Delhi High Court
New Millennium Education Society vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 16 September, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 4th August, 2022
Pronounced on: 16th September, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 7329/2018 & CM APPL. 33620/2022
W.P.(C) 8175/2019 & CM APPL. 33616/2022
W.P.(C) 8817/2020, CM APPL. 28358/2020 & CM APPL.
33617/2022
W.P.(C) 8862/2021, CM APPL. 27546/2021 & CM APPL.
33619/2022
W.P.(C) 10630/2022, CM APPL. 30830/2022 & CM APPL.
34427/2022
NEW MILLENNIUM EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Deepak Vohra, Ms.
Shilpa Diwan and Mr. Mayank
Kumar, Advocates
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY &
ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Ekta Sikri, Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri
and Mr. Sriwas, Advocates for R-
1.
Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC (Civil)
with Ms. Sanjana Nangia,
Advocate for R-2.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7329/2018 & connected matters Page 1 of 42
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
JUDGMENT
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant set of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of
mandamus for direction to the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent University") to
allocate 110 seats to the Ideal Institute of Management & Technology
(hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner Institute") with respect to BA
LLB Five Years' Integrated Course for Academic Sessions 2018-19,
2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. The details of the respective
petitions are furnished hereunder:
Academic
Writ Petition Prayer Status
Session
18.7.2018 -
WP C 7329/2018 2018-19 Allocation of 110 Interim Relief
Seats (25 Seats in granted to admit
addition to 85 110 students
Seats already 1.8.2019 -
allotted) in BA Interim Relief
WP C 8175/2019 2019-20 LLB Course granted to admit
110 students
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
11.11.2020 -
Interim Relief
WP C 8817/2020 2020-21
granted to admit
110 students
24.8.2021 -
Interim Relief
WP C 8862/2021 2021-22
granted to admit
110 students
WP C 10630/2022 2022-23 N/A
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Having perused the instant set of writ petitions, the matter has
arisen out of the facts as detailed hereunder:
(i) The Petitioner No.l i.e. New Millennium Education
Society is a registered society. The Petitioner No.2 is a
private self-financing college founded under the aegis of the
Petitioner No.l Society. The Petitioner No.2 imparts various
courses including BA LLB Five Years' Integrated Course.
(ii) The Respondent No.l is Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University which is the affiliating University of
the Petitioner No.2 College. The Respondent No.2 i.e., the
Directorate of Higher Education (hereinafter referred to as
the "DHE"), Govt. of NCT of Delhi is the concerned
authority for issuance of No Objection Certificate
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
(hereinafter referred to as the "NOC") to the colleges
affiliated to the Respondent University.
(iii) It is the petitioners' case that since the academic
session 2014-15, the respondent No. 2 has issued NOC for
110 seats for the said course to petitioner No. 2 and the seat
intake for by the petitioner No. 2 Institute has been 110.
This seat intake has been reduced to 85 seats by Respondent
No. 1 for the academic session 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21,
2021-22 and the same has been done for the current
academic session 2022-23.
(iv) Aggrieved by these changes the petitioners had
approached this Hon'ble Court by way of Writ petitions
being WPC 7329/2018 {for academic session 2018-2019},
WPC 8175/2019 {for academic session 2019-2020}, WPC
8817/2020 {for academic session 2020-2021} and WPC
8862/2021 {for academic session 2021-2022} and this
Court has granted interim relief in the four Writ petitions to
the petitioners thereby allowing the petitioners with a seat
intake of 110 as opposed to 85 seats as allocated by the
Respondent no. 2
(v) It is the contention of the petitioner that the
respondents have reduced their number of seats with the
explanation that the Joint Assessment Committee
(hereinafter referred to as the "JAC") in its report has
recommended intake of 85 students in the BA LLB course.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
(vi) The JAC in its report on 28.05.2019 for the
academic session 2019-20 recommended 85 seats. In the
JAC report, the total built up space available for conducting
the concerned programme was stated to be 3267.45 square
metres excluding basement. As per Unified Building Bye
Laws 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "UBBL-2016") the
petitioner no. 2 is entitled to have its basement area counted
in the built up space to be considered in the JAC report.
(vii) On 11.09.2019 this Court directed the Delhi Fire
Services to conduct the inspection of the entire building, in
particular the concerned basement, and thereupon report to
the court as the whether it meets the fire safety
requirements. The status report filed by the Delhi fire
department stated that the building was found to be fire
compliant and the fire safety Certificate has been issued.
(viii) It is submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 on
06.11.2019 in Writ Petition No. 8175/2019 undertook to get
the revised building plan sanctioned for getting additional
Floor Area Ratio (hereinafter referred to as "FAR") as per
the provisions of UBBL-2016. As per this undertaking the
petitioner institute has already submitted its revised plan
before the concerned authority. However on account of
COVID-19 pandemic, the process at the govt. Authority is
moving at a very slow pace and the institute has been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
informed that the revised sanction plan is still under
consideration.
(ix) For the Academic year 2020-21, on 13.07.2020,
the Govt. Of Delhi has exempted JAC inspection for 2020-
21 on account of COVID-19. Approval was granted for
considering the same NOC for academic session 2020-21 as
issued for academic channel 2019-20. Respondent
university accordingly granted an intake of 85 seats.
Aggrieved by which writ petition no. 8817/2020 and the
subsequent interim order was passed.
(x) On 18.01.2022, the petitioner institute filed an
affidavit stating that revision of the sanctioned plan has been
already submitted via online mode. As per the procedure,
the approval of revised sanctioned plan is pending before
Delhi Urban Art Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
"DUAC").
(xi) On 11.08.2021, another Representation was made
by the petitioner institute for grant of 110 seats instead of 85
as akin to the previous years to the respondent.
(xii) Upon failing to receive any relief from the
university, and aggrieved by the same, the WP(C)
10630/2022 was filed before the Hon'ble Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
SUBMISSIONS
Submissions by Petitioners
3. Mr. H S Phoolka, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioners prayed that the Petitioner No. 2 College be granted an
intake of 110 seats for its BA LLB Five Years' Integrated Course for the
academic sessions 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. In
support of his prayer, learned senior advocate made the following
submissions:
(i) The petitioner institute had commenced the BA LLB
course from 2006-07 and the approved intake was 50 seats.
