Full Judgment Text
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 30 May, 2014
+ LPA 426/2014
DR. VIJAY INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Chandrashekhar Singh, Mr. Aastha
Dhawan, Advs.
Versus
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
C.M.No.9848/2014 (exemptions)
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
LPA No.426/2014
3. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 22.05.2014 of the
learned Single Judge of this Court of while issuing notice of W.P.(C)
No.3296/2014 preferred by the appellant, declining to pass any interim order
at that stage observing:
“Since a number of serious shortcomings like absence of stock
register of office equipments, lab equipments and lack of boys
common room, girls common room, cafeteria, stationary store,
class rooms etc. have been pointed by the expert team in its
LPA No.426/2014 Page 1 of 10
inspection report, this Court is not inclined to pass any interim
order at this stage.”
4. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed by the
appellant impugning the communication dated 30.04.2014 of the respondent
AICTE to the appellant rejecting the application of the appellant for setting
up of new technical institute for the reasons mentioned therein and as
noticed by the learned Single Judge and seeking a direction to the
respondent AICTE to inspect the institute of the appellant in order to grant
necessary approval for the academic year 2014-15. The writ petition was
accompanied with the application for interim relief also, of a direction to the
respondent AICTE to inspect the institute of the petitioner for the purposes
of granting necessary approval for the academic year 2014-15.
5. The appellant on 28.02.2014 applied to the respondent AICTE for
grant of approval for polytechnic college in the name and style of Dr. Vijay
Institute of Education and Technology at village Bandaha Kala, near
Markandey Ji, Post – Kaithi, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.
The application of the appellant was processed, in accordance with the
Approval Process Handbook published by the respondent AICTE, first by
the Scrutiny Committee of the respondent AICTE. Several deficiencies were
found in the said application and the appellant was given an opportunity to
make up the said deficiencies. However the deficiencies remained and yet
another opportunity was granted to the appellant to make up the same but the
appellant admittedly could not avail thereof “due to illness in his family”.
The pleadings of the appellant are ambiguous and it appears that due to the
appellant being unable to cross the first hurdle of clearance of the
LPA No.426/2014 Page 2 of 10
application by the Scrutiny Committee, the stage for the college premises of
the appellant to be inspected by the Expert Committee did not reach. The
th
respondent AICTE vide letter dated 25 March, 2014 communicated to the
appellant the rejection of his application. Though the appellant has filed a
copy of the said letter as Annexure P-3 to the appeal but has not filed the
enclosures thereto which are stated to contain the reasons for rejection.
6. Be that as it may, again in accordance with the procedure prescribed
in the Approval Process Handbook and being aggrieved from the rejection of
his application for approval, the appellant preferred an appeal to the
Standing Appellate Committee of the respondent AICTE. The Appellate
Committee again in accordance with prescribed procedure first put the said
appeal before the Scrutiny Committee. The appellant appears to have
satisfied the Scrutiny Committee of the Appellate Committee that it fulfilled
all the pre-conditions for grant of approval. The Scrutiny Committee of the
Appellate Committee accordingly directed inspection of the college
premises of the appellant.
th
7. The said inspection took place on 7 April, 2014. However the
appellant on that date did not allow the inspection to take place. After the
inspecting team had in the format prescribed of such inspection inter alia
filled up that the flooring and furnishing of the class rooms was incomplete,
there were no fans and no light and no flooring in the tutorial room and
several other deficiencies, the representative of the appellant advised the
inspecting team to “leave the place urgently in view of some group clashes”.
Accordingly, the inspecting team (described as EVC i.e. probably Expert
Visiting Committee) “left the place without completing the visit”.
LPA No.426/2014 Page 3 of 10
8. The report of the Expert Committee was considered by the appropriate
th
authority of the respondent AICTE which vide communication dated 30
April, 2014 supra conveyed to the appellant the rejection of its appeal to the
Standing Appellate Committee and thereby of rejection of its application for
approval for the following reasons:-
th
% Date of decision: 30 May, 2014
+ LPA 426/2014
DR. VIJAY INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Chandrashekhar Singh, Mr. Aastha
Dhawan, Advs.
