Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 1177/2013 & CM 2216/2013
Order dated 22.02.2013 AMRAPALI INSTITUTE TECHNOLOGY AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.S.Udaya Kr.Sagar, Ms.Bina
Madhavan and Ms.Praseena Elizabeth Josephy, Advs.
Through : Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for setting aside the communication dated 6.2.2013 issued by respondent no.2 to the petitioner. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to inspect petitioner no.1 institute to verify the compliance.
2. With the consent of learned senior counsel for the petitioners and counsel for respondent no.2 the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of notice itself in view of the fact that respondent no.2 has entered appearance on an advance copy.
3. The necessary facts, to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition, are that in the year 2009 the petitioner no.1 institute was established. 2013:DHC:1008 Balika Vidyapith, Lakhisarai, is a registered charitable trust under the Societies Act, 1860. In the year 2009, Balika Vidyapith, Lakhisarai, had applied to respondent no.2, AICTE, for establishment of petitioner no.1 engineer institute. Respondent no.2 vide its letter dated 30.6.2009 accorded its approval to establish petitioner no.1 institute initially for a period of two years subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions as stated in the said letter. The initial approval was accorded for intake of 240 seats in four different streams. It is stated that for the year 2010-2011 a general approval was granted to all the institutions. The approval extended to the petitioner for the session 2011-2012 and 2010-2011 are disputed by respondent no.2. Meanwhile inspections were carried out at the petitioner institute. On 25.12.2011 petitioner no.1 submitted its application to respondent no.2 for extension of the approval granted to the petitioner. Pursuant to the request made by petitioner no.1, the expert committee appointed by respondent no.2 inspected petitioner no.1 institute and after satisfying itself of the pre-requisite conditions, respondent no.2 had accepted the fee for the same.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the premises of the petitioner institute having been inspected for almost on eight occasions there was no communication to the petitioners from respondent no.2 as to whether the extension of approval had been granted or not. Senior counsel further submits that on 7.12.2012 petitioner no.2 received a show cause notice dated 29.11.2012 from respondent no.2, wherein certain deficiencies were pointed out by respondent no.2. Petitioner no.1 vide letter dated 9.12.2012 submitted its reply to the said show cause notice to respondent no.2 on 10.12.2012. In the evening of 7.1.2013 petitioner no.1 received a fax from respondent no.2 for appearing before the Standing Complaint Committee on the very next day i.e. 8.1.2013. Senior counsel further submits that sufficient time was not granted by the respondent no.2 to enable the petitioners to collect and produce the required information, however, petitioner no.2 made himself available but he could not produce all the relevant material/document due to paucity of time. On the same date i.e. 8.1.2013 petitioner no.1 received a communication from respondent no.2 by email by which petitioner no.1 was informed that they are enabling „Add Program‟ button in the Program form for the Institute and advised petitioner no.1 to add only the existing programme that is for the academic year 2012-2013. Petitioner no.1 was also requested not to add any new programme in the application, any new programme not running in the institute and the corresponding courses in that programme would not be processed for the year 2013-14.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was shocked to receive the communication dated 6.2.2013 by which the approval granted to petitioner no.1 for the academic session 2009-2010 was withdrawn and no extension of approval for the sessions 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 was granted to petitioner no.1. Senior counsel further submits that as far as the approval for the year 2010-2011 is concerned, the same was granted to all the institutions on 5.7.2012, which is disputed by counsel for respondent no.2. Senior counsel contends that a request has been made to the Director of Technical Education, Patna, for shifting of all the students of the college to other approved colleges, which will have far reaching consequences on the students who are studying in the petitioner institute as supplementary examinations are in progress and the final examinations are scheduled to be held from 1.3.2013.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.2 has failed to take into consideration the reply to the show cause notice and the impugned order is devoid of any reason. Senior counsel further submits that while passing the impugned order, the respondent no.2 has failed to deal with the clarifications rendered by the petitioners in reply to the show cause notice and, thus, on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of this submission, reliance is placed by learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the case of Mekaster Trading Corporation v. Union of India and Others, reported at 106 (2003) DLT
573. Relevant portion reads as under:
10. Mr.Kumar contends that in the reply to the show cause notice petitioner no.1 has not disputed that there is any shortfall in the number of classrooms and the faculty members, and in view thereof no further reasons were required to be furnished to the petitioner in the impugned order and, thus, the judgments, sought to be relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the number of classes and faculty members are sufficient to teach the number of students, which have been admitted in the petitioner institute and, thus, it cannot be said that the college lacks the number of classrooms or faculty members.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record including the annexures, show cause notice, reply thereof, and the impugned order. The show cause notice, which was issued to the petitioner had pointed out eight deficiencies. The most important amongst those deficiencies were the non-availability of classrooms and the faculty members. As per the show cause notice, as against the requirement of 16 classrooms only 07 classrooms were available and as per the requirement of 64 faculty members only 31 members were available. The following reply to the show cause notice was issued by the respondent on 9.12.2012: “With reference to the letter of AICTE Vide F.No.NRO/1- 625637921-EOA/2011, November 29, 2012, that the following statement is being made.
