St. John Educational Trust vs The All India Council For ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 648 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                      Date of decision: February 03, 2017

+       W.P.(C) 6259/2016
        ST. JOHN EDUCATIONAL TRUST
                                                            ..... Petitioner
                             Through:    Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.

                             versus

        THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
        & ORS
                                                  ..... Respondent
                      Through: Mr. Anil Soni, Adv. for R-1 & 2


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:-

"(a) allow the present Writ Petition; and/or

(b) issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ/order(s)/direction(s) quashing the Letter of Rejection dated April 08.04.2016 and final letter of rejection dated 30.04.2016 issued by the AICTE; and/or

(c) issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/ order(s)/ direction (s) directing the AICTE to grant approval to the petitioner for setting up of new technical institute and to run pharmacy course with an intake of 50 students from the Academic Session 2016-2017

and/or;

(d) Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. Suffice to state, vide the impugned orders the respondents have

refused the application of the petitioner for setting up a new technical

institute for running a pharmacy course.

3. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would make

only one submission, inasmuch as the respondents have overlooked the

certificate of the Director, Town and Country Planning dated March 21,

2016 at annexure P-17 wherein the Authority giving reference to the

proposal of construction of PSV College of Pharmaceutical Science and

Research had stated that it satisfies all the Rules and DCR norms and the

building plan approval file is pending with the said Authority due to

model code of conduct being in vogue.

4. Mr. Kumar would submit the said Certificate is a self speaking one

and could have been favourably considered for granting recognition.

Unfortunately, despite a declaration that the construction fulfils Rules and

Norms, one of the impugned orders dated April 30, 2016 has been passed

stating that the "building plans not approved by Competent Authority".

He has also drawn my attention to annexure P-27, which is a proceeding

dated June 21, 2016 to contend that the Authority has granted approval to

the building plan for construction. He states that the said annexure

satisfies all the deficiencies pointed out in the impugned order dated April

30, 2016 and should have resulted in re-consideration of the application

of the petitioner for recognition for the academic session 2017-18 by the

respondents rather than compelling the petitioner to approach this Court.

Even while arguing, he would also state, the petitioner would be satisfied

that if the case of the petitioner is considered for the academic session

2017-2018. He would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others v. All India Council for

Technical Education and others (and connected writ petition) (2013) 3

SCC 385.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Soni, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would submit that the impugned orders are justified. He

clarifies his submission to state that there cannot be any conditional

approval. Having not complied with the requirement, the respondents

have rightly rejected the application. He also states that in terms of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Parshvanath Charitable Trust and

others (supra), the Appellate Authority is required to decide the matter

prior to 30th April of the year and the respondents having decided the

application by rejecting it, the application could not have been considered

for the next academic session of 2017-2018, in view of Clause 9.8 of the

Approval Process Handbook which stipulates in case of rejection of the

proposal, it shall be open for the applicant to make a fresh application as

stated in Chapter 1 of the handbook in the following year. According to

him, it is only in the eventuality that the Appellate Authority grants the

approval after 30th April, such approval would be operative for the next

academic year. In any case, it is his submission that the application

having been rejected, there is no question of considering the application

of the petitioner for the next academic session.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is noted that the

application of the petitioner for recognition was refused on April 30,

2016. The reason given by the respondents, primarily is that the building

plans have not been approved. Even though, Mr. Kumar has relied upon

the communication dated March 21, 2016, the same only stipulates that

the proposal fulfils the requirement of the Rules and Norms but in what

manner the same have been fulfilled has not been specified in the said

communication. In fact, the issuance of proceeding dated June 21, 2016

(assuming approval has been granted) is an indication that something

more was required to be considered and stated, while granting approval to

the plans.

7. Admittedly the proceeding dated June 21, 2016 is post April 30,

2016 and could not have been considered for a decision on the application

by April 30, 2016 (in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in

Parshvanath Charitable Trust and ors (supra) for the year 2016-2017.

That apart, the plea now being urged by Mr. Kumar for consideration of

the application for the year 2017-2018 is concerned, suffice to state that

the application having been rejected on the basis of position existing on

April 30, 2016, which is justified, clause 9.8 would come into operation,

which has been already reproduced above and the said plea cannot be

accepted. The only plea urged by Mr. Kumar is without any merit. The

same is rejected.

The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J FEBRUARY 03, 2017/ak