Thereafter the strength was increased to 80 seats in the
academic session 2007-08. The Board of Affiliation of
respondent University in its 63rd meeting held on
24.07.2014 accepted the request of the petitioner institute
for interchange and in lieu thereof the seats for existing BA
LLB course were increased from 80 to 120 by the
respondent University for academic session 2014-15.
However, the respondent No.2 DHE which is the final body
for adjudication of the seat intake had granted its NOC for
110 seats only. The petitioner for its 100 seats of B.Ed. had
to satisfy itself with the 30 seats of BA LLB.
(ii) For similar grievances, the petitioners have been
constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of four
separate writ petitions pertaining to previous four academic
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
sessions i.e. WP (C) 7329/2018 (AS 2018-19), WP (C)
8175/2019 (AS 2019-20), WP C 8817/2020 (AS 2020-21),
WP C 8862/2021 (AS 2021-22). This Hon'ble Court vide
interim reliefs passed in the previous writ petitions had
allowed the petitioner institute to have an intake of 110
students for the said course.
(iii) The JAC physically visited and verified the
available space/area/infrastructure available at the institute.
The JAC for its visit for the academic session 2015-16,
2016-17, 2017-18 and after being fully satisfied with the
available space/area/infrastructure and other facilities
available with the petitioner institute, it had recommended
110 seats for the said course with the Petitioner College.
(iv) For the academic session 2018-19 also, JAC had
recommended 110 seats for the said course. However, the
Respondent University intended to reduce the seats from
110 to 85. At the first instance, the DHE had not issued any
NOC for the same. The Petitioner Institute followed up with
the respondents and made a detailed representation-cum-
appeal to both the respondents vide its communication dated
15.06.2018. Thereafter, the DHE had issued NOC for
continuing the BA LLB course with 110 seats.
(v) In the WP (C) 7329/2018, the DHE had filed its
short affidavit, wherein, it had clearly stated the undisputed
position that the jurisdictional authority for grant of renewal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
for intake of students vests with the DHE. The DHE had
also relied upon its policy guidelines issued on 12.01.2016
which were amended in the year 2017. The relevant portion
of the policy guidelines reads as:- "For existing institutions,
the built up area as assessed/certified by JAC for academic
session 2016-17 shall be considered as final for allocation
of seats." The petitioner falls under the category "existing
institute". Therefore, the affidavit filed by respondent DHE
in WP (C) 7329/2018, as a matter of fact, supports the
petitioner for being granted 110 seats.
(vi) Clause 25.1 of the Delhi Building Bye-laws of
1983 reads as under:
"25.1. No basement or cellar room shall be
designed, constructed, altered, converted or used
for the purpose of study or instruction."
(vii) The Master Plan of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
the "MPD") which came in effect from 07.02.2007 also
provided for the use of the basement at clause 8(5) of
Chapter 17 of MPD 2021.
(viii) The aforesaid position came to be changed by
virtue of Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi 2016 issued
by the DDA on 22.03.2016 in the exercised of powers
conferred under section 57(1) of Delhi Development Act
1957. Section 57(1) of DDA Act provides that the authority
may notify such regulations which may provide for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
terms and conditions subject to which user of lands and
buildings in contraventions of plan may be continued
{57(I)F}. Clause 7.23.2 thereof reads as:
"Educational buildings (school colleges}-
a. Basement or cellar room may be designed,
constructed, altered, converted or used for the
purpose of study or instruction provided it meets
fire safety requirements."
(ix) The aforesaid notification under the statutory
powers provided under Section 57 of the DDA Act 1957
superseded the provisions of Delhi Building Bye-laws 1983
as well as that of MPD which came into effect on
07.02.2007. The gazette notification of UBBL-2016 is not
only under the statutory powers of the authority but also is
subsequent in the point of time.
(x) Accordingly, post 22.03.2016, the petitioner
institute was entitled to have its area of the basement
counted in the built-up space to be considered by the
respondents for the grant of allocation of seats. The space
norms of 4.5 square metres all-inclusive are easily available
with the petitioner institute if the basement area is included
in the built-up area for the calculation of seat intake and
more particular 110 seats. The built-up area available with
the petitioner institute is 3809.84 square metres including
basement area. Thus, the petitioner has adequate space for
110 seats for BA LLB course.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
(xi) It is clarified that the basement area is being
utilized for multi activity hall, conference room and
Director's office and no classes are held in the basement.
The petitioner institute otherwise has been awarded
category-A by JAC for last several years. The classes of BA
LLB are held in 10 classrooms each having seating capacity
of 60 students, spread over Ground, First and Second Floor.
(xii) As per clause 7.23.2, the use of basement for study
purpose is subject to fire safety norms. The petitioner
institute has already been issued NOC by Fire Department.
(xiii) It is submitted that pursuant to the directions of
this Hon'ble Court passed in WP (C) 8175/2019, an
inspection of the entire premises including basement was
undertaken by the Fire Department. Pursuant to the said
directions, a status report dated 21.02.2020 was filed by
Delhi Fire Service before this Hon'ble Court wherein, it was
clearly mentioned that the building was found to be fire-
compliant and accordingly on 11.02.2020, a fire safety
certificate was issued to the petitioner institute. The
petitioner has thus complied with the clause of fire safety
norms as per clause 7.23.2 of UBBL-2016.
(xiv) In the additional affidavit, reliance has been placed
upon the affidavit-cum-undertaking of 18.06.2015 of the
petitioner institute, however this was not the stand of the
respondent DHE in the previous four writ petitions. It is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
submitted that in view of the changed scenario, post
22.03.2016, there was no need for the petitioner institute for
compliance of the said affidavit in as much as the UBBL-
2016 permitted the use of basement for the purposes of
study.