1. As per Sl.No.1 for class room not ready under chapter IV read with Appendix 4. Total number of class room (16) as per – AICTE norms shall be ready within 6 months after getting the approval for the academic session-2012-13. Presently having total number of students in AIR (260 students) as year wise detail-73 students in 2009 batch, 125 students in 2010 batch & 62 students in 2011 batch -at present we are having 12 numbers of class room in AIT, Lakhisarai.
2. As per Sl.No.2 for faculty related issues under –5.[1] Chapter IV: Presently AIT Lakhisarai is having now 47 number of faculty in place of 64 faculty, the shortfall number of faculty shall be appointed within one month.
3. As per the Sl.No.4 for other facilities under Chapter IV read with Appendix 6. Whatever the deficiencies, shall fulfill within 90 days after getting the approval for the academic session 2012-13 & whatever existing facilities available, have been provided before the AICTE, New Delhi.
4. As per the S.No.8 for Funds related issue under appendix 17 clause 2.[5] Chapter I. Presently, AIT-Lakhisarai is having 2.35 Crores (Two crores thrity five lacs) Rupees as fixed deposit. Apart from this, an account in local S.B.I. Lakhisarai Branch for recurring/emergency vide A/c No.30845518676.”
13. A reading of the reply to the show cause notice would show that petitioner no.1 has not disputed the deficiencies with respect to the classrooms and the faculty members and in fact time was sought by petitioner no.1 to make up the deficiencies. In view of this, it cannot be said that the order is devoid of any reasons as petitioners have admitted the deficiencies, which were pointed out to them in the show cause notice. Further as far as the submission made by learned senior counsel for petitioner that the classrooms and the faculty members are sufficient having regard to the number of students, which have been admitted, is concerned, this ground was not raised by petitioners in the reply to the show cause notice and, thus, the same could not have been dealt with by respondent no.2 in the impugned notice. Should there be any force in this submission then it is really for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh.
14. I find force in the submission made by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the judgments, sought to be relied upon by senior counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to the facts of this case on account of the admissions of the petitioners that they do not have adequate classrooms and faculty members.
15. I find no infirmity in the order passed by respondent no.2 on 6.2.2013, however, the matter is remanded back to the Standing Complaint Committee to enable the petitioners to raise the ground that having regard to the number of students admitted there are sufficient classrooms and teachers. The respondent no.2 will issue a notice to the petitioner to appear along with all the relevant documents before the Standing Complaint Committee within fifteen days from today. The Standing Complaint Committee after granting a hearing to petitioner no.2 and or his representative, take all other steps, which will be required to satisfy themselves.
16. There is also force in the submission made by counsel for respondent no.2 that the petitioners cannot be allowed to continue in an unrecognized institute, however, keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case, that the supplementary examinations are in progress, the students will be permitted to appear only in the supplementary examination, and the final examinations, which are scheduled to be held from 1.3.2013 onwards in case the students have not already been transferred pursuant to the order dated 6.2.2013. This direction has been issued keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case so that the studies of the students are not disrupted and it may not be possible to transfer the student to any other approved college in such a short span of time. The students shall however be transferred after the examinations are concluded to any other approved college. It is made clear that the students will be informed by the petitioners about the orders passed by this Court today and the students should also be informed that in case the petitioners do not succeed what would be their fate, so that there is no false hope to the students. Let a copy of this order be sent to all the respondents herein.
17. Writ petition and application stand disposed of.
18.