to the petitioner-institute.
After receipt of petitioner‟s reply dated 27th June, 2013 and after hearing the
representatives of the petitioners, the Standing Complaint Committee of
respondent-AICTE furnished its report dated 12th July, 2013.
10. The Standing Complaint Committee recommended that petitioner-
Institute be asked to expedite its shifting to a permanent campus and an
Expert Visiting Committee be sent to the petitioner-Institute to ascertain the
infrastructural requirement.
11. After receipt of the report of the Expert Visiting Committee dated 29 th
July, 2013, respondent-AICTE issued another show cause notice dated 24th
September, 2013 to the petitioner-Institute pointing out deficiencies and
violation of norms. Petitioner-Institute furnished its reply dated 4th October,
2013.
12. After giving the petitioner‟s representatives a detailed hearing,
respondent-AICTE vide its order dated 30th October, 2013 placed the
petitioner-institute under "no extension of approval 2013-2014 status".
13. Since the order dated 30th October, 2013 has a significant bearing on
the present petition, the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"1. The Institute was approved in 1999-2000 in the name and
style of "Guru Prem Sukh Memorial College of
Engineering, GT Karnal Road, Delhi".
2. On receipt of Complaint against the Institute, CBI New
Delhi investigated the matter and sent the Report to CVO
AICTE for taking appropriate action as deemed fit in the
matter. Crux of the CBI report is that since the year
1999 when approval at the first instance was given the
Institute continued to operate from temporary
accommodation till date.
3. CBI Report reveals that significant shortage as regards
the area but marginal shortage as regards the built up
area, student ratio, computer internet etc. were pointed
out by various Expert Committees that visited the college
(01-11-1999, 2000-2001, 25-07-2002 and 18/01/2006).
As per the report of the CBI, No Admission status was
granted to the institute vide letter dated 04-07-2002 of
AICTE.
4. Show Cause Notice was issued to the Institute vide letter
dated 14/05/2004. On the orders of the Hon‟ble High
Court of Delhi, Extension of Approval for the session
2005-06 was granted to the institute and EOA is being
granted every year till 2013-14.
5. The Institute applied for site change in the A.Y. 2012-13
which was not recommended by RC and its application
was rejected on account of deficiencies reported by the
Scrutiny Committee dated 27/03/2013.
6. The Institute failed to shift the site even after lapse of
more than 13 years and thereby violated the rules and
regulations of Approval Process. The Institute has also
failed to comply with the direction of the Hon‟ble Delhi
High Court in C.M. No.6159/2011 in WP (c) No.2459-
60/2005 which gave relief to the Institute for EOA upto
2012-13 in the light of EC decision in para 68.03.26.
7. The Institute was granted only EOA 2013-14 which was
issued to the Institute since 2012-13 was issued as per
Court Order, there were overall deficiencies reported in
the online deficiencies status, hence only EOA was
issued.
8. As action on the CBI report needs to be finalised and the
Institute failed to shift the College to the Permanent
location, note dated 08/05/2013. Show Cause Notice to
the institute was issued since it has not shifted till date
despite AICTE instructions as well as Court‟s order. The
Institute vide letter dated 27/06/2013 submitted its reply.
9. The CBI report, Show Cause Notice and the reply of the
Institute with the above facts were placed before the
Committee alongwith reply of the Institute. The
Committee after examining entire case and after hearing
the submissions of the Institute, recommended as (i) The
Institute to expedite its shifting into a permanent campus,
(ii) EVC be conducted.
10. Accordingly, EVC was conducted on 29/07/2013 and
EVC reported deficiencies. Based on the deficiencies the
institute was issued Show Cause Notice on 25/09/2013
and the Institute submitted its reply on 04/10/2013.
Accordingly the matter was placed before the SAC on
21/10/2013. The Committee Recommended as follows
"In v view of the deficiencies that exist, No Extension of
Approval is recommended, EOA Not Recommended"
11. In the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, it has
been decided to place the institute under "NO
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL 2013-14 STATUS"
This has the Approval of the Competent Authority at
Page 23/N of File No/.NWRO/DL/1-6654021/2013-14
dated 29/10/2013."