Versus
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
C.M.No.9848/2014 (exemptions)
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
LPA No.426/2014
3. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 22.05.2014 of the
learned Single Judge of this Court of while issuing notice of W.P.(C)
No.3296/2014 preferred by the appellant, declining to pass any interim order
at that stage observing:
“Since a number of serious shortcomings like absence of stock
register of office equipments, lab equipments and lack of boys
common room, girls common room, cafeteria, stationary store,
class rooms etc. have been pointed by the expert team in its
LPA No.426/2014 Page 1 of 10
inspection report, this Court is not inclined to pass any interim
order at this stage.”
4. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed by the
appellant impugning the communication dated 30.04.2014 of the respondent
AICTE to the appellant rejecting the application of the appellant for setting
up of new technical institute for the reasons mentioned therein and as
noticed by the learned Single Judge and seeking a direction to the
respondent AICTE to inspect the institute of the appellant in order to grant
necessary approval for the academic year 2014-15. The writ petition was
accompanied with the application for interim relief also, of a direction to the
respondent AICTE to inspect the institute of the petitioner for the purposes
of granting necessary approval for the academic year 2014-15.
5. The appellant on 28.02.2014 applied to the respondent AICTE for
grant of approval for polytechnic college in the name and style of Dr. Vijay
Institute of Education and Technology at village Bandaha Kala, near
Markandey Ji, Post – Kaithi, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.
The application of the appellant was processed, in accordance with the
Approval Process Handbook published by the respondent AICTE, first by
the Scrutiny Committee of the respondent AICTE. Several deficiencies were
found in the said application and the appellant was given an opportunity to
make up the said deficiencies. However the deficiencies remained and yet
another opportunity was granted to the appellant to make up the same but the
appellant admittedly could not avail thereof “due to illness in his family”.
The pleadings of the appellant are ambiguous and it appears that due to the
appellant being unable to cross the first hurdle of clearance of the
LPA No.426/2014 Page 2 of 10
application by the Scrutiny Committee, the stage for the college premises of
the appellant to be inspected by the Expert Committee did not reach. The
th
respondent AICTE vide letter dated 25 March, 2014 communicated to the
appellant the rejection of his application. Though the appellant has filed a
copy of the said letter as Annexure P-3 to the appeal but has not filed the
enclosures thereto which are stated to contain the reasons for rejection.
6. Be that as it may, again in accordance with the procedure prescribed
in the Approval Process Handbook and being aggrieved from the rejection of
his application for approval, the appellant preferred an appeal to the
Standing Appellate Committee of the respondent AICTE. The Appellate
Committee again in accordance with prescribed procedure first put the said
appeal before the Scrutiny Committee. The appellant appears to have
satisfied the Scrutiny Committee of the Appellate Committee that it fulfilled
all the pre-conditions for grant of approval. The Scrutiny Committee of the
Appellate Committee accordingly directed inspection of the college
premises of the appellant.
th
7. The said inspection took place on 7 April, 2014. However the
appellant on that date did not allow the inspection to take place. After the
inspecting team had in the format prescribed of such inspection inter alia
filled up that the flooring and furnishing of the class rooms was incomplete,
there were no fans and no light and no flooring in the tutorial room and
several other deficiencies, the representative of the appellant advised the
inspecting team to “leave the place urgently in view of some group clashes”.
Accordingly, the inspecting team (described as EVC i.e. probably Expert
Visiting Committee) “left the place without completing the visit”.