(xv) As mentioned in the order dated 06.11.2019 passed
in WP (C) 8175/2019 by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner
institute had already submitted its revised plan before the
concerned authority. The revised plan was firstly submitted
to the East Delhi Municipal Corporation on 21.01.2020 and
the same has been forwarded to the DUAC. It would be
relevant to submit here that the petitioner has been
following up with the concerned authorities for the approval
of the plans. However, on account of COVID-19 pandemic,
the process at the Govt. Authority is moving at a very slow
pace and the petitioner has been informed that the revised
sanction plan is still under consideration.
(xvi) The petitioner institute has been granted approval
of affiliation by the Bar Council of India (hereinafter
referred as "BCI") for 120 seats since academic session
2014-15. For the academic session 2022-23 also, the
petitioner institute has been granted approval by the BCI for
120 seats vide its approval dated 15.07.2022. In particular,
no space norms have been prescribed by the BCI. According
to the BCI, an academic building of a Centre of Legal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
Education should have separate classrooms of 60 students
for each section, rooms for tutorial work, moot court room,
common room for male and female students and adequate
library/ reading space.
(xvii) In arguendo, it is respectfully submitted that even
taking the stand of the respondents that the petitioner is not
entitled to the strength of 110 students on account of
basement, the space available with the petitioner is
sufficient for 100 students and also considering the fact that
the entire strength (100%) of seats get filled and which is
very unlikely and even in the previous years, the strength
was never up to the maximum. Even after having strictest of
approach, the space available with the petitioner (excluding
basement) is much more than the 85 seats as being granted
by the respondents. Therefore, the denial of commensurate
seats by the respondents is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and
whimsical.
(xviii) Since the petitioner since 2014-15 was granted 110
seats for its BA LLB course and which strength was
permitted by this Hon'ble Court till the academic session of
2021-22 and considering the same available space built up
area infrastructure, etc. there is no occasion for the
respondents now to deny the grant of 110 seats or the reliefs
claimed in the writ petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
4. In view of the aforesaid, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may kindly allow the present writ petition and
grant the relief claimed therein, in the interest of justice.
Submissions by Respondent No. 1/University
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the
petitioners and made the following submissions:
(i) The affiliation is granted to the institute(s) as per
ordinance 1 read with statute 24 of the University, along
with policy guidelines of the Respondent No. 2/DHE. A
perusal of the University rules in this regard i.e., Ordinance
1 read with Statute 24 show that the procedure laid for
affiliation apply mutatis mutandis for new academic year.
Therefore, an institute must apply afresh for renewal of
affiliation inter alia for increase in the intake, every year/
new academic year.
(ii) In the present case, the institute doesn't have
adequate space to accommodate 110 students, as per the
approved/sanctioned building plan of the premises as
sanctioned by the DDA, the institute can have the highest
intake of 85 seats. The institute proposes to use the area of
basement to meet the deficit which is not permissible under
the existing rules and guidelines.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
(iii) Clause 8(5)(d) of Chapter 17 of MPD 2021
stipulated that the basement if used in conformity with the
used premises i.e., the present case for Educational/
Academic purposes, the same is required to be counted in
FAR subject to clearance from Fire Authorities and other
statutory bodies.
(iv) In the present case, the basement is neither counted
in FAR nor there is approval from the Fire Authorities and
other Statutory bodies for use of basement in conformity
with the use premises i.e., Education/ Academic purposes.
(v) It is pertinent to mention here that this Hon'ble
Court vide its order dated 11.09.2019 in W.P (C) No. 8175
of 2019 directed the Delhi Fire Services to conduct the
inspection of the entire building, in particular the concerned
basement, and thereupon report to the court as to whether it
meets the fire safety requirements. Thereafter, on the next
date of hearing i.e., on 06.11.2019, a copy of the
communication dated 04.11.2019 issued by the Deputy
Chief Fire Officer, GNCTD was handed over to the Court,
wherein, it was recorded that there is change in the usage of
the basement. The said copy was also handed over to the
petitioner's institute, who stated that the petitioner will
submit a revised building plan to the concerned authority in
line with the provisions of UBBL-2016 and that after having
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
the same sanctioned, the revised plans will be placed before
the Fire Safety Department, for its approval.
(vi) On the next date of hearing i.e., 12.02.2020, the
learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 stated that the
department will inspect the premises of the Institute in terms
of the orders and thereafter file the report within next three
weeks.
(vii) Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 filed a status
report dated 21.02.2020, stating that the premises of the
Institute was inspected on 30.01.2020 and accordingly a fire
safety certificate dated 11.02.2020 was issued in favour of
the Institute.
(viii) The Petitioner Institute failed to show that the
institute has necessary clearance from the statutory bodies,
which in the present case is DDA and MCD as per Clause
8(5)(d) of Annexure VI of UBBL-2016 as stated above.
(ix) As per the petitioner institute, the institute
submitted the revised plan for taking necessary sanction
only in the month of January, 2020. Therefore, as per
present sanctioned plan submitted by the Institute, the
basement is shown for the usage of "car parking" and fire
safety certificate is also issued by the department for said
usage.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
6. In light of the aforementioned, it is evident that the Petitioner
Institute does not have the adequate space to accommodate 110 students,
as per the approved/sanctioned building plan of the premises as
sanctioned by the DDA, rather the institute can have the highest intake of
85 seats for the said course. Accordingly, the permission cannot be
granted to the institute for intake on the additional seats.
Respondent No.2/DHE's Submissions
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/DHE submitted that the
present petition has been filed inter alia seeking directions to Respondent
University to continue/undertake counselling in respect of the Petitioner
No. 2 college with an intake of 110 seats for B.A. LL.B course, is not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed. In furtherance thereof, learned
counsel made the following submissions:
(i) The number of seats in the Petitioner No.2 college
for BA LLB course has been decided on the basis of the
report of JAC dated 05.03.2022.
(ii) The said report has been filed by the Petitioner
wherein, the JAC has recommended intake of 85 students in
BA LLB course. The same has been done as per the
available FAR in the institute. The report of JAC is factual
in nature and the Petitioner has miserably failed to make out
any case of "malice of fact" on the part of JAC.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
(iii) The Respondent No.2 is bound by its Policy dated
03.01.2017, according to which, the Respondent No.2 is
bound by the report of JAC and the report of JAC in respect
of calculation of the FAR shall be considered to be final.