14. It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid order dated 30 th October,
2013 has not been challenged and has attained finality.
15. Thereafter, the petitioner-institute filed an application for extension of
approval for the Academic Year 2014-2015. Since the petitioner-institute
had not been given extension of approval for the Academic Year 2013-2014,
the application for Academic Year 2014-2015 was considered as per the
procedure for restoration against punitive action as provided under Clause
11 of Chapter IV of AICTE Approval Process Handbook. The procedure
prescribed under Clause 11 of Chapter IV of AICTE Approval Process
Handbook is reproduced hereinbelow:-
11 Procedure for restoration against punitive actions.
11.1 Applicant makes an application for restoration on
the Web Portal along with the application for
extension of approval of the next academic year.
11.2 The restoration is subject to Expert visit
11.3 The expert Visit Committee shall verify all the
requirements as per the approval process hand
book.
11.4 Expert Visit Committee report shall be placed before
Standing Complaint
11.5 Recommendations of the Standing Complaint
Committee shall be placed before Executive
Committee for necessary Approval/ratification.
11.6 The Institute may appeal as per the procedure of
appeal in Chapter I if the status quo on punitive
action is maintained.
16. Accordingly, the Expert Visiting Committee conducted an inspection
of the petitioner-institute on 23rd May, 2014.
17. The Expert Visiting Committee in its report pointed out not only
shortfall in building area and qualified faculty as well as cadre ratio, but also
small size of boys' common room, girls common room, cafeteria,
classrooms, tutorial rooms, computer centre, libraries, seminar halls etc.
The Expert Visiting Committee under the heading „Recommendation
Summary‟ observed as under:-
"1. Originally the building seems to have constructed for a
hotel. Therefore, the room sizes are not as per norms
marginally.
2. Infrastructure & neatness needs to be improved.
3. Faculty Cadre ratio is to be maintained. More
Doctorates in Domain areas are required.
4. College may be shifted to own Building."
18. Thereafter, respondent-AICTE vide its letter dated 02nd June, 2014
issued a show cause notice and provided an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner-institute to present its case before the Standing
Appellate/Complaint Committee.
19. On 05th June, 2014, two representatives of the petitioner-institute
appeared before the Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee. After
considering the matter, the Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee
observed as under:-
S. No. Deficiencies noted by EVC Observation of
SAC/SCC
1. No own land and lease No document
submitted - not
accepted.
2. PCS to students ratio 220-fall Do
short by twenty
3. Language laboratory - not Do
available
4. Titles - falling short by 144 Do
5. National Journals - falling short Do
by 09
6. Multimedia PC - not available No document
submitted. Not
accepted.
7. Language laboratory - not No document
presented submitted. Not
accepted.
8. Availability of portable water No document
supply - not presented submitted. Not
accepted.
9. A certificate by an architect giving No document
details of sewage system - not submitted. Not
presented accepted.
10. Barrier free environment and No document
toilets created for physically submitted. Not
challenged - (Ramp or working accepted.
lift etc) - not accepted
11. General Insurance provided for No document
assets against fire, burglary and submitted. Not
other calamities - not presented accepted.
12. E- Journal No document
subscription/international submitted. Not
Journals - Only Delnet is accepted.
available. The college did not
subscribed the e-journal packages
listed in Appendix 10 of the
Handbook - (2013-14)
13. Boys Common Room - small in No document
size submitted. Not
accepted.
14. Girls Common Room - small in No document
size submitted. Not
accepted.
15. Cafeteria - Small in size No document
submitted. Not
accepted.
16. Computer center - small in size No document
submitted. Not
accepted.
17. Class room - UG Short by six No document
meters each class room submitted. Not
accepted.
18. Laboratories UG Short by above No document
fifty per cent submitted. Not
accepted.
19. Seminar Hall - short by three No document
rooms. submitted. Not
accepted.
20. The EVC also observed as follows: Deficiencies are
Land area should be 2.5 not rectified.
acres.
