L.R. Institute Of Engineering And ... vs All India Council For Technical ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 668 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                        Date of decision: February 06, 2017

+       W.P.(C) 6457/2016 & CM. No. 26457/2016
        L.R. INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND
        TECHNOLOGY                                            ..... Petitioner

                                 Through:   Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.

                        versus

        ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
        & ORS                           ..... Respondents

                                 Through:   Mr. Anil Soni, Standing Counsel
                                            with Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv.

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

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

CM. No. 3533/2017

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner with the following

prayers:-

(a) pass an ad interim order directing the AICTE to grant access to the Applicant institution to AICTE web-portal and to permit the Applicant institution to submit its online application seeking extension of approval for the Academic Year 2017-18; and/or

(b) pass such other or further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case as well as in the interest of justice."

2. It is the submission of Mr. Amitesh Kumar, that the grant of the

prayers as made in this application would not cause any prejudice to

anyone including the respondents, inasmuch as, if the writ petition is

dismissed then the order, if any to be passed by this Court on this

application would be of no consequence but in the eventuality the writ

petition is allowed, the petitioner would benefit to the extent time shall be

saved as the process would commence immediately. He states even the

submission of Mr. Soni that the Supreme Court has disapproved the

orders as passed by the Courts granting provisional admission to the

students is concerned, as the prayer in the application does not involve

any student, the said order of the Supreme Court is not applicable.

3. That apart, it is his submission, that in the absence of deficiencies,

as there are surplus teachers and infrastructure, the impugned orders in

the writ petition whereby the respondents have withdrawn the approval

for the academic year 2016-2017, shall be unsustainable and as such,

balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner for grant of the

prayers in the application. He has drawn my attention to the chart filed

by him showing the alleged compliance status for the Engineering course.

In this regard, he has drawn my attention to page 656 to show that as per

the EVC report dated November 9, 2016, the Committee has noted the

fact that the petitioner Institute has applied for the withdrawal of courses.

In other words, the withdrawal of courses would not increase the

deficiencies but would make the staff / infrastructure excess removing the

deficiencies in that regard. That apart, he has drawn my attention to the

list filed by him after it was downloaded from the website of the

respondents, which depicts those Institutes against whom punitive action

has been taken, were eligible for restoration for the year 2017-18. He

states, the said list includes the petitioner herein. In other words, it is his

submission despite such a list, the respondents are not giving access to the

petitioner to their portal.

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

respondents would submit that the present application is beyond the

reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition, inasmuch as in the writ petition,

the challenge is primarily with regard to the withdrawal of the approval

effective for the year 2016-17. The prayers as made for in the present

application is a fresh cause of action and would not like to be granted by

this Court. That apart, it is his submission that the plea of Mr. Kumar that

no deficiency exist is clearly untenable. He would draw my attention to

the EVC report dated November 9, 2016 wherein at page 658 certain

other deficiencies have also been noted by the Committee. That apart, he

would state that merely because the petitioner has desired to close certain

courses would not mean that the courses have been closed. The closure

requires certain procedure to be followed before the same becomes

effective. He also rely upon Approval Process Handbook 2016-2017

(Chapter IV, clause 1.2) wherein it is stipulated that in the case of a

withdrawal, the operations of the Technical Institution concerned cannot

be started again before completion of two years from the date of such a

withdrawal at the same location and address and such Institution has to

apply afresh for approval as per the procedure for setting up a new

Institute as defined in Chapter 1.

5. He also submit, the reliance placed by Mr. Kumar on the list

downloaded from the website of the AICTE relating to Institutes eligible

for restoration in 2017-18 is concerned, even if the name of the petitioner

is reflected, the same is contrary to clause 1.2 of the Approval Process

Handbook 2016-17. He states, it is precisely for the said reason, the

petitioner was not given access to the portal. He seeks the dismissal of

the application.

6. Having heard and considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties, suffice to state that the petition has been filed by

the petitioner with regard to the withdrawal of approval for the year 2016-

2017. The relief as prayed for in the application is primarily for the year

2017-18. The plea of Mr. Kumar, that if the petitioner succeeds in the

writ petition, the petitioner may save time, as the process of extension of

approval may take some time, is appealing but that can't be a ground to

allow the prayer made in the application unless, a prima facie case exist.

The plea of Mr. Kumar that no deficiencies exist, rather the faculty and

the infrastructure are surplus, is countered by Mr. Soni on the basis of

certain other deficiencies, which can't be ignored. That apart, I note, that

the effect of clause 1.2 of Approval Process Handbook 2016-17 clearly

stipulates that in case of withdrawal, the Institute cannot start its

operation before the completion of two years from the date of withdrawal

at the same location and address and it has to apply afresh for approval as

per the procedure for setting up a new Institute as defined in Chapter 1.

The submission made by Mr.Soni that even if the name of the petitioner

has been shown in the list of Institutes eligible for restoration in 2017-18,

the petitioner was not given access to the portal in view of clause 1.2, is

appealing.

7. Suffice to state, the submissions made by Mr. Kumar does not

compel this Court to grant the relief as prayed for in the present

application.

8. I do not see any merit in the application. The same is dismissed.

Suffice to state, the aforesaid shall not be construed as an expression on

merit of the controversy in the writ petition.

W.P.(C) 6457/2016 & CM. No. 26457/2016

Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2. There

is no appearance for the respondent No.3. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner states he does not wish to file any

rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 & 2.

The statement is taken on record.

List the writ petition and CM No. 26457/2016 for hearing on 27th

March, 2017.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J FEBRUARY 06, 2017/AK