LPA No.426/2014 Page 3 of 10
8. The report of the Expert Committee was considered by the appropriate
th
authority of the respondent AICTE which vide communication dated 30
April, 2014 supra conveyed to the appellant the rejection of its appeal to the
Standing Appellate Committee and thereby of rejection of its application for
approval for the following reasons:-
| “1. | No advertisement copy. Stock register or laboratory<br>equipments (first year laboratories)* Not presented,<br>Stock register of computer, system software,<br>application software, printers? Not presented |
|---|---|
| 2. | Stock register of office equipment* - Not presented,<br>Availability of Language Laboratory (Mandatory as<br>per AICTE norms) – Not presented. Availability of<br>portable water supply – Not presented |
| 3. | Sanction of electrical load by electric supply provider<br>company – Not presented. Provision of backup power<br>supply – Not presented. A certificate by an architect<br>given details of sewage disposal system (physical<br>verification of the same is to be done) – Not presented. |
| 4. | Details and proof of telephone connections available<br>at the proposal technical institute – Not presented.<br>Availability of institute website – Not presented. |
| 5. | Barrier free environment and toilets created for<br>physically challenged (Ramp or working Lift etc.) –<br>Not presented. Safety provisions including fire and<br>other calamities – Not presented |
| 6. | General Insurance provided for assets against fire,<br>burglary and other calamities – not presented. All<br>weather approach road – Not presented. Details and |
LPA No.426/2014 Page 4 of 10
| proof about medical facility and counselling<br>arrangements – not presented | |
|---|---|
| 7. | Details of other institutions not presented. No video<br>provided. Internet Bandwidth, Legal Application S/W,<br>Legal System S/W, Language Laboratory – Not<br>available |
| 8. | Volumes, titles, National Journals, Library<br>Management Software, Multi Media PC, E-Journal<br>subscription / international journals – not applicable,<br>stock register entry for volumes, titles, national<br>journals, library management software, reading room<br>capacity, multimedia PC, E-Journals/international<br>journals not verified |
| 9. | Principal / Director Office, Central Store,<br>Maintenance room, Security cabin, Housekeeping,<br>Exam Control Office, Office all inclusive – not<br>available |
| 10. | Boys common Room, Girls common Room, Cafeteria,<br>Stationary Store, First Aid cum Sick Room, Class<br>Rooms, Tutorial Room, Laboratories, Workshops,<br>Drawing Halls – Not available |
| 11. | Note:- Visit was interrupted by the college<br>management due to some group clashes as per the<br>information of institute representative. On their<br>request EVC members left the campus without<br>completing the inspection.” |
LPA No.426/2014 Page 5 of 10
9. Aggrieved therefrom the writ petition from which this appeal arises,
was filed.
10. The sole ground urged by the counsel for the appellant is that since
the college premises of the appellant had not been fully inspected and since
the time for grant of approval is still available in accordance with the order
th
dated 9 May, 2014 of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.7277/2014 titled
Orissa Technical Colleges Association Vs. AICTE and the Public Notice
th
dated 10 May, 2014 published by the respondent AICTE in accordance
therewith, the college premises of the appellant be directed to be visited
again and the college of the appellant if found to fulfill all the conditions, be
granted approval.
11. The counsel for the respondent AICTE appearing on advance notice
states that in accordance with the order aforesaid of the Supreme Court,
th
approvals have to be granted / rejected latest by 10 June, 2014. He further
states that the respondent AICTE is having to process large number of
applications and out of which in quite a few applications even the first
inspections have not been done as yet. It is informed that the respondent
AICTE is facing an acute shortage of persons to constitute Expert
Committees for carrying out such inspections and it is not feasible for the
respondent AICTE to have college premises of the appellant visited again.
12. Though the argument of the counsel for the appellant appears
attractive but the practicalities of life cannot be lost sight of. It also cannot
be lost sight of that the appellant has invoked the discretionary equitable
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Else the All India
LPA No.426/2014 Page 6 of 10
Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the Regulations framed
thereunder attach a finality to the decision of the respondent AICTE and
which as aforesaid is at two levels with an opportunity for hearing in the
form of appeal before the Standing Appellate Committee being provided in
th
the said procedure itself. We have in our judgment dated 29 May, 2014 in
W.P.(C) No.3244/2014 titled Meenakshi College of Pharmacy & Research
Centre Vs. All India Council for Technical Education negated the
challenge to the Regulations 4&5 of the All India Council for Technical
Education (Grant of Approval for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2012
as ultra vires Sections 10 & 11 of the All India Council for Technical
Education Act as well as Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India. Need
is thus not felt to reiterate the reasons given therein in this judgment.