The college is running in a
rented building situated in
Budhpur Village.
College may be advised to
shift to the own land and building.
Originally the building
seems to have constructed for a
hotel. Therefore, the room size
are not as per norms marginally.
Faculty list of 64 members
is submitted. About 45 area
approved by University.
The faculty available for
interaction is only 47.
Faculty cadre ratio is to be
maintained. More doctors in
domain areas are required.
Infrastructure & neatness
needs to be improved.
Class rooms labs should be
66 m2 each.
Present Status: No EOA for 2013-14. Operating on Temporary
Location since the year 1999.
RECOMMENKDATIONS OF THE STANDING APPELLATE
COMMITTEE.
EVC was conducted on 23.05.2014 and pointed out the
deficiencies and they are not rectified. The institute is running in
the temporary premises for more than 14 years. In view of the
above mentioned deficiencies that exists, "withdrawal of
approval is recommended".
20. Upon receipt of the impugned order dated 24th June, 2014, whereby
petitioner-institute was placed under "withdrawal of approval status",
present writ petition was filed.
21. Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned senior counsel for petitioners contended that
the impugned order dated 24th June, 2014 had been passed by respondent-
AICTE in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither the
petitioners' reply dated 04th June, 2014 had been taken on record nor any
opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioners. Since Mr. Uppal
laid considerable emphasis at page 18 para 'Z' of the writ petition, the same
is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Z. That the Petitioners, reached the office of the AICTE on
05.06.2014, but they were not afforded any hearing. The
Petitioners then requested the Respondent No.1 to atleast take
their reply dated 04.06.2014 on record. However, the
Respondents with a pre-determined mind, did not accede to the
request of the Petitioners and informed the Petitioners that
necessary orders will be passed."
(emphasis supplied)
22. Mr. Uppal stated that the impugned order was also in violation of
principles of natural justice inasmuch as it was based on a CBI report that
had not been referred to or relied upon in the show cause notice dated 02 nd
June, 2014 and, therefore, petitioners had no knowledge of the same.
23. Mr. Uppal further contended that the primary ground relied upon by
respondent-AICTE not to grant approval for extension of affiliation for the
Academic Year 2014-2015 was that the petitioners did not own land and the
college was being run from leased premises. He stated that the aforesaid
ground was misconceived on facts and untenable in law as respondent-
AICTE itself on 08th February 2011 had given two years to colleges to shift
from temporary sites to permanent sites. He also pointed out that the
Executive Committee of respondent-AICTE in its meeting held on 17th
March, 2012 had extended the time for shifting to a permanent site till 31st
December, 2014.
24. According to Mr. Uppal, the rest of the discrepancies pointed out by
respondent-AICTE in the impugned order were minor in nature and had
been rectified. Mr. Uppal contended that as there was substantial
compliance with all rules and regulations of respondent-AICTE, petitioner
should have been granted approval for extension of affiliation for the
Academic Year 2014-2015 for its engineering course. In this connection, he
relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Al-Karim Educational
Trust & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., JT 1996 (2) S.C. 662 wherein
it has been held as under:-
"11. In the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the
State Government after consulting the Medical Council of India
to arrive at a decision. However, if it is found that the affiliation
is being withheld unreasonably or the decision is being
prolonged for one reason or the other, this Court would, though
reluctantly, be constrained to exercise jurisdiction. We must
make it clear that we are not diluting the importance of fulfilling
the essential pre-requisite set by the Medical Council before
granting recognition. The facts of this case are very special and
exceptional. In the present case, we take note of the following
aspects:
xxx xxx xxx
(g) The appellants, claim to be a minority institution and the
difficulties or even the imponderables to start a new institution
cannot be gainsaid. To insist on fulfilling all requirements at a
stretch in modern conditions, is not a practical proposition and
ordinarily only those aspects or requirements which in the
minimal will give a good start for effectively imparting
educational, with ancillary requisites may be considered
sufficient, in the extra-ordinary circumstances of this case.
xxx xxx xxx
(i) It may be that there are some minor deficiencies here and
there which call for rectification. Time can certainly set right
such matters. What is required is a total, practical, overall view
in the light of the latest tabular statement filed along with the
affidavit dated 4.9.1995. Material placed before the Court goes
to show that there has been "substantial" though not literal
compliance with the deficiencies pointed out in the latest report
dated 28.6.l1995."