(iv) Vide Letter dated 08.07.2014, the Respondent
No.2 called for the comments from the University on the
issue that the Petitioner Institute has 2100 square metres of
land for all the combined courses i.e., BBA, LLB, B.Ed. etc
and as per NCTE norms for B.Ed and D.Ed, 3000 square
metres of constructed area is required. The University was
requested to look into how the courses were adjusted.
(v) Vide Letter dated 16.07.2014, the University
intimated the Petitioner Institute about the observations of
JAC for 2014-2015. That vide the said letter, the Petitioner
Institute was directed to appear before the Sub-Committee
on 18.07.2014 to explain its view on the scarcity of the
space.
(vi) Vide Letter 04.08.2014, the Petitioner Institute
informed the Respondent No.2 that the Institute currently
has achieved FAR 150 with total built up area of 3809
square metres. The Institute further informed that it has
withdrawn the B.Ed course for academic year 2014-15 in
lieu of approval of increase of 40 additional seats in BA
LLB Course. The Institute represented that it shall make the
arrangements to achieve FAR 225 in coming 4 (four) years.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
(vii) Based on the said representation vide Letter dated
29.07.2014, the Answering Respondent approved 110 seats
for the academic year 2014- 2015. Out of 110 seats, 80 seats
were on revalidation and 30 seats were interchanged with
other courses.
(viii) For the academic year 2015-2016, the JAC vide its
report dated 27.05.2015 recommended 110 seats for BA
LLB Course but made a note in the report that the built-up
area is much less and therefore there cannot be any addition
of students or new courses.
(ix) After the abovesaid report the Institute made an
earnest request to the University to not to reduce its seats
and it undertook to increase its FAR or to get its basement
included in the FAR.
(x) Based on the said affidavit and representation, the
Respondent No.2 permitted the Petitioner Institute to have
110 seats in BA LLB Course for the initial 3 (three) years
subject to the condition that continuation of this programme
shall be to the availability of the space/ infrastructure as will
be assessed by JAC subsequently. On the basis of the above
permission, the Petitioner Institute was permitted to have
110 seats in BA LLB Course for the succeeding 3 (three)
academic years. Till date, neither the FAR of 225 has been
achieved by the Petitioner Institute nor the basement has
been included in the FAR.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
(xi) That it is also necessary to submit that the
Petitioner on 06.11.2019 in Writ Petition No 8175 of 2019
undertook to get the plans sanctioned for the additional
FAR. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced
hereunder:
"1. Pursuant to the last order dated 11.09.2019,
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, who appears for respondent
No.2 has returned with instructions. He has
placed before me a copy of the communication
dated 04.11.2019 issued by the Deputy Chief Fire
Officer, GNCTD to the Principal, New
Millennium Education Society i.e. in effect
petitioner No. 1. Copy of this communication has
also been furnished to Mr. Phoolka, learned
senior counsel, who appears for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Phoolka says that in consonance with what
is stated in the said communication, the
petitioners will submit a revised building plan to
the concerned authority in line with the provisions
of UBBL-2016 and that after having the same
sanctioned, the revised Plans will be placed
before the Fire Safety Department for its
approval.
3. Furthermore, learned senior counsel says that
once this exercise is completed, the necessary
approvals obtained will be placed before the
Court, supported by an affidavit."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
(xii) That it is an admitted position that till date the
Institute has not got its sanctioned plans approved by the
concerned authorities and it is for this reason JAC has not
recommended 110 seats for BA LLB course.
(xiii) That the petitioner institute has heavily relied on
the fact that it has a basement in the building and basement
can be used for conducting classes and the area of the
basement can be considered towards the FAR. The Institute
in its sanctioned plans, however, has shown the basement as
parking space. That it is submitted that the above said
argument is not correct, since the UBBL-2016, does not
include the area of the basement in FAR if it is sanctioned
as a parking space. Therefore, the basement cannot be
included in FAR. Even otherwise the basement cannot be
used for conducting classes as it is not appropriate for the
same.
(xiv) It is stated that the total built up space available
(excluding the basement) with the petitioner institute is
3267.45 square metres and as per the JAC report and the
applicable guidelines, the total space required is 3251.25
square metres for all the courses being run by the institute
including BA LLB. It is submitted that in case 25 additional
seats are allowed, 3813.75 square metres space will be
required by the institute. Therefore, on the basis of the space
available and the sanctioned building plan issued by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
DDA whereby the usage of the basement for academic
purposes is not permissible, and accordingly, the NOC for
85 students for BA LLB course had been granted by the
answering Respondent.
8. In view of the above submissions, it is submitted that the instant
petition is devoid of merits and this Court may be pleased to dismiss the
present petition.
9. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of parties at length and
perused the record.
QUESTION FOR ADJUDICATION
10. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the Respondent
No. 2, DHE has given the NOC for intake of only 85 students in the said
course based on the recommendation of JAC report which stipulated that
the total covered area for FAR available to the petitioner college for
conducting their proposed programmes in 3267.45 square metres
(excluding the area of Basement), and lacks the requisite space
mandatory for enrolling additional 25 students.