13. We have enquired from the counsel for the appellant as to what is the
th
proof of the “group clashes” on 7 April, 2014 i.e. the date of the visit by the
Inspecting Committee to the college premises of the appellant and owing
whereto the appellant did not allow the inspection to be completed and on
which sole ground a second chance is being asked. We further enquired
whether there is any FIR.
14. Not only does the counsel for the appellant admit that there is no FIR
but even otherwise there is no proof of such group clashes. Though the
counsel for the appellant faintly sought to argue that in fact the members of
the inspecting team had of their own and without being asked by the
appellant or its representative to leave, left the inspection incomplete but
admittedly there is no pleading to the said effect. In fact in the writ petition
as well as in the Memorandum of Appeal the reason given for the inspection
LPA No.426/2014 Page 7 of 10
th
remaining incomplete on 7 April, 2014 is of such group clashes and of
which as per the report which is not disputed, intimation and advise was
given by the representative of the appellant, is reiterated.
15. The position, in our opinion admits of no ambiguity. The college
premises of the appellant were not ready and did not fulfill the conditions,
th
only on complying wherewith approval could be granted as on 7 April,
2014 i.e. the date of the inspection. The appellant thus did not allow the
th
inspection to take place. It appears that the appellant, when on 28 February,
2014 applied for approval had just commenced the work of construction and
/ or was in the process of completing the construction and furbishing of the
college premises. The appellant becomes eligible to apply for approval only
when the college premises are ready. The appellant however appears to have
moved with the intent that he would complete by the time the inspection
takes place. It is for this reason only that the appellant did allow inspection
to take place in the first round of scrutiny also and did not fill up the
deficiencies in the application and did not avail the opportunity given
therefor and continued to complete the construction and furbishing of the
college premises. To gain further time the appellant filed appeal and at that
stage filled up the deficiencies in the application and which led the Scrutiny
Committee of the Appellate Committee to direct inspection. However it
appears that the documents showed to the Scrutiny Committee of the
Appellate Committee and reflecting that the college premises were ready
were also incorrect. It is for this reason only that the appellant shied from
giving inspection.
LPA No.426/2014 Page 8 of 10
th
16. The appellant immediately after 7 April, 2014 did not ask for fresh
inspection on the ground of peace having been restored. He allowed the
Standing Appellate Committee of the respondent AICTE to issue the letter
th
dated 30 April, 2014 of rejection. In the meanwhile the appellant continued
the process of fulfilling the conditions for grant of approval. The writ
nd
petition also was got listed after 22 days on 22 May, 2014. If the college
premises of the appellant were laying ready, the appellant at that stage also,
considering the time schedule would not have allowed 22 days to lapse.
17. The aforesaid conduct of the appellant of attempting to take advantage
of the process and to compel and coerce the respondent AICTE to now give
him “a second chance” when the appellant’s own hands are unclean
disentitle the appellant to any equitable relief in the writ petition much less
at an interim stage. We have no reason to disbelieve the statement of the
counsel for the respondent AICTE being flooded with applications and
finding it difficult to fulfill the time schedule before which the academic
session begins. The direction of re-inspection as sought by the appellant
would perhaps be at the cost of some other institute which has not even been
inspected for the first time as yet.
18. The appellant has also referred us to Parshvanath Charitable Trust
Vs. All India Council for Technical Education (2013) 3 SCC 385 stating
that as per the said judgment the respondent AICTE is required to first give
notice of the deficiencies found during the inspection and contends that the
said procedure has not been followed. We have in Meenakshi College of
Pharmacy & Research Centre supra held that the said directions are not
LPA No.426/2014 Page 9 of 10
intended to substitute the procedure prescribed in the Regulations. We find
no reason to take a different view.
19. We find no reason to give a “second chance” to the appellant
particularly in appeal when no error is found in the discretion exercised by
the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
MAY 30, 2014
gsr/pp
LPA No.426/2014 Page 10 of 10