25. Mr. Kirti Uppal also relied upon the interim order dated 09th
February, 2005 passed in W.P(C) 2459-60/2005 wherein it has been held as
under:-
"........Having regard to the peculiar facts, I feel that the
unyielding and rigid insistence by AICTE on the condition for
relocating the college at a permanent site cannot prima facie be
countenanced. It is needless to say that requirements of different
institutions have to be dealt with on a case basis having regard to
the individual factors and circumstance. The stand of AICTE, in
my prima facie opinion, would operate harshly; it cannot
therefore be supported. The facts presented, prima facie, show
that the applicant has been vigilant in taking steps to secure land
and comply with the requirements prescribed by AICTE. I
therefore, feel that the AICTE cannot unreasonably withheld an
approval to the petitioner (on its application) for the
undergraduate engineering course, for the academic years 2005-
06 only on the ground that does not possess a permanent site....."
26. Mr. Uppal lastly stated that respondent-AICTE could not be allowed
to apply different standards and norms to similarly placed institutions. He
pointed out that respondent-AICTE had accorded approval for Academic
Year 2014-2015 to Amity School of Engineering and Technology located at
village Biswasan, Delhi, even though it was running on a temporary site and
on a smaller piece of land than the petitioner-institute. Mr. Uppal stated that
petitioners had come to know that the said institution had received a total
score of 57.6% in the inspection conducted by the Joint Assessment
Committee of Delhi Government, whereas petitioner-institute had received a
score of 69.33% in the inspection report. In this connection, he relied upon
the order dated 14th July, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of Bombay
High Court in W.P.(C)6021/2014, Mahatma Education Society's Pillai's
Institute of Information Technology vs. All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) wherein it had been held as under:-
"15. There is no material that, out of 1800 such institutions in
Maharashtra, only these are the defaulting institutions. The
complainant also unable to justify their restrictions and
insistence to proceed only against these institutions. There is
also nothing on record to show that all other 1800 institutions
are without deficiencies.
16. We are not suggesting that institutions should not remove the
deficiencies. But, this is not the way to deal with such institutions
on the basis of private complaint by giving unilateral hearing to
them thereby adopting a pick and choose policy. It is an admitted
position that for the academic year 2014-15 because of the time
constraints, AICTE has not made site visits in case of other
institutions seeking extension of approvals or for that matter
additional courses/increase in intake capacity. Timely and
proper opportunity should have been given before passing such
orders and paucity of time can be no reason for not following
due procedure of law. Timely action should have been taken. The
impugned orders are in breach of natural justice, fair-play and
equity and therefore, required to be tested also on the anvil of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Respondents
discriminatingly selected the Petitioners' old established
institutions some of which are of high repute and passed the
impugned orders. We have also noted that the High Power
Committee never recommended and/or directed to take such
drastic action at this stage of academic year 2014-2015.
17. We have gone through the deficiencies so alleged and
referred to by the Counsel appearing for the respective
Petitioners. We find that some of the deficiencies are curable.
Other deficiencies relate to land, play-ground, occupation
certificate, nature of occupancy with permission and/or without
permission, common playground, sharing of premises, less area,
running by the institutions from campus, less land/insufficient
land or built-up area, class rooms or laboratories, the multiple
use of same premises and requisite staff/faculty/less staff are
required to be dealt with as per the norms prescribed in AICTE
handbook. We have gone even through those basic norms para
9.1.5 about land area requirements, para 9.1.6 classification of
building areas norms para 12.2 and para 10 which deal with the
multi use of facilities shows that the interpretation and
submissions of Petitioners if accepted, there will be no
deficiencies. The authorities before passing order based upon
their understanding of those norms, though permitted the
Petitioners to run the institutions/colleges/courses for so many
years suddenly took U-turn and discarded the
submission/explanation so given by the respective Petitioners
without giving reasons on those issues. Those norms and
standards including regulations of grant of approval for
technical education itself provide for relaxation/exemptions. We
fail to understand that if there were indeed some area/land
deficiencies, how the letters of approval were issued to the
Petitioners at the threshold. We are not here to give decisions on
the respective deficiencies at this stage, but as submitted by the
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that those norms
and standards and regulations/rules unless interpreted and/or
considered by this Court and/or even by the supreme authority
under AICTE Act and/or other Act, such drastic action would
definitely cause injustice and hardship to all the concerned.
