Imayam Trust vs All India Council For Technical ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16362 Mad

                                                          1

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                    ORDERS RESERVED ON              : 17.08.2021


                                    PRONOUNCING ORDERS ON : 18.08.2021


                                                       CORAM


                          THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR.N.ANAND VENKATESH


                                                W.P.No.16347 of 2021



                     Imayam Trust
                     Rep. by its Chairman
                     P.PeriannanKannanur
                     Thuraiyur Taluk,Trichy District
                     Tiruchirappalli 621 206.                                      ...Petitioner




                                                         .Vs.



                     1. All India Council for Technical Education
                         Rep. by its Member Secretary,
                         Nelson Mandela Marg,
                        Vasant Kunj, New Delhi --110 070.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     1/16
                                                              2

                     2. The Chairman
                        All India Council for Technical Education,
                         Nelson Mandela Marg,
                        Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 070.


                     3. Southern Regional Office
                        All India Council for Technical Education
                         Rep. by the Southern Regional Officer,
                        ShastiBhavan, 26, Haddows Road,
                        Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.


                     4.Adviser I (Approval Board)
                        All India Council for Technical Education,
                        Nelson Mandela Marg Vasant Kunj,
                         New Delhi - 110 070.                                  ..Respondents


                     PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, to call for the
                     records on the file of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.F.No.AICTE
                     /AB/SR/PID 1-7270423 dated 11.08.2021 and quash the same as illegal,
                     incompetent, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.


                                   For Petitioner   : Mr.V.Raghavachari
                                                     for M/s.Ashwin Shanbhag


                               For Respondents      : Mr.B.Rabu Manohar
                                                     CGSC
                                                     for R 1 to R 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     2/16
                                                          3

                                                      ORDER

The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition

pertains to the proceedings of the 1strespondent dated 11.08.2021,

wherein the 1strespondent has reiterated the earlier order passed on

15.07.2021, and the petitioner has been placed under the "no admission"

category for the academic year 2021-2022.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the Trust, which was

formed for the purpose of establishing Educational Institutions, had set

up various institutions, with one such Institution being Imayam College

of Engineering which offers various undergraduate courses. It is stated

that the petitioner got the approval from AICTE in the year 2009, and the

approval is extended every year, and such extension was granted until the

academic year 2020-2021. The Institution is also affiliated with Anna

University, and such affiliation was granted by Anna University until the

academic year 2020-2021.

3.A complaint seems to have been given by one of the

erstwhile Trustees and Treasurer of the Trust in the year 2020 to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

1strespondentby alleging that the College had violated the conditions of

the AICTE Approval Process Handbook. There are ongoing disputes

among the Trustees, and a Scheme Suit is already pending in O.S.No.170

of 2013, before the District Court, Tiruchirappalli.

4.Based on the complaint, the 3rdrespondent issued a notice

to the petitioner and a Scrutiny Committee was appointed to verify the

allegations made in the complaint. In the meantime, the AICTE opened

its portal, and the petitioner applied for extension of approval for the

academic year 2021-2022.

5.The petitioner received a communication from the 3rd

respondent through an e-mail dated 22.07.2021, informing the petitioner

that the matter has been placed before the Standing Appellate Committee.

On enquiry, the 1strespondent, through an order dated 15.07.2021, placed

the College under the "no admission" category for the academic year

2021-2022. An appeal was made before the 1strespondent to reconsider

the decision. Since the same was pending, the petitioner initially filed

the writ petition, seeking a direction to the 1strespondent to dispose of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

the appeal after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the

petitioner.

6.When the matter came up for hearing on 06.08.2021, this

Court passed the following order:

"When the matter was taken up for admission on 05.08.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the appeal filed before the concerned authority on 20.07.2021 is yet to be heard and a direction can be issued for conducting an enquiry and to take a decision after considering the materials placed before the authority.

2. This Court directed Mr.Rabu Manohar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the A.I.C.T.E., to take instructions and report before this Court.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Standing Counsel circulated the written instructions received from the Regional Officer, A.I.C.T.E. It is seen from the instructions circulated to this Court that the appeal that was made by the petitioner was rejected by proceedings dated 23.07.2021 and as a result of the same, 'No Admission Status' for the academic year 2021-22 was directed to be continued.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the concerned authority has not considered any of the materials that were presented along with the appeal and if one opportunity is given to the petitioner, the petitioner is willing to go over to Delhi and place all the materials and satisfy the concerned authority that all the deficiencies have been properly rectified and complied with. The learned counsel submitted that after the materials are placed before the authority and an enquiry is conducted, a decision can be taken by the authority.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the A.I.C.T.E., submitted that, some serious deficiencies were pointed out by the Scrutiny Committee and the same were taken into consideration by the appellate authority and the appeal was rejected on 23.07.2021. The learned counsel therefore submitted that there is no ground to once again entertain the plea made by the petitioner and the petitioner has to necessarily rectify all the defects and make an application for the next academic year viz., 2022-23.