11. Thus the only question for consideration before this Court is
limited to the extent of adjudicating whether the area of basement can be
used for educational purposes and hence, be included in the total FAR.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
ANALYSIS
Relevant Provisions
12. Clause 7.23.2 of the UBBL-2016 dated 22.03.2016 reads as under:
"7.23.2 Educational Buildings (School/ Colleges)
a. Basement or cellar room may be designed, constructed,
altered, converted or used for the purpose of study or
instruction provided it meets fire safety requirements.
b. The minimum size of a cellar room, study room or room used
for purposes of instruction shall be 5.5 m x 4.5 m and no part of
such room shall be distant more than 7.5 m from an external
wall abutting on the requisite open space. Every such room
shall have minimum ventilation to the extent of 1/5th of its floor
area.
c. A minimum of 1.0 sq. mtrs. of net floor space per student
shall be provided. A central hall will not be counted in the
accommodation, nor will a class room for cookery, laundry,
manual instruction, drawing or science. The number of students
in such building shall be calculated on this basis for the
purpose of this clause.
d. Every assembly room, Fitness Centre/Multi-Gym shall have a
clear height of 3.6 m except under a girder which may project
0.6 m below the required ceiling height. A clear internal height
under balcony or a girder shall not be less than 3.0 m. A
minimum room height for classroom in all schools and other
institutions shall not be less than 3.6 m. The minimum head
room under beams shall be 3 m.
e. Exit requirements shall conform to as mentioned in this
chapter. No door shall be less than 1.2 m in width and 2.20 m in
height. For Assembly room/ Auditorium no door shall be less
than 2m in width and 2.2m in height.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
f. Requirement of water supply, drainage and sanitary
installation shall conform to table 9.1 to 9.6.
g. Playground shall be provided as per MPD norms/ lease
conditions/ layout."
13. Clause 8(5) of Annexure VI of UBBL-2016 by Delhi Development
Authority dated 22.03.2016 reads as under:
"8(5) Basements:
a. Basement(s) up to setback line maximum equivalent to
parking and services requirement, such as Air Conditioning Plant
and equipment, water storage, Boiler, Electric Sub-station HT and
LT Panel rooms, Transformer Compartment, Control Room, Pump
House, Generator Room and other mechanical services and
installation of electrical and firefighting equipment's, and other
services required for the maintenance of the building with prior
approval of the concerned agencies, could be permitted and not to
be counted in FAR. However, the area provided for services
should not exceed 30% of the basement area. In case of Hotels
Laundry, Cold Room for storing Food articles, Linen store,
Garbage room, Housekeeping store and cold storage may be
allowed.
b. The basement(s) beyond building line shall be kept flushed
with the ground and shall be ventilated with mechanical means of
ventilation; and
c. Basement(s) shall be designed to take full load of the fire
tender, wherever required and subject to adequate safety
measures.
d. In case the basement is used for activity in conformity with
the use premises, wherever permitted, the same shall be counted
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
in FAR subject to clearance from the Fire Authorities and other
statutory bodies.
e. Parking area, if misused, is liable to be municipalized /
taken over by the Local Body/Authority.
f. The ESS, fire fighting installations and underground water
tank shall neither be counted in ground coverage nor in FAR."
14. Clause 3 of the Ordinance 1 Statute 24 of the Respondent
University reads as under:
"3. Essential conditions of affiliation of colleges and institutions.
(i) The Board of Affiliation may, on an application made to the
Registrar in the form and in the manner laid down in the
ordinances, affiliate a college or an institution.
(ii) No college or institution shall be admitted to the privileges of
the university unless-
(a) it is run by the Government, the Central
Government, a state government, a competent local
authority, a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or a public trust
constituted under any law for the time being in force.
(b) it has been granted a no-objection certificate by the
concerned state government and recognised by the
appropriate statutory authority, wherever applicable, for
the subjects and courses of study for which affiliation is
being sought;
(c) it is managed by a governing body constituted in
accordance with the scheme of management as specified
separately for government funded and self-financing
institutions in the regulations:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
(d) it undertakes to adhere to the provisions of the Act, the
statutes, the ordinances and the regulations of the
University and to comply with the standing orders,
directions and instructions of the University;
(e) it actually has suitable and adequate physical facilities
in terms of space, accommodation, sanitation, laboratories
and workshops, equipment, library and reading room,
furniture and other infrastructural facilities as specified by
the University from time to time for maintenance requisite
standards;
(f) it has teachers and other employees who have the laid
down qualifications and fulfil the other eligibility criteria
and who are in the number required as per the norms laid
down by the University from time to time;
(g) it provides for teaching of subjects and courses of
study as approved by the University;
(h) it undertakes not to admit students in excess of the
number pe the University;
(i) it has adequate financial resources as laid down in the
regulations to ensure its financial stability, continued
maintenance and functioning;
(j) appointment of the teaching and non-teaching staff of
the college or the institution is made on the
recommendations of a staff selection committee or a
departmental promotion committee, as may be necessary, to
be constituted as specified separately for government
funded and self-financing institutions and colleges in the
regulations:
(k) the emoluments of the teaching and non-teaching staff of
the college or the institution are in accordance with those
laid down for the corresponding posts in the University;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
(l)it has made arrangements for the residence, wherever
needed, discipline and supervision of students and for
promoting their health, general development and welfare to
the University; and
(m)The Board of Affiliation has considered the report of the
panel appointed for inspection of the college or the
institution, as the case may be.
(iii) It shall be open to the University to reject a request for
affiliation or grant it in whole or in part mentioning the subjects,
courses of study and the number of students to be admitted and
also impose such other conditions, if any, as it may deem fit.
(iv) An affiliated college or institution shall report all changes in
the teaching staff and all other changes that may affect the
fulfilment of the conditions of affiliation to the University within a
week of the change coming into effect.
(v) An affiliated college or an institution shall execute a bond as
laid down in the regulations guaranteeing that it shall follow the
provisions of the Act, the statutes, the ordinances, the regulations
and the orders, directions and instructions of the University.
(vi)An affiliated college or an institution shall not, without the
previous permission of the University, suspend instruction in a
subject or a course of study, which it is authorised to teach &
actually teaches."
15. Government of NCT of Delhi, vide its letter dated 12.01.2016 set
out the Policy Guidelines for issuance/grant of NOC to new/existing
institutions, inter alia, for increase in the intake of students for
programmes run by an institute. These guidelines were amended vide its
letter dated 03.02.2017. Clause 1.1 (iii)(h) of the amended policy reads
as:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
"The covered areas for FAR as assessed and verified by JAC
during their visit to an institute in conforming area and
mentioned in their report be considered for granting the
course(s)/ intake to the institute. The covered area as certified
by the local body/ architect may be taken as final. For
implementation of this clause, all new institutes will be
allotted seats on the basis of covered area for FAR. For
existing institutes, the built-up area as assessed/ certified by
JAC for Academic Session 2016-17 shall be considered as
final for allocation of seats. Any addition in the area will be
considered in terms of covered area for FAR only for
allocation of seats. "
16. Clause 2 of Policy Guidelines of Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated
12.1.2016 reads as follows:
"2. Use of Basement
2.1Extent and purpose of use of basement shall be determined
on the basis of sanctioned building plan of the concerned
Institute by the competent local body for the approved
purposes and as per the usage allowed under MPD-2021. The
use of basement will be specific for the purpose as mentioned
in the sanctioned building plan and institute are to obtain
such usage permission from the competent local body with
clear mention of the usage of basement allowed to the
institute.
