Full Judgment Text
2015:BHC-AS:19833-DB
1/8 1_wp_4807_2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4807 OF 2015
1. Hyderabad (Sind) National Collegiate
Board,
A Society Registered under the
Provisions of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 and a Trust registered under
the Provisions of the Bombay Public
Trust Act Having its registered office at
Kishinchand Chellaram College Building
124, Dinshaw Vachha Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai 400 020
2. Watumall Institute of Electronics,
Engineering and Computer Technology
situated at 47, R.G. Thadani Marg, Near
Venus Apartment, Worli,
Mumbai400 018 ...Petitioners
Versus
1. All India Council for Technical
Education, (AICTE), through its Advisor
II (Approval Bureau / Member
Secretary), a statutory body of the Govt.
th
of India, 7 floor, Chandralok Building,
Janpath, New Delhi110 001.
2. The Regional Officer,
nd
AICTE, Western Region Office, 2 floor,
Industrial Assurance Building, Veer
Nariman Road, Opp. Churchgate Railway
Station, Mumbai 400 020.
Megha 1
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
2/8 1_wp_4807_2015
3. State of Maharashtra through The
Secretary, Higher and Technical
Education, Govt. of Maharashtra
Mantralaya Annex Building,
Mumbai – 400 032.
4. The Director of Technical Education,
Govt. of Maharashtra, 3, Mahapalika
Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai 400 001.
5. The Pravesh Niyantran Samiti,
having its office at 305, Govt. of
Polytechnical Building, Kherwadi, Ali
Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East),
Mumbai400 051.
6. The Registrar,
University of Mumbai, University
Campus,
Fort, Mumbai 400 032. ...Respondents.
…..
Mr. Pravin Shewale i/b. Mr. J.S. Chandnani for the
Petitioners
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S. Jadhav
and Mr. Sarnath Sariputta for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Ms S.S. Bhende, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for
Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
Mr. R.A. Rodrigues for Respondent No.6.
…..
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 24, 2015.
Megha 2
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
3/8 1_wp_4807_2015
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):
Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
the parties, taken up forthwith for final hearing.
2. The Petitioners are a minority Sindhi community
institution, which runs various colleges, including professional
colleges and schools based upon requisite affiliation/ approval,
th
have filed this petition dated 8 May, 2015. Counsel appearing for
the parties conceded the position that in view of the judgment
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4586 of 2015 ( Saraswati
Education Society's Saraswati College of Engineering V/s. All
India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) & Anr) and in
Writ Petition No.4620 of 2015 ( Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil college
of Engineering V/s. All India Council for Technical Education &
Ors.) this petition must succeed as the issues are identical in
present writ petition and, therefore, it can be disposed of for the
recorded common facts and the reasons in the said judgments.
Megha 3
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
4/8 1_wp_4807_2015
3. On 16.11.1981 Petitioner No.2 institute was established
with a post graduate diploma course affiliated to the Board of
Technical Examination, Maharashtra State with the permission of
Technical Education Department. Initially it was an aided institute.
On 21.7.1983 Petitioner No.2 affiliated to University of Mumbai.
Petitioner No.2 institute was receiving grantinaid from State of
Maharashtra to run the three year degree course in electronic
engineering, computer technology and electronic instrumentation
(hereinafter referred to as “the B.Sc. (Tech) Course”) in the period
of 19842002.
4. Petitioner No.2 started four year degree course B.E. in
the year 20032004.
5. Petitioner No.2 was granted extension of approval by
Respondent No.1 AICTE in the period of 19942013. On 23.8.2013
Petitioner No.2 applied to University of Mumbai for continuation of
affiliation and paid requisite fees.
Megha 4
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
5/8 1_wp_4807_2015
6. On 9.1.2014 the Petitioners paid yearly affiliation fees.
On 21.5.2014 Petitioner No.2 applied to Respondent No.2 for
extension of approval for the academic year 201415. On
22.5.2014 show cause notice was issued by Respondent No.1
stating that on surprise visit on 17.2.2014 certain deficiencies viz.
(i) plot area is 2438.15 sq.mtr. instead of 2.5 acres i.e. 10117 sq.m.
(ii) Staff students ratio 0:9:33 (9 Adhoc) against 1+5:12:38 and
(iii) Cadre ratio at present is 0:9:33 against the required ratio
5:12:38 excluding Principal were noticed. On 3.6.2014 reply filed
by the Principal of Petitioner No.2 college that no misrepresentation
or concealment of factual position with regard to land and
extension of approval was being given. Petitioner No.2 had
requisite infrastructure. It was pointed out that it was not possible
to improve deficiency with regard to land as there was acute
shortage of land in Mumbai. So far as staff student ratio and cadre
ratio is concerned, it was assured that the same will be removed
within a short period. On 23/24.6.2014 the impugned order was
Megha 5
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
6/8 1_wp_4807_2015
passed by Respondent No.1 placing Petitioner No.2 under no
admission category for the academic year 201415. In July, 2014
Petitioners filed Writ Petition (L) No.1488 of 2014 in this Court.