There is nothing on record to show that any findings and/or
reasons have been given by the Council, while interpreting these
regulations. It is relevant to note that there is power to relax,
whereby the Council may in exceptional cases for removal of any
hardship and/or other reasons to be recorded in writing, relax
any of the deficiencies of this kind of any classes or categories of
institutions. No proper opportunity was given to the Petitioners
to put up their case before taking such drastic action. The
decision, therefore, so taken is arbitrary and not in consonance
with the various norms and regulations of AICTE. Due to time
constraints, as the impugned orders are passed at the eleventh
hour just before the admission process was to begin, the
Petitioners have had no opportunity to remove the deficiencies
and/or file Appeals before the Appellate Authority.
xxx xxx xxx
24. It is not in dispute that it was AICTE itself has granted
extension of approval to these institutions for last many years. It
is an admitted position that AICTE has acted merely on the
complaints filed by the Citizens Forum of Fairness in Education.
AICTE in its Affidavit-in-reply has averred that that it was based
on the complaints of the Citizens Forum of Fairness in Education
that a CBI enquiry was conducted and the then AICTE Chairman
and Secretary were arrested in 2009. We are not intending to
interfere with the pending investigation or inquiry, if any."
27. Consequently, according to Mr. Uppal, the impugned order was also
vitiated by bias and liable to be set aside.
28. On the other hand, Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for AICTE
stated that AICTE Regulations, 1994 read with 1997 and 2000 amendments
require every institute to have requisite area of land in its possession for use
of the proposed institution by clear title or ownership as well as a building
with duly approved building plan from Local Authorities. He pointed out
that AICTE (grant of approval for the technical institution) Regulations,
2012 require the promoter society of a Technical Education Institution to
have land as prescribed in its lawful possession with clear title in the name
of promoter society on or before the date of submission of application.
29. Mr. Kumar stated that even the petitioner-institute had been granted
its initial approval by AICTE in 1999-2000 subject to the condition that the
institute would shift to a permanent site by June 2000 and other deficiencies
would be removed.
30. Mr. Kumar contended that since even after many years of
establishment of the institution, the petitioner did not shift its functioning to
a permanent site, AICTE issued show cause notice dated 04 th May, 2004
pointing out various deficiencies. But in the light of interim order dated 05th
February, 2005 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.2459-60/2005 and further
interim orders dated 02nd July, 2008 and 21st May, 2009, the extension of
approval of the Institute was continued. He pointed out that it was only on
25th March, 2011 that this Court dismissed the said writ petition and
subsequently by order dated 13th May, 2011 passed in CM No.6159/2011
noted that "......In our considered view, prayer (c) was a sequitur to the relief
claimed in prayer (a) and prayer (b)."
31. Mr. Kumar contended that as the petitioner-institute had failed to shift
to its permanent site even after fifteen years of its functioning and in spite of
order dated 13th May, 2011 passed by this Court as well as CBI report,
AICTE issued Show cause notice dated 14th June, 2013.
32. Mr. Kumar stated that after giving full opportunity of hearing in
accordance with Clause 12 of AICTE 2012 Regulations and after complying
with principles of natural justice, AICTE vide its letter dated 30th October,
2013 placed the petitioner-institute under "No Extension of Approval 2013-
14 status".