2.2 Any of the existing Institute whose use of basement is other
than the approved purpose may be given one year time to
relocate the activity which is presently going on. However, till
then, no increase in seat, no new course and no second shift
shall be allowed in these institutions."
Status of Legal Education in India
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
17. The condition of legal education including the status of
infrastructure is nothing but worrying. There are law colleges where you
may not have sufficient faculty, no classrooms, no library, etc. It is
unfortunate that this Court is being constrained to remark that there are
law colleges where you have to just go and pay the fees, the rest is taken
care off. It is surprising to state that how can a legal profession or how
can we as stakeholders of legal education tolerate this kind of situation. It
is a great responsibility cast upon the Bar Council of India to shut down
such institutions.
18. During the course of hearing a matter relating to the affiliation of a
law college with the BCI [Bar Council of India vs. Bonnie FOI Law
College & Ors.; S.L.P. (C) No. 22337 of 2008], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court addressed an issue of enormous contemporary importance, i.e. the
inspection, recognition and accreditation of law colleges by the BCI. Vide
order dated June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court noted with concern the
diminishing standards of professional legal education provided at various
Law Colleges across the country, and, in particular, identified the quality
and standard of infrastructure in the law colleges. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court noted:
"This petition filed by the Bar Council of India raises very
serious questions regarding affiliation and recognition of Law
Colleges by the Bar Council of India. It is a matter of common
knowledge that before granting affiliation proper exercise is not
carried out. No serious efforts have been made by the
concerned authority to learn about the Infrastructure, Library,
faculty before granting affiliation or recognition."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
19. It is also evident that proper standards of education cannot be
achieved unless there are adequate infrastructural facilities in the campus
like classrooms, libraries, laboratories, well-equipped teaching staff of
requisite caliber and a proper student-teacher ratio. Therefore, before
increasing the strength of students in these institutes, it is essential that
the existing infrastructure is upgraded.
20. The "Rules on Standards of Legal Education and Recognition of
Degrees in Law for the purpose of enrolment as advocates and inspection
of Universities for recognizing its degrees in law" (hereinafter referred to
as "the 2008 Rules") were approved and adopted by the BCI at its
meeting held on September 14, 2008 vide resolution no. 110 of 2008.
21. Rule 11 of the 2008 Rules, importantly, addresses a key concern
with respect to the infrastructural capabilities of law colleges. Rule 11
provides that any institution imparting legal education would have to
comply with the minimum standards of infrastructure.
22. Although, Schedule III to the 2008 Rules provide for minimum
infrastructural facilities required in a Centre of Legal Education for
applying permission to run law courses with affiliation from an Indian
University, it is apparent that the same are not being adhered to by the
institutes in letter and in spirit.
23. The relevant portion thereof is reproduced hereunder:
"3. Freehold or Leasehold Property: Each Centre of Legal
Education providing education in law either in the Department
of law of a University or its constituent or affiliated college
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
must have either on freehold or on long leasehold land
adequate to provide academic buildings, library, indoor and
outdoor sports facilities, halls of residences for male and female
students separately, as the case may be, in the name of the
Centre of Legal Education or organization running the Centre
of Legal Education. However, lease in the name of the Centre of
Legal Education shall be for a period of not less than ten years.
What is the adequate space for the said purpose shall be
decided by the respective authority of the University under its
affiliation regulation and as guided by the UGC.
Provided that sufficient land and adequate floor space
area completely and exclusively devoted for a Centre of Legal
Education, based on the size of its student population, faculty
requirement infrastructure facilities, Library space
requirement, indoor and outdoor games facilities and other
requirements can be considered sufficient accommodation in
compliance with this clause, for the purpose in a multi-faculty
Institution on land possessed by the Management of a Society/
Trust/ Non Profit Company running multi-faculty institutions in
a metropolitan or in a class 1 city.
4. Academic Building: There shall be the academic building to
provide separate class rooms for general class for each section
sufficient to accommodate sixty students as per the requirement
of per student floor space as specified by the University Grants
commission or such other standard setting body like AICTE and
also such other rooms for tutorial work, moot court room
exercises, common room for male and female students and
adequate library space for keeping books, periodicals, and
journals. The library shall also have adequate reading space
for at least 25% of the enrolled students according to per capita
reading space specified by any standard setting bodies like
UGC.
5. General timing for conduction of courses in Academic
Building: Classes may be conducted between 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. in
an Institution, which is not fully residential. However the
Library may remain open till 10 p.m.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
5A. Size of a section: The Inspection Committee may approve
for admission in each of the section of a class for not more than
60 students and may allow a minimum of two sections in each
class but not more than five sections in one class (such as First
Year or Second Year or Third Year, etc) as the case may be
unless there is any exceptional reason for granting more
sections in a Class, such a reason has to be specified by the
inspection Committee.
6. Library Building: There shall be adequate space in the
library for computer facility with access to internet and
national and international library access and data bases.
7. Games Facilities: There shall be facilities for indoor and
outdoor facilities for games and sports.
8. Halls of residence: There may be facility required for halls of
residence separately for males and females students constructed
on the direction and specification by UGC or any such other
standard setting body for affiliating an Institution.
9. (a) Laboratories: Institutions running integrated law
program shall have adequate laboratory facilities in various
courses of studies, if offered in the curriculum for Science,
Engineering and technology courses along with law courses.
The standard of such laboratory, per capita space, equipments,
supplies, and other facilities shall be as specified by the UGC
or any such other standard setting and regulatory bodies for the
purpose of affiliation of such an Institution.
