Telangana High Court
Swamy Vivekananda Educational Trust vs State Of Telangana on 14 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR
RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.968 and 969 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble SP, J):
Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Tarun G Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants in W.A.No.968 of 2024, Sri S. Niranjan Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Tarun G Reddy, learned
counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.969 of 2024, Sri Rahul
Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appears on behalf
of learned Advocate General for the State, Sri Abdul Quddus
Mohammed, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU, Sri
M.Mehboob Ali, learned Standing Counsel for AICTE and Ms. C.
Vani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State
Higher Education.
2. Since these matters are arising out of two similar orders of
learned Single Judge passed in W.P.Nos.21333 and 21352 of
2024, with the consent of the parties, the matters are
analogously heard finally.
3. The facts are taken from W.A.No.968 of 2024.
2
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
4. The case of the appellants in nut shell is that as per All
India Council for Technical Education ('AICTE') Regulations
(approval process hand book) 2024-25 to 2026-27, the
appellants' institutions are eligible to establish an off-campus
institute. Accordingly, both the appellants fulfilled the
necessary formalities and preferred applications before AICTE
for grant of approval for off-campus. It is common ground that
AICTE has examined whether appellants fulfilled the
requirements of establishing off-campus establishment.
Thereafter, AICTE by order dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure P-14),
granted approval to maintain existing institution as well as off-
campus institutes. Since, the State Government did not take
any decision on appellants' application for grant of approval,
W.P.No.19082 of 2024 was filed, which was disposed of at
admission stage on 18.07.2024, directing the respondents to
examine the representation of appellants' dated 27.06.2024 and
take a decision within one week from the date of receipt of copy
of the order. The appellant on 22.07.2024 preferred
representation and informed the respondents about the Court
order passed in W.P.No.19082 of 2024. Since the respondents
did not take any decision, the present Writ Petitions were filed.
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing in both the appeals
appraised the Court that during the pendency of the Writ
Petitions, order dated 27.07.2024 (Annexure P-30) was passed
informing that the applications of the appellants' are deferred
for the academic year 2024-25.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants urged that
when the matter was argued before the learned Single Judge,
the department provided the copies of minutes to the Court on
the strength of which, the decision dated 27.07.2024 was taken.
The learned Single Judge in the impugned order, mentioned
about the reasons, on the strength of which, representation was
rejected and came to hold that such decision taken by the
department is in the realm of 'policy decision' taken by the
experts and therefore no interference is warranted.
7. It is common ground that while holding so, the Writ Court
itself held that the policy decision cannot be interfered with,
unless it violates any statutory provisions or is unconstitutional
in nature. It is submitted that in view of judgment of Supreme
Court in the cases of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
University v. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet 1 and Jawaharlal
Nehru Technological, University v. Crescent Educational
Society 2, it is prerogative of the State Government to take an
independent decision in the light of Section 20 of the Telangana
Education Act, 1982, (the Act) and mere grant of approval
AICTE does not give any enforceable right to the appellants to
establish off-campus institute. What is required to be examined
is whether the so called 'policy decision' fulfills the requirement
of Section 20 of the Act. Both the learned Senior counsel relied
on the said judgments and submit that twin reasons assigned in
the 'policy decision' are not inconsonance with Section 20 of the
Act. The first reason assigned is that the admission schedule of
the academic year has already been announced and the second
reason is that in the neighbouring states new AICTE guidelines
are yet to be implemented and their experiences are yet to be
examined. Thereafter, certain 'suggestions' were given which
are reduced in writing in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order
of the learned Single Judge.
(2019) 17 SCC 729
(2021) 16 SCC 165
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
8. It is submitted that the department by revised notification
(Annexure P-29) rescheduled academic schedule and
admissions are scheduled to be started with effect from
04.07.2024. This subsequent event itself shows that one main
reason for not taking decision on appellants' representation on
11.06.2024 does not survive. Secondly, the neighbouring state
also gave a permission to establish off-campus institute, which
is evident from G.O.Rt.No.117 dated 11.07.2024 issued by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh (Annexure P-27). In this view
of the matter, the respondents may be directed to consider the
representations of the appellants for grant of permission.
