Delhi High Court

Indus College Of Engineering vs All India Council For Technical ... on 29 June, 2015

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Date of decision: 29th June, 2015

+                                W.P.(C) No.5982 /2015

       INDUS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING          .... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. S. Nanda Kumar with Mr.
                            Parivesh Singh, Mr. Ravi Kant, Mr.
                            Mayank Manish & Ms. Jyoti Sharma,
                            Advs.

                                    Versus

    All INDIA COUNCIL FOR
    TECHNICAL EDUCATION                        ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Anil Soni, Adv.

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. The petition impugns the letter dated 30th April, 2015 of the

respondent, withdrawing the approval earlier accorded to the petitioner vide

letter dated 25th July, 2008 for establishing an institution for imparting

education in engineering and technology. The writ petition came up first

before the Vacation Bench on 12th June, 2015 when the counsel for the

respondent also entered appearance and the matter was posted for today for

hearing.

2. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length.

3. The petitioner, in the writ petition has pleaded:

(a) that the respondent, after being satisfied of the petitioner having

fulfilled the requisite conditions, vide letter dated 25th July,

2008 granted approval to the petitioner for running the

undergraduate engineering course with annual intake of 240

seats for the academic year 2008-09;

(b) that the petitioner was also accorded extension of approval by

the respondent from time to time for relevant academic year;

(c) that on 4th June, 2014 the respondent granted extension of

approval to the petitioner for running courses in engineering

and technology with intake of 498 students for the session

2014-15;

(d) that the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 15th

September, 2014 to the petitioner and to which a reply was

submitted by the petitioner and whereafter the petitioner was

directed to appear before the Standing Complaint Committee

Meeting scheduled on 11th November, 2014;

(e) that the petitioner, in the hearing on 11th November, 2014

"submitted relevant documents in order to cure the defects as

pointed out by the AICTE";

(f) that the respondent vide its letter dated 20 th November, 2014

directed the petitioner to obtain and submit approval from

"DPCT" (sic for DTCP i.e. Director, Town and Country

Planning) and NOC from Forest Department within three

months therefrom;

(g) that the petitioner applied for approval to DTCP;

(h) that the respondent vide letter dated 24th March, 2015 asked the

petitioner to appear before the Standing Complaint Committee

Meeting scheduled on 30th March, 2015;

(i) that the petitioner participated in the hearing on 30 th March,

2015 and "produced all the relevant documents in order to cure

the defect" and also informed that it had applied for approval

from DTCP and NOC from Forest Department;

(j) that "however, the said Committee without appreciating the

case of the petitioner and his submissions made the arbitrary

recommendation to withdraw the approval";

(k) that the representation dated 27th February, 2010 (sic for 27th

April, 2015) was submitted to the respondent;

(l) that the respondent vide its letter dated 24 th April, 2015 directed

the petitioner to appear before its Standing Appeal Committee

and to present its case;

(m) that the petitioner appeared before the Standing Appeal

Committee and again represented its case stating that the initial

Land Use Certificate submitted by the petitioner was not forged

certificate but merely a certificate issued by another authority

i.e. the Panchayat;

(n) that however the respondent arbitrarily issued the aforesaid

letter dated 30th April, 2015 of withdrawal of approval.

4. However a perusal of the documents annexed to the petition shows the

respondent to have withdrawn the approval earlier accorded to the petitioner

for the reason:

(i) that the petitioner at the time of seeking approval for the

establishment of an institution for imparting education in

engineering and technology had submitted the Land Use

Certificate dated 24th December, 2007 issued by the Rural

Development Officer (RDO), Coimbatore and the Land

Conversion Certificate from the Alandurai Panchayat;

(ii) that on verification of the authenticity of the Land Use

Certificate with RDO / Collector of Coimbatore, it was

informed by the District Revenue Office, Coimbatore vide letter

dated 8th March, 2010 that the Land Use Certificate was not

issued by the RDO, Coimbatore and hence the certificate was

not an authentic one;

(iii) that the petitioner in September, 2010 submitted another Land

Use Certificate dated 27th February, 2010 issued by RDO,

Coimbatore;

(iv) that the petitioner had submitted its building plans to DTCP for

approval; DTCP had asked the petitioner to submit certain

documents including the NOC from the Hill Area Conservation

Authority (HACA);

(v) that the DTCP issued notice dated 18th January, 2013 to the

petitioner stating that the buildings constructed by the petitioner

were unauthorized and directed the petitioner to restore the land

to its condition before the said construction took place and

otherwise threatening sealing of the premises;

(vi) that the petitioner approached the Court against the said notice

of the DTCP but the case was dismissed and the order of DTCP

was upheld;

(vii) that since the petitioner failed to submit the documents to the

DTCP for approval of the building, the DTCP served notice

dated 25th July, 2014 to the petitioner of sealing of the premises

with effect from 1st August, 2014;