On 15.7.2014 this Hon'ble Court stayed the said order and granted
adinterim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) whereby Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 were directed to continue to include Petitioner No.2's
name for the centralized admission process. On 12.11.2014
Petitioners made representations for shifting of Petitioner No.2
from Worli to Ulhasnagar. On 30.4.2015 Petitioners received the
impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 thereby putting
Petitioner No.2 in “no admission” category for the Academic year
201516.
7. The Petitioners have placed on record a detailed chart
referring to the deficiencies and their respectful compliances and
justifications / reply to the same, which are supported by
documents. After going through the same, we are of the view that
a case is made out for the reliefs so sought by the Petitioners. All
Megha 6
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
7/8 1_wp_4807_2015
these issues about requisite land, building, affiliation every year,
deficiencies in staff, student and cadre ratio have been dealt with in
detail in above judgments. Therefore, for same reasons also we are
inclined to allow the petition. Hence, following order is passed :
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a).
th
(b) Interim order passed by this Court on 13 May
2015 is confirmed.
(c) The Respondents are directed to consider the
representation/case of the Petitioners,
specifically on the issue of cadre and faculty and
related aspects by giving an opportunity of
hearing and pass a reasoned order, at the
earliest.
(d) The RespondentUniversity is directed that in
order to avoid the delay in appointments of
teaching faculty in the institution like the
Megha 7
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
8/8 1_wp_4807_2015
Petitioners, the proposals received for approval
of draft advertisement, roaster, nomination of the
subject experts, nomination of nominee of the
Vice Chancellor and approval of the candidates
selected through duly constituted Selection
Committee, such proposals be decided in an
expeditious and time bound manner so as to
avoid deficiencies in respect of the same being
shown by the AICTE in the proposals of such
institution for extension of approval.
(e) The Petitioners to take steps to remove the
deficiencies, even if any, as early as possible.
(f) Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
(g) Rule made absolute accordingly.
(h) There shall be no order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
Megha 8
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
1/8 1_wp_4807_2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4807 OF 2015
1. Hyderabad (Sind) National Collegiate
Board,
A Society Registered under the
Provisions of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 and a Trust registered under
the Provisions of the Bombay Public
Trust Act Having its registered office at
Kishinchand Chellaram College Building
124, Dinshaw Vachha Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai 400 020
2. Watumall Institute of Electronics,
Engineering and Computer Technology
situated at 47, R.G. Thadani Marg, Near
Venus Apartment, Worli,
Mumbai400 018 ...Petitioners
Versus
1. All India Council for Technical
Education, (AICTE), through its Advisor
II (Approval Bureau / Member
Secretary), a statutory body of the Govt.
th
of India, 7 floor, Chandralok Building,
Janpath, New Delhi110 001.
2. The Regional Officer,
nd
AICTE, Western Region Office, 2 floor,
Industrial Assurance Building, Veer
Nariman Road, Opp. Churchgate Railway
Station, Mumbai 400 020.
Megha 1
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
2/8 1_wp_4807_2015
3. State of Maharashtra through The
Secretary, Higher and Technical
Education, Govt. of Maharashtra
Mantralaya Annex Building,
Mumbai – 400 032.
4. The Director of Technical Education,
Govt. of Maharashtra, 3, Mahapalika
Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai 400 001.
5. The Pravesh Niyantran Samiti,
having its office at 305, Govt. of
Polytechnical Building, Kherwadi, Ali
Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East),
Mumbai400 051.
6. The Registrar,
University of Mumbai, University
Campus,
Fort, Mumbai 400 032. ...Respondents.
…..
Mr. Pravin Shewale i/b. Mr. J.S. Chandnani for the
Petitioners
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S. Jadhav
and Mr. Sarnath Sariputta for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Ms S.S. Bhende, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for
Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
Mr. R.A. Rodrigues for Respondent No.6.
…..
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 24, 2015.
Megha 2
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
3/8 1_wp_4807_2015
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):
Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
the parties, taken up forthwith for final hearing.