33. Mr. Kumar further stated that upon an application for the academic
session 2014-15, the petitioner-institute was considered as per the procedure
for restoration against punitive action as provided under Clause 11 of
Chapter IV of AICTE Approval Process Handbook. He pointed out that the
Expert Visit Committee in its report referred to various deficiencies in
respect of rented building, approval of faculty by University, availability of
faculty for interaction, language laboratory, potable water supply, sewage
disposal system, barrier free environment and toilets created for physically
challenged, general insurance, PCs to student ratio, language laboratory,
library facility, boys and girls common room, cafeteria, computer centre,
classrooms UG laboratories, UG Seminar hall.
34. Thereafter, the AICTE provided an opportunity of hearing to the
institute before the Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee.
35. Mr. Kumar stated that though representatives of the petitioner-
institute and petitioner-society had appeared before the Standing Appellate
Committee on 05.06.2014, yet they did not furnish any document in support
of their claim. According to him, the petitioners had deliberately suppressed
this material fact from this Court and made an incorrect averment in para Z
at page 18 of the writ petition that they were not afforded any hearing on
05th June, 2014. He stated that the petitioners had also made an incorrect
statement that they had made a request to AICTE to take their reply dated
04th June, 2014 on record they were required to present documents and
evidence in original before the Appellate Committee and the Appellate
Committee had recorded in its report that the representatives of the
petitioner institution had not submitted any document.
36. Mr. Kumar contended that there was no breach of principles of natural
justice and the impugned order had been passed by AICTE in accordance
with provisions and procedure contained in AICTE Regulation and
Approval Process Handbook. He stated that petitioners had neither alleged
bias or malafides against any member of the hearing committee nor had
impleaded them as parties to the present proceeding. Consequently,
according to him, it was not open to petitioners to dispute the observation of
hearing committee that no documents had been filed by petitioners. He
submitted that AICTE while deciding to grant approval or not to grant
approval was not functioning as a quasi-judicial authority, but only as an
administrative authority and thus, rigid rules of natural justice need not be
complied with.
37. So far as the contention of petitioners regarding deficiency in the case
of Amity School of Engineering and Technology was concerned, he stated
that assuming without admitting that petitioners‟ argument was correct, then
also it could not claim parity for continuing a deficiency.
38. Mr. Kumar submitted that the Policy of the State Government dated
02nd April, 2014 did not override the condition of approval and Norms and
Standards laid down by the AICTE in terms of its Regulations of 1994 and
2012 and also the policy decision of AICTE which mandated all institutions
to shift to a permanent site.
39. Mr. Kumar also stated that there was no indication much less any
undertaking or assurance given by the petitioners in the writ petition
regarding shifting to permanent site by 31st December, 2014.
40. After the arguments were over, Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner handed over an additional affidavit dated 13 th
August, 2014 enclosing a copy of the Academic Audit Report dated 16 th
June, 2014 prepared by the representative of the respondent-University.
Mr. Uppal contended that the contents of the said report contradicted the
objections raised by various inspection teams constituted by AICTE.
41. Thereafter, respondents were given liberty to file additional affidavits.
42. Mr. Mukul Talwar, learned counsel for respondent-University stated
that the petitioner's contention was incorrect as the Academic Audit Report
dated 16th June, 2014 was purely an annual exercise carried out by the
respondent-University to evaluate academic standards and teaching methods
at the institute and such an exercise was carried out for all affiliated
institutes. He further stated that this was not an inspection for evaluating the
infrastructure and other physical parameters pertaining to the respective
institutes for which separate inspections are carried out by the Joint
Assessment Committee for consideration of grant/continuation of affiliation
of the institute.
43. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for AICTE stated that
University Visiting Report had neither been forwarded to AICTE nor the
same had been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order as
AICTE had followed only the process prescribed in its Approval Process
Handbook which contemplates visit by its own expert committee. He
pointed out that the report of the University dated 16 th June, 2014 did not
deal with the deficiencies found by AICTE as mentioned in the Expert
Visiting Committee Report dated 23rd May, 2014 and the report of the
Standing Complaint Committee dated 5th June, 2014.
44. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that it is first essential to outline the scope of judicial review in such matters.