(viii) that DTCP sealed the Principal‟s office and Administrative

Block of the building of the petitioner on 1st August, 2014;

(ix) that in view of the aforesaid events, the AICTE had issued the

show cause notice dated 15th September, 2014 to the petitioner

asking it to explain as to why the approval should not be

withdrawn;

(x) that the petitioner in its reply dated 30th September, 2014 to the

aforesaid notice stated that the copy of the Land Use Certificate

dated 24th December, 2007 was not available in its records and

that the Land Use Certificate dated 27th February, 2010

subsequently submitted by it was genuine and true and that it

had taken steps in accordance with law and the matter was sub

judice;

(xi) that the petitioner in the hearing before the Standing Complaint

Committee had sought three months time to obtain and submit

NOC from DTCP and Forest Department and which was

granted;

(xii) that however the petitioner was unable to submit the said

documents within the said period of three months;

(xiii) that the Standing Complaint Committee accordingly concluded

that the petitioner‟s institute was started with a criminal activity

and on the basis of a forged Land Use Certificate and that the

buildings constructed by the petitioner institute were

unauthorized and had been ordered to be demolished and

accordingly recommended withdrawal of the approval earlier

accorded to the petitioner;

(xiv) that the petitioner was granted an opportunity to present its case

before the Standing Appellate Committee on 24th April, 2015;

(xv) that however the Standing Appellate Committee also concluded

that the petitioner had obtained approval in the year 2008 on the

basis of forged Land Use Certificate;

(xvi) that as per Clause 4.27 of the All India Council for Technical

Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions)

Regulations, 2012, if the institution has misrepresented, the

approval has to be withdrawn;

(xvii) that accordingly the Standing Appellate Committee

recommended withdrawal of approval and approval was

accordingly withdrawn vide letter dated 30th April, 2015.

5. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how the

findings contained in the impugned letter dated 30th April, 2015, of the

petitioner having obtained the approval in the year 2008 by submitting a

forged Land Use Certificate is erroneous and that if it is not erroneous, how

can the order of the respondent AICTE of withdrawal of approval on the said

ground can be found fault with.

6. No proper reply has been forthcoming. The counsel however without

stating any basis states that the petitioner has not indulged in any forgery.

7. I have further enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to which

Court the petitioner had approached against notice dated 18th January, 2013

(supra) of the DTCP asking the petitioner to restore the land to the condition

before the construction and threatening sealing of the premises.

8. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had then

approached the High Court of Madras at Chennai.

9. As per the impugned letter dated 30th April, 2015, the aforesaid case

of the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the DTCP was upheld. I

have enquired from the counsel whether the said order of the High Court of

Madras has attained finality.

10. The counsel replies in the affirmative.

11. The petitioner has however not chosen to place a copy of the said

order of dismissal of its writ petition before this Court. On enquiry, the

counsel for the petitioner states that he is not in possession of any copy of

the said order.

12. In my opinion, with the dismissal of the writ petition preferred by the

petitioner impugning the notice dated 18th January, 2013 of the DTCP

holding the buildings raised by the petitioner to be unauthorized and

directing the petitioner to demolish the said buildings and to restore the land

to its original condition, the question whether the said buildings are

unauthorized or not is no longer res integra. It can safely be presumed that

the buildings must have been held to be unauthorized for the reason of

having been constructed on land not meant for the said purpose and the use

whereof had not been permitted to be changed. It can further safely be

presumed that the petitioner, before the High Court of Madras also would

have relied or ought to have relied on the change of Land Use Certificates on

the basis whereof the petitioner in the year 2008 obtained approval from the

respondent. The High Court of Madras has obviously not believed the said

change of Land Use Certificate. Alternatively, if the petitioner has hesitated

from relying upon change of Land Use Certificates before the High Court of

Madras, the only reason therefor could be of the same being not genuine.

13. The counsel for the petitioner however contends that the buildings still

exists and that the classes are being held therein for the students admitted in

the previous years.

14. However merely because the order of demolition though passed has

not been implemented till date would not make any difference. The same

does not dilute the factum of the petitioner having indulged in forgery while

obtaining approval in the year 2008 from the respondent. Under the

Regulations of the respondent AICTE, the said conduct of the petitioner

entitles the respondent to withdraw the approval.

15. Faced therewith the counsel for the petitioner contends that no proper

hearing was given by the Standing Appellate Committee to the petitioner.

He places reliance on:

(i) Order dated 29th May, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.284/2015 titled as

Nest Educational and Welfare Society Vs. All India Council

for Technical Education;

(ii) Order dated 18th May, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.4884/2015 titled as

ACN College of Pharmacy Vs. All India Council for

Technical Education;

(iii) Order dated 18th May, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.4707/2015 titled as

Institute of International Excellence Vs. All India Council for

Technical Education;