2. The Petitioners are a minority Sindhi community
institution, which runs various colleges, including professional
colleges and schools based upon requisite affiliation/ approval,
th
have filed this petition dated 8 May, 2015. Counsel appearing for
the parties conceded the position that in view of the judgment
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4586 of 2015 ( Saraswati
Education Society's Saraswati College of Engineering V/s. All
India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) & Anr) and in
Writ Petition No.4620 of 2015 ( Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil college
of Engineering V/s. All India Council for Technical Education &
Ors.) this petition must succeed as the issues are identical in
present writ petition and, therefore, it can be disposed of for the
recorded common facts and the reasons in the said judgments.
Megha 3
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
4/8 1_wp_4807_2015
3. On 16.11.1981 Petitioner No.2 institute was established
with a post graduate diploma course affiliated to the Board of
Technical Examination, Maharashtra State with the permission of
Technical Education Department. Initially it was an aided institute.
On 21.7.1983 Petitioner No.2 affiliated to University of Mumbai.
Petitioner No.2 institute was receiving grantinaid from State of
Maharashtra to run the three year degree course in electronic
engineering, computer technology and electronic instrumentation
(hereinafter referred to as “the B.Sc. (Tech) Course”) in the period
of 19842002.
4. Petitioner No.2 started four year degree course B.E. in
the year 20032004.
5. Petitioner No.2 was granted extension of approval by
Respondent No.1 AICTE in the period of 19942013. On 23.8.2013
Petitioner No.2 applied to University of Mumbai for continuation of
affiliation and paid requisite fees.
Megha 4
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
5/8 1_wp_4807_2015
6. On 9.1.2014 the Petitioners paid yearly affiliation fees.
On 21.5.2014 Petitioner No.2 applied to Respondent No.2 for
extension of approval for the academic year 201415. On
22.5.2014 show cause notice was issued by Respondent No.1
stating that on surprise visit on 17.2.2014 certain deficiencies viz.
(i) plot area is 2438.15 sq.mtr. instead of 2.5 acres i.e. 10117 sq.m.
(ii) Staff students ratio 0:9:33 (9 Adhoc) against 1+5:12:38 and
(iii) Cadre ratio at present is 0:9:33 against the required ratio
5:12:38 excluding Principal were noticed. On 3.6.2014 reply filed
by the Principal of Petitioner No.2 college that no misrepresentation
or concealment of factual position with regard to land and
extension of approval was being given. Petitioner No.2 had
requisite infrastructure. It was pointed out that it was not possible
to improve deficiency with regard to land as there was acute
shortage of land in Mumbai. So far as staff student ratio and cadre
ratio is concerned, it was assured that the same will be removed
within a short period. On 23/24.6.2014 the impugned order was
Megha 5
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
6/8 1_wp_4807_2015
passed by Respondent No.1 placing Petitioner No.2 under no
admission category for the academic year 201415. In July, 2014
Petitioners filed Writ Petition (L) No.1488 of 2014 in this Court.
On 15.7.2014 this Hon'ble Court stayed the said order and granted
adinterim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) whereby Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 were directed to continue to include Petitioner No.2's
name for the centralized admission process. On 12.11.2014
Petitioners made representations for shifting of Petitioner No.2
from Worli to Ulhasnagar. On 30.4.2015 Petitioners received the
impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 thereby putting
Petitioner No.2 in “no admission” category for the Academic year
201516.
7. The Petitioners have placed on record a detailed chart
referring to the deficiencies and their respectful compliances and
justifications / reply to the same, which are supported by
documents. After going through the same, we are of the view that
a case is made out for the reliefs so sought by the Petitioners. All
Megha 6
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
7/8 1_wp_4807_2015
these issues about requisite land, building, affiliation every year,
deficiencies in staff, student and cadre ratio have been dealt with in
detail in above judgments. Therefore, for same reasons also we are
inclined to allow the petition. Hence, following order is passed :
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a).
th
(b) Interim order passed by this Court on 13 May
2015 is confirmed.
(c) The Respondents are directed to consider the
representation/case of the Petitioners,
specifically on the issue of cadre and faculty and
related aspects by giving an opportunity of
hearing and pass a reasoned order, at the
earliest.
(d) The RespondentUniversity is directed that in
order to avoid the delay in appointments of
teaching faculty in the institution like the
Megha 7
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::
8/8 1_wp_4807_2015
Petitioners, the proposals received for approval
of draft advertisement, roaster, nomination of the
subject experts, nomination of nominee of the
Vice Chancellor and approval of the candidates
selected through duly constituted Selection
Committee, such proposals be decided in an
expeditious and time bound manner so as to
avoid deficiencies in respect of the same being
shown by the AICTE in the proposals of such
institution for extension of approval.
(e) The Petitioners to take steps to remove the
deficiencies, even if any, as early as possible.
(f) Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
(g) Rule made absolute accordingly.
(h) There shall be no order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
Megha 8
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:06 :::