(b) Computer Education to be made compulsory for all the
students."
24. Further, the conditions precedent for a University to affiliate a
Centre of Legal Education are provided for under Rule 16(1), and the
relevant portion thereof reads as follows:
"(ii) the institution has in its name either in freehold or
leasehold, adequate land and buildings, to provide for Centre of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
Legal Education building, library, halls of residences
separately for male and female and sports complex both indoor
and outdoor, so that it can effectively run professional law
courses provided that in case of leasehold the lease is not less
than ten years,
Provided that sufficient and adequate floor space area
specially and completely devoted for a Centre of Legal
Education, based on the size of its student population, faculty
requirement, adequate space required for infrastructure
facilities can be considered sufficient accommodation for the
purpose in a multi-faculty building on land possessed by the
Management of a Society/ Trust running multi-faculty
institutions."
25. The Bar Council of India as the regulator of Legal Education in
India has the power and duty to carry out inspection in law colleges
across India. In Prasoon Shekhar v. CPIO, BCI 2022 SCC OnLine CIC
238, the Central Information Commission directed the BCI to publish the
inspection reports of colleges teaching law on its website. Doing so will
help the aspirants who wish to pursue a degree in law to make an
informed choice regarding their college, and would go a long way in
ensuring that the status of Legal Education in India is upgraded.
26. It has time and again been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that the BCI should monitor law colleges in a stringent manner to ensure
that they are maintaining the parameters set by Council. It is high time
that all the stakeholders led by the BCI, including Senior Advocates,
Academicians and even former Judges of Supreme Court/High Courts
may be requested to take upon themselves the task of reforming the status
of Legal Education in India.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
27. Accordingly, it is directed that the BCI should constitute special
expert teams to conduct surprise visits of the colleges that lack minimum
infrastructure and adequate facilities. The inspection reports of the
colleges teaching law on its website shall be uploaded within one month
of such inspection. If any colleges upon such inspection are found to be
lacking minimum infrastructural facilities, then the BCI must take
immediate steps to close such colleges. This is a much-needed therapy
that ought to be introduced to cure the maladies that legal education is
suffering from.
Commercialization of Education
28. Commercialization of Education is another bane that the sector in
India is suffering from. One such manifestation of profiteering in this
noble profession is in the form of enrolling additional students in each
coming batch without upgrading the existing infrastructure.
29. In a plethora cases as detailed hereinbelow, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has passed Orders against commercialisation of education.
30. In the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre and
Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as:
"65. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation, P.A. Inamdar and Unni
Krishnan, profiteering and commercialization of education has
been abhorred. The basic thread of reasoning in the above
judgments is that educational activity is essentially charitable in
nature and that commercialization or profiteering through it is
impermissible. The said activity subserves the looming larger
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
public interest of ensuring that the nation develops and
progresses on the strength of its highly educated citizenry. As
such, this Court has been of the view that while balancing the
fundamental rights of both minority and non-minority
institutions, it is imperative that a high standard of education is
available to all meritorious candidates. It has also been felt that
the only way to achieve this goal, recognizing private
participation in this welfare goal, is to ensure that there is no
commercialization or profiteering by educational institutions.
***
73. In paragraph 129 of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar, this
Court observed that the State Regulation should be minimal and
only to maintain fairness in admission procedure and to check
exploitation by charging exorbitant money or capitation fees. In
paragraph 140, it has been held that the charge of capital fee
by unaided minority and non-minority institutions for
professional courses is just not permissible. Similarly,
profiteering is also not permissible. This Court went on to
observe that it cannot shut its eyes to the hard realities of
commercialization of education and evil practices being
adopted by many institutions to earn large amounts for their
private or selfish ends.
***
82.Thus, it is felt that in any welfare economy, even for private
industries, there is a need for a regulatory body and such a
regulatory framework for the education sector becomes all the
more necessary. It would be more so when, unlike other
industries, commercialization of education is not permitted as
mandated by the Constitution of India, backed by various
judgments of this Court to the effect that profiteering in the
education is to be avoided."
31. In the case of Aravinth R.A. vs. The Secretary to the Government
of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors. [Civil Appeal
No(s). 3585-3586 of 2022 @ S.L.P. (C) No(s). 5989-5990 of 2022], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
"10. But we do not think that any of the above grounds of
challenge are sustainable in law. The Regulations impugned by
the Appellant may appear superficially to be rigorous or tough.
But these Regulations are a product of, (i) past experience; and
(ii) necessity of times. Experts in the field of education believe
(and justifiably so) that over ambitious parents, hapless
children, exploitative and unscrupulous (and sometimes
unlettered) founders of infrastructure-deficient educational
institutions, paralyzed regulatory bodies and courts with
misplaced sympathy, have all contributed (not necessarily in the
same order) to the commercialization of education and the
decline of standards in the field of education, in general and
medical education, in particular. We may be able to appreciate
this, if we have a look at the history of evolution of statutory
measures taken to regulate the recognition and registration of
foreign medical degrees in India."
32. In the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Ors., [1993] 1 SCR 594, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
as:
"152. Commercialization of education has always been looked
upon with disfavor in this country. Far back as in 1956,
Parliament expressed its intention by enacting the University
Grant Commission Act which specified the prevention of
commercialization of education as one of the duties of the
University Grants Commission. The same intention has been
expressed by several enactments made by the Parliament and
State Legislatures since then."
