Madras High Court
Imayam Trust vs All India Council For Technical ... on 25 November, 2021
W.A.No.2236 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.11.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.2236 of 2021
Imayam Trust,
Rep. by its Chairman,
P.Periannan,
Kannanur, Thuraiyur Taluk,
Trichy District, Tiruchirappalli – 621 206. .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
1.All India Council for Technical Education,
Represented 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 Officer,
All India Council for Technical Education,
Represented by the Southern Regional Officer,
Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2236 of 2021
4.Adviser-I (Approved Board),
All India Council for Technical Education,
Nelson Mandela Marg,
Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi-110 070. ..Respondents/Respondents
5.The Director,
Town and Country Planning,
2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor,
C & E Market Road, Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 107.
6.D.Prabhu,
S/o.Dharmalingam,
Treasurer, Imayam Trust,
North Street, Kollapatti Village,
Thuraiyur Taluk,
Trichy District. ..Respondents
[R5 – Suo motu impleaded as party vide Court Order dated
17.09.2021 made in W.A.No.2236 of 2021 (PSNJ & KRJ)]
[R6 – impleaded as party vide Court Order dated 26.10.2021 made in
C.M.P.No.1780 of 2021 in W.A.No.2236 of 2021 (PUJ & SSKJ)]
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 18.08.2021 made in W.P.No.16347 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari
for M/s.Ashwin Shanbhag
For Respondents : Mr.B.Rabu Manohar,
Standing Counsel for R1 to 4
Mr.Richardson Wilson,
Additional Government Pleader for R5
Mr.S.Gopinathan for R6
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2236 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
This Court had, on 10.11.2021, passed the following order:
“Challenge in this appeal is made by the original petitioner
(educational institute) to the order dated 18 August, 2021 in W.P.No.
16437 of 2021. The controversy is regarding putting the petitioner Institute
in 'No Admission Category' by AICTE for the academic year 2021 – 2022.
2. During the pendency of the writ petition, pursuant to the order of
this Court, the petitioner/appellant had approached the AICTE and an
order dated 11 August, 2021 was passed by it. By the said order, AICTE
reiterated its earlier stand to continue the petitioner in 'No Admission
Category' for the academic year 2021 – 2022. The basis for this
consequence is that, the building in which the institute has been
functioning since years was now treated as 'not approved place' by State
Authorities (Director of Town and Country Planning - fifth respondent).
Learned Single Bench also found that, the root of the controversy was the
complaint by a disgruntled element - an earlier trustee of the appellant
Institute. The petition is ultimately dismissed.
3. Taking note of all the facts, on this writ appeal, various interim
orders are passed starting from 02 September, 2021 till 29 September,
2021 and lastly on 26 October, 2021. The substance thereof is that, the
State Authorities were directed to have a re-look at the issue, and one or
the another respondent (including the earlier trustee) went on to ask for
time and the matter could not be taken up. The matter as it stands now is
that, the appellant Institute even now is functioning at that very place
where it has been working since years and now it is approved/ recognized
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2236 of 2021
by the State Authorities (Director of Town and Country Planning - fifth
respondent). Its earlier order (not approving it) was suspended by this
Court vide order dated 29.09.2021 and the stand now is that, the place
where the Institute is functioning cannot be said to be an unauthorized
place. In view of this, the very basis of putting the appellant Institute by
AICTE in 'No Admission Category' for the academic year 2021 – 2022
would not hold the field.
4. Even today, the sixth respondent at whose instance the
proceedings were taken out against the present appellant has attempted to
defer the hearing of this appeal, on the ground that he wants time in the
matter. It is under these circumstances, this Court has examined the matter
with regard to the cut-off date, which needs to be kept in mind.
5. Learned advocate for the AICTE has stated that for the present
academic year (2021 – 2022), the cut-off date was 30 September, 2021 and
extension is granted in some cases, under the orders of the Supreme Court
till 25 October, 2021. We find that even in the interim order dated 29
September, 2021, the urgency aspect was taken note of by this Court and
the authorities were directed to do a particular thing and even then, on 26
October, 2021, the matter could not be taken up because it was the learned
advocate for the respondent Authorities, who had asked for time. Now
when all things are in order, and the appellant is not to be blamed for the
cut-off date, the interest of the students also needs to be kept in view.
6. In view of above, it is ordered that the decision of the AICTE to
place the appellant Institute in 'No Admission Category' for the academic
year 2021 – 2022 shall remain suspended.
7. List for further orders on 15.11.2021.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2236 of 2021
2.On 18.11.2021 the following order was passed:
“It is indicated that after the order dated 10.11.2021, some
additional papers are placed on record. To enable the learned advocates
for the other parties to respond to it, if so required, list on 25.11.2021.”
3.Learned Advocate for AICTE has, on instructions stated that, it
is true that in view of the interim order AICTE has granted approval to
the present appellant.
4. In view of above, it is jointly submitted that, no further
adjudication of this appeal may be required, so far the dispute
between the appellant and the AICTE is concerned. This appeal
therefore needs to be disposed of in the above terms.
5.1 At this stage, learned Advocate for the appellant has
submitted that, the concerned University needs to grant affiliation and
there is no reason for the University not to grant it, since not only the
concerned State Authorities (Director of Town and Country Planning -
fifth respondent) has approved the premises, but the AICTE has also
granted approval.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2236 of 2021
5.2 Since the University is not party to this litigation, no direction
can be given to it, however it is observed that, considering the totality,
which is noted above, the concerned University will act in accordance
with law, more particularly keeping in view the interest of the
students, further keeping in view the cut off line that is prescribed by
the authorities from time to time.
6. This appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.4614 of 2020 is closed.
(P.U., J) (S.S.K., J)
25.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
srm/18
To
1.All India Council for Technical Education,
Represented 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 Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2236 of 2021
All India Council for Technical Education,
Represented by the Southern Regional Officer,
Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
4.Adviser-I (Approved Board),
All India Council for Technical Education,
Nelson Mandela Marg,
Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi-110 070.
5.The Director,
Town and Country Planning,
2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor,
C & E Market Road, Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 107.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2236 of 2021
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
srm
W.A.No.2236 of 2021
25.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