6. In the considered view of this Court, there is a serious dispute that is going on between the Trustees and the complaint seems to have emanated from the erstwhile Trustee and the Treasurer, and it has led to the enquiry

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

and a decision was taken by the competent authority to place the Institution under "No Admission Status'.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has rectified and complied with all the deficiencies that were pointed out and what is required is only to give an opportunity to the petitioner to place those materials before the authority and the authority, based on the same, can take a decision. In short, an opportunity is sought for to substantiate the claim / assertion made by the petitioner.

8. In view of the above, the petitioner Trust represented by its Vice Chairman shall be present in the office of the first respondent on 09.08.2021 at 11.30 A.M. The first respondent shall conduct the enquiry, scrutinise all the materials and shall take a decision and report before this Court.

9. Post this case under the caption "For Reporting Compliance" on 13.08.2021".

7.Thereafter, when the matter was taken up for hearing on

13.08.2021, this Court passed the following order:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

"Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the AICTE submitted that, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 06.08.2021, personal hearing was given to the petitioner and an order has been passed on 11.08.2021 confirming the earlier order and thereby, the 'No Admission Status' for the academic year 2021-22 was directed to be continued.

2. Learned counsel for AICTE is directed to file a copy of the proceedings after serving the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Post this case under the same caption on 17.08.2021".

8.Pursuant to the above orders, the petitioner filed a petition

in WMP No.18338 of 2021, seeking for amendment of the relief by

challenging the proceedings of the 1strespondent dated 11.08.2021. The

amendment petition was allowed, and thus the proceedings of the

1strespondent dated 11.08.2021 have been put to challenge.

9.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

College in question got the approval in the year 2009, and thereafter, it

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

was extended up to the academic year 2020-2021 and all of a sudden, by

virtue of a complaint given by a disgruntled Trustee, the respondents

have taken an extreme action of placing the College under the "no

admission" category for the academic year 2021-2022. The learned

counsel submitted that the main allegation made against the Institution

was that the initial approval was granted by permitting the College to

function from a particular property and whereas the College is

functioning on a different property without getting the permission of

AICTE. The learned counsel submitted that the Trustees have various

institutions, and considering the fact that the Engineering College

required a larger space, the place which was initially chosen to construct

the Engineering College was replaced by the Arts College, and the place

that was chosen for the Arts College was replaced with the Engineering

College. The learned counsel submitted that right from the beginning,

this is how the Institution has been functioning, and approval was

granted, and all of a sudden, it was found to be a deficiency, and the

College has been put under the "no admission" category. The learned

counsel further submitted that the penalty imposed by AICTE is

disproportionate and very harsh, and if the petitioner is given sometime,

they will rectify the deficiency and get the necessary building approvals https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

and report before the AICTE. The learned counsel brought to the notice

of this Court the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AI-Karim

Educational Trust and Another v. State of Bihar and Ors reported in

(1996) 8 SCC 330, Mahatma Education Society v. AICTE and Others

reported in (2014) SCC Online Bom 1369 and Sri Muthukumaran

Medical College v. The Registrar and 2 Others in W.P.No.23726 of

2019, dated 19.08.2019, to impress upon this Court that such a harsh

decision need not have been taken by the AICTE and that opportunity

should have been given to the petitioner to get the necessary approval

and to rectify the defects. The learned counsel further submitted that the

approval could be extended for the current academic year, i.e. 2021-

2022, and in the meantime, the petitioner will rectify all the defects, and

the same can be considered by AICTE while deciding the extension of

approval for the academic year 2022-2023.

10.The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

AICTE submitted that this is a case where the petitioner had obtained

approval to establish the College in a particular property and whereas

unilaterally the Institution is functioning from a different location

without even informing AICTE. The learned Standing Counsel further https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

submitted that the petitioner has also not obtained the building plan

approval, and without any approval, the superstructure has been put up,

and the Institution is functioning in a different place other than the place

for which the approval was granted by AICTE. Considering the

seriousness of the allegations, the learned Standing Counsel submitted

that there is no ground to interfere with the decision taken by the

1strespondent, and the petitioner can as well rectify the deficiencies and

seek approval in the next academic year and the same will be considered

by AICTE.