33. Therefore, any attempts at commercialisation of education
especially that of legal education while imperilling the qualitative
imparting of education must be derided and frowned upon.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
Analysis of the Instant Issue
34. Coming to the issue at hand, the present set of petitions have been
filed by the petitioners for seeking directions against the Respondent
University to allocate 110 seats (25 seats in addition to 85 seats) with
respect to BA LLB Five Years' Integrated Course, for various academic
sessions as furnished below:
Academic
Writ Petition Prayer Status
Session
18.7.2018 -
Interim Relief
WP C 7329/2018 2018-19
granted to admit
110 students
1.8.2019 -
Interim Relief
WP C 8175/2019 2019-20
granted to admit
Allocation of 110 110 students
Seats (25 Seats in 11.11.2020 -
addition to 85 Interim Relief
WP C 8817/2020 2020-21
Seats already granted to admit
allotted) in BA 110 students
LLB Course 24.8.2021 -
Interim Relief
WP C 8862/2021 2021-22
granted to admit
110 students
WP C 10630/2022 2022-23 N/A
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
35. Upon the conjoint reading of the clause 8(5)(d) of UBBL-2016,
Clause 7.23.2(a) and Clause 2.1 of "Use of Basement" Policy Guidelines
of Government of NCT of Delhi DDA notification dated 12.01.2016, it is
clear that the area of basement can be included in the FAR only when the
same is used for the activity for which the necessary sanctions and
clearances have been taken from the concerned authorities. The
concerned authorities in the instant matter are - Delhi Fire Service, Delhi
Municipal Corporation, Directorate of Higher Education, and Respondent
University.
36. It is evident that as per the policy guidelines of the Govt. of NCT
of Delhi i.e., "Use of Basement", the extent, and purpose of use of
basement shall be determined on the basis of sanctioned building plan of
the concerned institute by the competent local body for the approved
purposes and as per the usage allowed under MPD 2021. It further states
that, the use of basement will be specific for the purpose as mentioned in
the sanctioned building plan and institutes are required to obtain such
usage permission from the competent local body with mention of the
usage of basement allowed to the institute.
37. Additionally, the petitioner institute has failed to show that the
institute has necessary clearance from the statutory bodies for the usage
as being sought for, which in the present case is the DDA and MCD as
per clause 8(5)(d) of annexure VI of UBBL-2016 as stated above.
38. It has been contended by the Petitioner Institute that the use of the
premises in question i.e. the basement is for a multi activity hall,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
conference room and Director's office. However, as per the present
sanctioned plan submitted by the Institute, the basement is shown for the
usage of "car parking".
39. The fact that the request of the Revised Building Plan is still
pending with the concerned authority does not act to the advantage of the
petitioner. Until and unless the sanction is granted for the desired
purpose, the petitioner is not allowed to use the same for any other
purpose except car parking.
40. Further, the petitioner institute has submitted that the fire safety
certificate has been issued by the Fire Safety Service in pursuance to the
Order dated 12.02.2020 of this Court. It is however, not established on
the basis of record that the said certificate has been issued with regard to
the desired usage.
41. Therefore, the petitioner college is eligible to use the basement
only for the purpose of car parking until its proposed building plan is
sanctioned and fire safety certificate which is a pre-requisite for having
the basement included in the total covered area for FAR available with
the institute by the JAC. Since, the petitioner institute lacks all the pre-
conditions discussed hereinabove, the question of allowing the basement
in the FAR does not arise.
42. The DHE is required to consider the JAC report for granting the
course(s)/intake to the institute as per clause 1.1(iii)(h) of the Policy
Guidelines issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
43. Respondent University as per Ordinance 1, Statute 24 (3)(ii)(b) is
mandated to admit an institute in its university only to the extent to which
the institute has been granted a no-objection certificate by the concerned
state government i.e. Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
44. Additionally, the total built up space available (excluding the
basement) with the petitioner institute is 3267.45 square metres and as per
the JAC report dated 05.03.2022 and the applicable guidelines, the total
space required is 3251.25 square metres for all the courses being run by
the institute including the said course (allowing an intake of 85 students).
45. In case 25 additional seats are allowed, the additional space
required shall be, as calculated below:
No. of Additional Students per batch = 25
Total No. of Additional Students = 125 (25 students * 5
batches)
Space Factor (per student) = 4.5 square metres
Total Area required = 125*4.5 square metres = 562.5 square
metres
46. Therefore, on the basis of the said calculation, an additional space
of 562.5 square metres shall be required for admitting 25 students in each
batch of the said Course.
It is evident that in case 25 additional seats are allowed, a total area of
3813.75 square metres will be required by the institute, which is not being
met by the Petitioner Institute at present. Therefore, on the basis of the
space available and the sanctioned building plan issued by the DDA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
whereby the usage of the basement for academic purposes is not
permissible, the Petitioner Institute thus cannot be allowed the prayers
made herein.
CONCLUSION
47. Hence, in light of the foregoing discussion and analysis, it is clear
that the classes or any educational activity cannot be allowed to function
in basement in the instant case. It can only be used for parking purposes.
Consequently, as analysed above, the Petitioner Institute lacks the
requisite FAR for an additional intake of 25 students in the said Course.
DHE has rightly granted the NOC for admission of 85 students in the
course of BA LLB to the petitioner institute based on the
recommendation of the JAC reports dated 05.03.2022.
48. Therefore, there are no cogent reasons to entertain the instant set of
petitions and allow the prayers sought therein. In the aforesaid terms, the
instant sets of petitions stand dismissed.
49. However, it is made clear that this Court is conscious of the fact
that vide the interim orders passed by this Court in the past, the students
in addition to the sanctioned capacity were admitted in the previous
academic sessions. Therefore, notwithstanding the question of legality of
the additional seats as being claimed by the Petitioner Institute for
previous academic sessions, this Court, in the best interest of the students
already admitted and other stakeholders, does not intend to interfere with
their admission.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
50. Thus, any observations made herein shall have no detrimental
effect whatsoever on the students already admitted in previous academic
sessions. The said relief has been granted in the exceptional
circumstances, in the interest of justice and shall not be treated as a
precedent.
51. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to maintain status quo
regarding the already admitted students in previous academic session in
compliance with the past Orders of this Court. No such benefit shall be
allowed for the Academic Session 2022-23, and only admission to 85
Seats already allotted by the Respondent University shall be done by the
petitioner institute in its BA LLB Course.
52. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
53. The Registrar General is directed to supply a copy of this
judgement to the Bar Council of India.
54. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(CHANDRA DHARI SINGH)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 16, 2022
Aj/@dityak.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DAMINI
YADAV
Signing Date:16.09.2022
17:33:11