In the opinion of this Court, judicial review is not directed against the
decision but is confined to the decision making process. Judicial review
cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a
decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that
the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority
after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by
law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court.
Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner
in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court
sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process
but also on the correctness of the decision itself.
45. In Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 the Supreme
Court has held as under:-
"89. ..............The judicial power of review is exercised to rein
in any unbridled executive functioning. The restraint has two
contemporary manifestations. One is the ambit of judicial
intervention; the other covers the scope of the court's ability to
quash an administrative decision on its merits. These restraints
bear the hallmarks of judicial control over administrative
action.
90. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits
of the decision in support of which the application for judicial
review is made, but the decision-making process itself.
91..............It is thus different from an appeal. When hearing an
appeal, the Court is concerned with the merits of the decision
under appeal................
100.........It is not function of a judge to act as a super board, or
with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its
judgment for that of the administrator.
217.............Since the power of judicial review is not an appeal
from the decision. We cannot substitute our decision since we
do not have the necessary expertise to review.............
219........Apart from the fact that the Court is hardly equipped
to do so, it would not be desirable either. Where the selection
or rejection is arbitrary, certainly the Court would interfere."
46. In Ex. Naik Sardar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1992 SC
417 the following statement of law by Lord Diplock in Civil Service Unions
Vs. Minister for Civil Service (1984) 3 ALL E.R. 935 was cited with
approval by the Supreme Court:-
"5...............Judicial review has I think developed to a stage
today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by
which the development has come about, one can conveniently
classify under three heads the grounds, on which administrative
action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground
I would call „illegality‟, the second „irrationality‟ and the third
„procedural impropriety!"
47. Consequently, the only three grounds for invoking judicial review in
such like matters are illegality, irregularity and procedural impropriety.
48. Petitioner's argument that the impugned order has been passed
without affording any hearing is contrary to facts. This Court finds that the
impugned decision has been taken by AICTE after following a very
elaborate procedure. Firstly, the decision dated 30th October, 2013 to place
petitioner in "no extension of approval category for 2013-2014" was taken
after considering petitioner's reply letter dated 27th June, 2013 to the show
cause notice dated 14th June, 2013, hearing before the Standing Complaint
Committee on 12th July, 2013 as well as issuance of the Expert Visit
Committee report dated 29th July, 2013 and another show cause notice dated
24th September, 2013 to the petitioner as well as its reply dated 04th October,
2013 and hearing before Committee on 21st October, 2013.
49. Secondly, after receipt of petitioner's application for extension of
approval for Academic Year 2014-15, the procedure prescribed under
Clause 11 of Chapter IV of AICTE Approval Process Handbook was
scrupulously followed inasmuch as the Expert Visiting Committee
conducted an inspection on 23rd May, 2014 and after issuance of Show
Cause Notice dated 2nd June, 2014, Standing Appellate/Complaint
Committee gave a hearing to two representatives of petitioner on 5th June,
2014. It was only thereafter that the impugned order dated 24th June, 2014
was passed.
50. It is pertinent to mention that the Standing Appellate/Complaint
Committee comprises a retired High Court Judge, a Principal and a
Professor. It does not comprise any serving officer or employee of AICTE.
It is the independent Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee that has
stated that neither any document nor any reply was filed by the petitioner.
No allegation of bias or malice has been levelled against any member of the
Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee. Consequently, this Court is
unable to accept the contention of petitioner-institute that neither its reply
nor its documents were taken on record.
51. Further, to say that petitioner was unaware of CBI report prior to
issuance of the impugned order is not correct. It was extensively referred to
in Show Cause Notices dated 14th June, 2013, 24th September, 2013 and
AICTE's order dated 30th October, 2013.
52. In any event, CBI's report dated 29th January, 2010 was only a
starting point of enquiry as the impugned decision is based on deficiencies
pointed out by the AICTE's Expert Visiting Committee‟s report dated 23rd
May, 2014.