9. By placing heavy reliance on the judgment of Supreme
Court in the case of Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra), it is
submitted that Section 20 of the Act was considered by the
Supreme Court and its interpretation shows that the
Government was required to take decision in the teeth of certain
parameters. But, in the instant case, the representations of the
appellants' were not examined in the light of parameters
mentioned in Section 20 of the Act. Thus, the decision taken to
defer the representation is not inconsonance with Section 20 of
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
the Act. Such a decision is arbitrary and hits Article 14 of the
Constitution.
10. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior counsel placed
reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in Jaya
Gokul Educational Trust vs. Commissioner & Secretary to
Government Higher Education Department 3 to bolster his
submission that the department was required to consider the
provisions of AICTE ACT, approval granted by AICTE and by
conjointly reading AICTE regulations, JNTU regulations and
Section 20 of the Act, which were the determinative factor,
should have taken the decision, whereas, in the instant case,
the committee has not taken decision in the light of aforesaid
statutory provisions.
11. Per contra, Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special
Government Pleader supported the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge. On a specific query from the Bench, he
informed that the 'revised detailed notification' (Annexure P-29)
was issued on 22.06.2024. It is submitted in W.A.No.989 of
2024, that the appellant has shown its off-campus institute in
its website, despite the fact that no such permission was
(2005) 5 SCC 231
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
granted by the State Government. The counsel for appellants
urged that it was shown as proposed.
12. Learned counsel for State submits that the impugned
order is taken by the competent authorities. They are experts of
the subject and the learned Single Judge has rightly declined
interference in a policy order.
13. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated
above. We have bestowed our anxious considerations on rival
contentions and perused the record.
14. Admitted facts between the parties are that the AICTE has
given recognition/permission to the appellants to establish off-
campus institute. Thus, eligibility of the appellants under
AICTE provisions cannot be doubted. The respondents were
required to take decision in the light of Section 20 of the Act.
The Apex Court in the case of Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet
(supra) considered the ambit and scope of Section 20 of the Act,
the relevant portion reads as under:
"13. Section 20 of the 1982 Act deals with permission for
the establishment of educational institutions. Section 20(1)
provides that a competent authority shall conduct a survey
as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its
jurisdiction. Section 20(3) provides that any educational
agency applying for permission under Section 20(2) shall
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
before the permission is granted, satisfy the authority
concerned that there is a need for providing educational
facilities to the people in the locality. Section 20 is extracted
hereunder:
"20. Permission for establishment of
educational institutions.--
(1) The competent authority shall, from time to
time, conduct a survey as to identify the
educational needs of the locality under its
jurisdiction, and notify in the prescribed manner
through the local newspapers calling for
applications from the educational agencies
desirous of establishing educational institutions.
(2) In pursuance of the notification under sub-
section (1), any educational agency including
local authority or registered body of persons
intending to--
(a) establish an institution imparting education;
(b) open higher classes in an institution
imparting primary education;
(c) upgrade any such institution into a high
school; or
(d) open new courses (certificate, diploma,
degree, post-graduate degree courses, etc.),
may make an application, within such period in
such manner and to such authority as may be
notified for the grant of permission therefor.
(3) Any educational agency applying for
permission under sub-section (2) shall--
(a) before the permission is granted, satisfy the
authority concerned--
(i) that there is need for providing educational
facilities to the people in the locality;
(ii) that there is adequate financial provision for
continued and efficient maintenance of the
institution as prescribed by the competent
authority;
(iii) that the institution is proposed to be located
in sanitary and healthy surroundings;
(b) enclose to the application--
(i) title deeds relating to the site for building,
playground and garden proposed to be provided;
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
(ii) plans approved by the local authority
concerned which shall conform to the rules
prescribed therefor; and
(iii) documents evidencing availability of the
finances needed for constructing the proposed
buildings; and
(c) within the period specified by the authority
concerned in the order granting permission--
(i) appoint teaching staff qualified according to
the rules made by the Government in this behalf;
(ii) satisfy the other requirements laid down by
this Act and the rules and orders made
thereunder failing which it shall be competent for
the said authority to cancel the permission.
