Noble Educational Trust vs Counciil Of Architecture
2021 Latest Caselaw 2352 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

     THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

                      W.P.(C) No.25082 OF 2020(I)

PETITIONER:

               NOBLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,
               REGD. OFFICE-32/1277 A2, SECOND FLOOR,
               NOBLE HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682 025 REPRESENTED
               BY ITS SECRETARY.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
               SMT.P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)
               SMT.REENA THOMAS
               SMT.NIGI GEORGE

RESPONDENTS:

      1        COUNCIIL OF ARCHITECTURE,
               INDIA HABITAT CENTRE,
               CORE-6A, 1ST FLOOR, LODHI ROAD,
               NEW DELHI-110 003
               REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

      2        PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE,
               INDIA HABITAT CENTRE,
               CORE-6A, 1ST FLOOR, LODHI ROAD,
               NEW DELHI-110 003.

      R1&R2    BY ADV.KRISHNA S., CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.25082 OF 2020(I)
                                    -2-


                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner applied before the 1st respondent Council of

Architecture seeking approval of new Architecture College, namely,

MGM College of Architecture at Pampakuda in Ernakulam District,

for conducting B.Arch Course. The petitioner has filed this writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a

writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated 04.11.2020 issued by

the 1st respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of

mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P3

appeal dated 21.10.2020 along with Ext.P8 request dated

07.11.2020 and Ext.P8(a) additional statement dated 13.11.2020;

and an order directing the 1 st respondent to grant approval for

B.Arch Course to the petitioner, within a time limit to be prescribed

by this Court.

2. On 17.11.2020, when this writ petition came up for

admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission to the

respondents by speed post and through e-mail.

3. A statement has been filed by respondents 1 and 2

through the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, opposing

the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner has also W.P.(C) No.25082 OF 2020(I)

filed a reply affidavit, producing therewith Exts.P9 to P11 as

additional documents.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

the learned Central Government Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

5. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ

petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P5

order, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the

rejection of the application for approval of new Architecture

College for conducting B.Arch Course, for the academic year 2020-

21, stands dismissed.

6. In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (e), (g),

(h) and (j) of sub-section (2) of Section 45 read with Section 21 of

the Architects Act, 1972, the 1 st respondent Council of

Architecture, with the approval of the Central Government, made

the minimum standards of Architectural Education Regulations,

1983. Regulation 8 deals with standards of staff, equipment,

accommodation, training and other facilities for technical

education. Appendix-B of the Regulations deals with designation,

pay scale, qualification, etc., required for faculty positions and

Appendix-C deals with physical facilities. W.P.(C) No.25082 OF 2020(I)

7. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application dated

31.01.2020 for approval of new Architecture College for conducting

B.Arch course for the academic year 2020-21. The 1 st respondent

vide letter dated 14.07.2020 required the petitioner to submit

compliance report on academic and infrastructure facilities. The

petitioner submitted a compliance report dated 28.07.2020, which

was considered by the Executive Committee of the 1 st respondent

at its meeting held on 23.08.2020. Having considered the

compliance report, the Executive Committee decided to reject the

application made by the petitioner with the following observations;

1) Required Cadre-wise Faculty as per Council Regulations, 1983 is not identified by the Institution.

2) One Professor apart from Principal/Head is not identified by the Institution as per Council Norms.

3) One more Assistant Professor is also not identified by the Institution as per Council Norms.

8. The decision taken by the Executive Committee of the

1st respondent was communicated to the petitioner on 27.08.2020,

as stated in the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.

The Executive Committee at its 223 rd meeting held on 15.10.2020

decided to provide a final opportunity to the petitioner institution

and it was informed that an online inspection shall be conducted W.P.(C) No.25082 OF 2020(I)

by the Council. The said fact was informed to the petitioner vide

Ext.P2 communication dated 15.10.2020. The petitioner submitted

Ext.P3 appeal dated 21.10.2020 and the 1st respondent vide Ext.P4

communication dated 26.10.2020 informed the petitioner that an

online inspection will be conducted on 28.10.2020. Accordingly, an

online inspection was conducted. The recommendations of the

online Inspection Committee was considered by the Executive

Committee at its meeting held on 29.10.2020. Based on the

recommendations of the Inspection Committee, the Executive

Committee decided to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner as

evidenced by Ext.P5 communication dated 04.11.2020, with the

following observations;

(i) Some of the faculty members listed were not available and could not be presented; there were different people who met the Committee.