11.This Court has carefully considered the submissions

made on either side and the materials available on record.

12.It is seen from records that the petitioner had obtained the

initial approval to run the Engineering College in S.F.Nos.202/3B,

202/3C, 202/5, 202/6, 205/1A, 205/2, 206/1 and 206/2G, totally

measuring an extent of 10.27 acres. However, the Engineering College is

functioning at Survey Nos.195/2A and 195/2B, measuring an extent of

11.90 acres. Even though the petitioner has taken a stand that the

Engineering College was decided to be established in a larger extent and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

accordingly, it was shifted to the place where the Arts College was

planned to be established, and the Arts College was brought within the

place assigned for the Engineering College, the AICTE was never

intimated or informed of the same at any point of time, and the AICTE

came to know about it for the first time only after a complaint was given

during the year 2020. That apart, the petitioner has also not obtained any

building plan approval since the year 2008 onwards, and in spite of the

same, the College is being run in an unapproved building till date.

13.The allegations made against the petitioner are very

serious since there is an unapproved building which is located in a

different survey number other than the one for which the initial approval

was granted by AICTE, and it was extended from time to time. Even

though the proceedings had emanated from a supposedly disgruntled

Trustees’ complaint,what is relevant is the seriousness of the allegation

made against the Institution. The source of the complaint is irrelevant.

14.The deficiencies have been discussed in detail by the 1st

respondent in the order dt.15.07.2021, and on considering the seriousness

of the discrepancy found in the very allegation against the College, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

1st respondent thought it fit to place the Institution under the "no

admission" category for the academic year 2021-2022.

15.Even while the 1st respondent considered the appeal

made by the petitioner, the 1strespondent individually obtained a report

from the Scrutiny Committee. The report of the scrutiny committee

clearly demonstrates the fact that the approval was given to the College

to be run in a particular property and whereas the College was

functioning with its campus in a completely different property. Even this

change of location of the College was not informed to the AICTE, which

is a mandatory requirement under Clause 2.7 of the Approval Process

Handbook 2021-2022. In view of this serious discrepancy, the AICTE

wanted to scrutinise all the documents and had directed the petitioner to

apply during the next academic year by informing the change of site, and

that the same will be considered during the academic year 2022-2023.

The Scrutiny Committee also found that the petitioner has not obtained

any building plan approval till date, and it has not been presented to

AICTE. This finding is also not refuted by the petitioner, and admittedly

the building plan approval is pending, and it has not been granted by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

concerned authority. In spite of the same, the petitioner has managed to

run the Institution from the year 2009 onwards without any approval.

16.Insofar as the judicial precedents cited by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, those decisions were rendered on the basis of

the facts that formed the basis of those decisions. In a case of this nature,

the Court can reach a conclusion only based on the facts placed before it,

and there cannot be a uniform standard while deciding the nature of

deficiency that differs on a case to case basis.

17.In the considered view of this Court, the allegations that

the Institution is functioning from a different location than the one for

which the approval was granted by the AICTE and that no building

approval has been obtained from the year 2009 onwards, are serious in

nature and cannot be taken lightly. This Court does not find any ground

to interfere with the decision taken by the 1strespondent to keep the

Institution in the "no admission" category for the academic year 2021-

2022. This Court cannot sit over the judgment taken by an academic body

given the seriousness of the allegations, and only if such serious action is taken,

the institutions will realise that they cannot get away easily after committing

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

serious defaults which touches upon the very basis on which the approval

was granted by AICTE. The 1strespondent is absolutely right in placing

the Institution in the "no admission" category for the academic year

2021-2022. Even while coming to such a decision, the 1strespondent has

informed the petitioner that if the Institution applies for change of site in

the next academic year, the same will be considered as per due

procedure/norms. This opportunity given to the petitioner will enable the

petitioner to rectify the defects and apply for the approval during the next

academic year.

18.In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

18.08.2021

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order KP ..

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

To

1. All India Council for Technical Education Rep. by its Member Secretary, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj New Delhi --110 070.

2.The Chairman All India Council for Technical Education, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 070.

3. Southern Regional Office All India Council for Technical Education Rep. by the Southern Regional Officer, ShastiBhavan, 26, Haddows Road Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.

4. Adviser I (Approval Board) All India Council for Technical Education Nelson Mandela Marg Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110 070.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

KP

Pre Delivery Order in W.P.No.16347 of 2021

18.08.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/