(4) On and from the commencement of the
Andhra Pradesh Education (Amendment) Act,
1987, no educational institution shall be
established except in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and any person who
contravenes the provisions of this section or who
after the permission granted to him under this
section having been cancelled continues to run
such institution shall be punished with simple
imprisonment which shall not be less than six
months but which may extend to three years and
with fine which shall not be less than three
thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty
thousand rupees:
Provided further that the court convicting a
person under this section shall also order the
closure of the institution with respect to which
the offence is committed."
(emphasis supplied)
14. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of Section
20(1) makes it clear that the survey is conducted so as to
identify the educational needs of the locality would definitely
include within its ken how many institutions are operating
in the area and whether there is any further requirement of
opening educational institutions/new courses in existing
colleges, and it is also imperative under Section 20(3)(a)(i)
that educational agency has to satisfy the authority that
there is a need for providing educational facilities to the
people in the locality. In case there are already a large
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
number of institutions imparting education in the area the
competent authority may be justified not to grant the NOC,
for permitting an institution to come up in the area."
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. A plain reading of the aforesaid paragraphs leaves no room
for any doubt that the litmus test prescribed under Section 20
of the Act makes it obligatory for the department to take into
account the different factors. Such as (i) how many institutes
are operating in the area; (ii) whether there is any further
requirement of opening educational institutions/new courses of
existing colleges; and (iii) whether educational agency has
satisfied the department that there is need for providing
educational facilities to the people in the locality etc.
16. If the impugned order is tested in the light of the aforesaid
paragraphs of Supreme Court judgment wherein Section 20 of
the Act has been interpreted, it will be clear like cloudless sky
that twin reasons given in the minutes dated 11.06.2024 are
not arising out of those reasons/factors.
17. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that 'policy
decision' can be interfered on limited grounds. The learned
Single Judge rightly opined that such grounds may be
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
unconstitutionality of the decision or if it violates statutory
provision.
18. If the impugned policy decision dated 11.06.2024
extracted by learned Single Judge is examined it will be crystal
clear that the relevant factors arising out of Section 20 of the
Act has not been looked into by the competent authorities.
19. Apart from this, the subsequent event of extending the
date of admission and grant of permission to establish off-
campus course by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on
11.07.2024 is also a reason which require the authorities to re-
look into the matter.
20. So far, 'suggestions' part of the 'policy decision' dated
11.06.2024 is concerned, a careful reading of this portion
nowhere shows that the appellants' representations were
rejected on the ground that their off-campus institutions are not
established in rural areas. The appellants' representations were
simply deferred for aforesaid twin reasons and not based on the
'suggestions'.
21. As noticed above, both the reasons cannot sustain judicial
scrutiny for the simple reason that the 'policy decision' is not
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
taken by taking into account the statutory mandate and test
ingrained in Section 20 of the Act. Furthermore, the
subsequent events show that the department itself modified the
admission schedule and started it from 04.07.2024 and
Government of Andhra Pradesh gave permission to establish off-
campus establishment.
22. In this view of the matter, we are unable to persuade
ourselves with the line of reasoning given by the learned Writ
Court and further unable to treat the 'policy decision' dated
11.06.2024 as a sacrosanct policy decision which fulfils the
requirement of law. As a result, the orders of the learned Single
Judge dated 09.08.2024 in W.P.Nos.21333 of 2024 and 21352
of 2024 are set aside. The policy decision dated 11.06.2024 and
consequential communication dated 27.07.2024 are also set
aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the pending
representations of the appellants and take a fresh decision in
accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within seven
working days from today. In order to give a meaningful
consideration to the representations, if necessary, the
respondents may modify their counseling schedule.
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
23. With the above, the Writ Appeals are disposed of without
expressing any opinion on merits. There shall be no order as to
costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________
SUJOY PAUL, J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 14.08.2024
Note:
Issue C.C. today.
B/o. SA/GVR/MYK.