53. The interim order dated 14th July, 2014 passed by Bombay High
Court in Mahatma Education Society's Pillai's Institute of Information
Technology (supra) offers no assistance to the petitioner as it proceeds on
"non grant of proper opportunity of hearing to institutions and violation of
principles of natural justice". In this case, petitioners have been given full
opportunity of hearing and consequently, this Court is of the view that
principles of natural justice have been complied with. Thus, the aforesaid
Bombay High Court order is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of
this case.
54. Petitioners' reliance on the interim order dated 9th February, 2005
passed in W.P(C) 2459-60/2005 is also misconceived as the said order has
been vacated and the said writ petition has been dismissed. Further, the
dismissal order has attained finality.
55. The petitioners' argument that the deficiencies pointed out in the
report of the Expert Visiting Committee dated 23rd May, 2014 are minor or
the only major deficiency is that it lacks ownership of land, is incorrect. The
report of the Expert Visiting Committee dated 23 rd May, 2014 refers to at
least eighteen other deficiencies like shortfall in building area and qualified
faculty as well as cadre ratio, small size of boys' common room, girls
common room, cafeteria, classrooms, tutorial rooms, computer centre,
libraries, seminar halls etc.
56. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid deficiencies are certainly
not minor but major in nature. Consequently, the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Al-Karim Educational Trust & Anr. (supra) has no application to
the facts of the present case.
57. Reliance of petitioners on University's inspection report dated 16 th
June, 2014 is misplaced as AICTE has taken a decision in accordance with
the procedure prescribed in its regulations and the same did not contemplate
inspection by an affiliating university. It is to be noted that the respondent-
University before this Court has admitted that its inspection was purely an
annual exercise to evaluate academic standards and teaching methods at the
institute and not for evaluating the infrastructure and other physical
parameters pertaining to the respective institutes. Thus, the University's
inspection report cannot be taken into account while deciding the issue of
grant of approval to petitioners.
58. The contention of petitioner regarding deficiencies in the case of
Amity School of Engineering and Technology cannot be adjudicated upon in
view of its non-impleadment. It is to be noted that it is AICTE's case that
while Amity college was granted permission on self assessment basis,
petitioner's application was rejected after the Expert Visiting Committee
inspected petitioners' premises in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under Clause 11 of Chapter IV of AICTE Approval Process Handbook.
59. Moreover, the equality concept in Article 14 of the Constitution is a
positive concept and petitioners cannot claim parity for continuing a
deficiency. In a catena of judgements it has been held that negative equality
is not a valid legal ground. In Union of India and Others vs. M.K. Sarkar,
(2010) 2 SCC 59, the Supreme Court has held as under::-
"26. A claim on the basis of guarantee of equality, by reference
to someone similarly placed, is permissible only when the
person similarly placed has been lawfully granted a relief and
the person claiming relief is also lawfully entitled for the same.
On the other hand, where a benefit was illegally or irregularly
extended to someone else, a person who is not extended a
similar illegal benefit cannot approach a court for extension of
a similar illegal benefit. If such a request is accepted, it would
amount to perpetuating the irregularity. When a person is
refused a benefit to which he is not entitled, he cannot approach
the court and claim that benefit on the ground that someone else
has been illegally extended such benefit. If he wants, he can
challenge the benefit illegally granted to others. The fact that
someone who may not be entitled to the relief has been given
relief illegally, is not a ground to grant relief to a person who is
not entitled to the relief."
(emphasis supplied)
60. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the petitioner-institute
suffers from several deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Visiting
Committee. Despite various notices issued by AICTE to petitioner-institute
to shift to a permanent site, it has been conducting engineering course from
temporary premises for more than fifteen years. While it is true that the time
to shift premises has been extended till 31st December, 2014, yet this Court
finds that no steps have been taken by petitioners for shifting their college to
a permanent site. After all a building cannot be constructed overnight!
61. Consequently, this Court of the view that the impugned order dated
24th June, 2014 suffers from no illegality, irregularity and/or procedural
impropriety. Accordingly, the writ petition as well as applications are
dismissed and the interim order dated 3rd July, 2014 is vacated.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 MANMOHAN, J.
js/rn