(ii) The infrastructure is not full ready, especially the labs.

(iii) The books in the library were not relevant to 1 st and 2nd year of Architecture course.

9. On receipt of Ext.P5 communication dated 04.11.2020

of the 1st respondent, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8

representation dated 07.11.2020, seeking reconsideration of the

decision taken by the Executive Committee of the 1 st respondent W.P.(C) No.25082 OF 2020(I)

on 29.10.2020. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has

produced Ext.P6 series of tax invoice dated 05.11.2020 regarding

purchase of lab equipments and machine tools. Ext.P7 series of

bills dated 05.11.2020 are regarding purchase of additional books

for the library. The petitioner has also submitted Ext.P9 additional

statement dated 13.11.2020 before the 1 st respondent in order to

supplement Ext.P8 representation.

10. The deficiencies pointed out by the Executive

Committee of the 1st respondent Council, in order to reject the

appeal filed by the petitioner, based on the recommendations of

the Inspection Committee, are non-availability of faculty members,

lack of infrastructure, etc. The Inspection Commission has also

found that the books available in the library were not relevant to

1st and 2nd year Architecture course. As evident from Exts.P6 series

and P7 series invoices, which are dated 05.07.2020, after the

receipt of Ext.P5 communication dated 04.11.2020, the petitioner

placed orders for purchasing machine tools and equipments for the

laboratories and books for the library. Therefore, the finding of the

Inspection Commission that the petitioner has not provided

sufficient infrastructure, especially for the laboratories and books W.P.(C) No.25082 OF 2020(I)

for the library cannot be said to be one absolutely without any

basis.

11. In Medical Council of India v. The Principal, KMCT

Medical College [(2018) 9 SCC 766] it was contended before

the Apex Court that the inspection was not properly conducted.

Repelling the said contention, the Apex Court held as follows;

"15. We do not deem it necessary to deal with the submission made on behalf of the College regarding the inspection not being properly conducted. This Court has repeatedly said that a decision taken by the Union of India on the basis of a recommendation of an expert body regarding the inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges cannot be interfered with lightly. Interference is permissible only when the colleges demonstrate jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala fide. [See: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India (2013) 10 SCC 60 and Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (2016) 11 SCC 530]. As no case is made out by the College for interference with the inspection report, we decline the request of Mr.Sibal for remand of the matter to the High Court."

12. The application made by the petitioner seeking approval

for the academic year 2020-21 was originally rejected by the

Executive Committee of the 1st respondent Council on 23.08.2020. W.P.(C) No.25082 OF 2020(I)

The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the

Executive Committee in its meeting held on 29.10.2020. The said

decision of the Executive Committee is based on the

recommendation made in the report of the Inspection Committee,

which conducted online inspection, on account of COVID-19

pandemic. Any interference on the findings of the Executive

Committee of the 1st respondent Council, which are based on the

recommendation made by the Inspection Commission, is legally

permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only

when the petitioner demonstrates jurisdictional errors, ex facie

perversity or malafides. In the absence of any vitiating

circumstances, no interference is warranted on the findings of the

Executive Committee of the 1st respondent in its decision taken on

29.10.2020.

In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE bpr W.P.(C) No.25082 OF 2020(I)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31/01/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31/01/2020 EVIDENCING PAYMENT MADE ALONG WITH EXT.P1.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF LETTER DATED 15/10/2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION.

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21/10/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/10/2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF COMMUNICATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04/11/2020.

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE BILLS EVIDENCING PURCHASE OF THE EQUIPMENTS.

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE LIST OF THE BOOKS ALONG WITH THE BILLS.

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 07/11/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING RECONSIDERATION.

EXHIBIT P8(A) COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT DATED 13/11/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.6296/AC-B/KUHS/2013 DATED 24/09/2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES.

EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.6296/AC-B/KUHS/2013 DATED 28/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES.

EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.6296/AC-B/KUHS/2013 DATED 15/05/2019 ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS 1983.