Global Educational & Social Trust v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

3. I(eeping in,,'iew the suggestions, on 15tl' Scptember;'20lO tl',it Court had passed the following ordcr:- " I-I"ord Mr. I{ajiv Bansal, learned for the appellant, Mr'.I{akesh Dwivcdi, senior counsel with Mr. Amitesh learned counsel for the AICTE and Mr. 'falrvar, learnecl counsel for the Gruu S ingh lndraplastha University. counscl learncd I(umar', Mukr-rl Gobind Afler a considerable debate, without prejudice to the contentions that havc bccn raised or to be raised, a consenslls was arrivccl at that the educational institution, namely, Dclhi Global Institute of Management situatcd at Jasana, Faridabacl run by Global Educational and Social Trust, shall be inspectcd by a thrccmembcr committee of the AICTII and a three-member comrnittee of the responclcnt- University by 201t.' September, 2010. The committees of both the statutory aulhorities shall work in halmony and if there is any deficiency, the sarne shall be brought to thc notice of thc appeilanrinstitution and arlso to this Court.' Needless to s&y, both the cornmittees shall go together and inspcct the prcrnises. Mr. Arnitesh I(urnar, Mr.Mukul Talwar and Mr.Rajiv Bansal shall accolllpany the committee membels. 'Ihe expenscs madc fol the visits of the comrnittees as wcll as the J t,qA No. 6s5/2010 Pagc 2 colrnscl who are accorllpanying the cotnmittecs shall be borne by the appellant-institution as. conceclcd to by Mr. Rajiv llansal. All olhcr expenses as arc requisite shall also be borne by the appellant on being 'intimatcd.by fax or'.c-. mail by the Univelsity as wellas by the AICTll. As an ad intelim meadure, it is directcd that in case of success of appeal, thc respondent-University sliall hold anothcr counseling fbr filling up thc seats that have bccn allocated to the appellant-institution by thc AICTE. Call on 22'"' September, 2010."

4. Wrcn the appcal was taken up ou 22"d Scptcmbcl, Z}ifl, lbllowing order came to be passed:- "Tlris Couft on 15tl' September, 2010 hacl constituted trzvo committees of the rcspondent No.l-University as well as the AICTE and directed the cornmiltees to visit the appellant-institution along with three counsel, namely, Mr. Arnitesh l(umar, Mr. Mukul Talwar and \4r. I{ajiv Bansal. Bc it noted, Mr. Bansal had not accompanied the tearn. When the matter rvas taken up today, Mr. Talwar submitted a report on behalf of the respondent-university and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, subrnittecl a repoft on behalf of AICTE. If r,vc allou, ourselves to say so, that was not thc intention of the order which r,vas passcd on earlier occasion. We are reaily at a loss as to why there is so rnuch of cavil between the AICTE and the University on a factual position. I{owever, let the leports trc cxchanged and a meeting bc held by the AICTE authoritics with the University authorities and a decision be taken r,vhcthcr \, f a LPA NO. 655/2010 Page 3 the appellant-instihrtion me&s thc rccluisitc critcrii as pcr the norms/guiclelines fiatnccl ' by ttrc AICTE. Matter bc listecl on ltt October, 2010."

5. 'lhcreafter, as evincible, vat'iotts orders \rycl'e passccl atld eventually on 25t" November,2010 this Court recolded thzrt an inspcction tt as dilected had not taken placc and granted some morc timc to cornlllctc thc said excrcise. When the matter was called today, we havc becu apprised that a joint inspection has been taken up by the AICl'll artcl the rcspondent-Univcrsity and the inspection committee of botlr thc statutory authorities have found that there is no deficiency in tlie institLrtioti in pracsenti.

6. In view of the qtblesaid, it is dilected tliat if the appcllant files an application lbr grant of recognition/approval to the coursc before the AICTE, the same sliall bc placed before the Board, rvhich shall taltc a dccision u,ithin three weeks fi'om the date of submission of thc zrpplication for thc academic session 20Il-I[2]. Regard bcing had to tlic joint comtnittee inspection, after the AICTE takes a clecision, thc sattte shall bc corumruricated to the lespondent-Univcrsity, rvhich shall lilllorv the sanie in letter and spirit.

7. Nceclless to say ttot th" respondent-Univcrsity shall act pronrlltllr aftcr gctting thc commnnication fi'om thc AIC l"ll. Mr. Pzrrag P. 'Iripallii, learned Additional Solicitot' Geueral lcpl'csenting l.hc \b f LPA NO. 6ssl20t0 Pttgc,l respondcnt-Univelsity has fairly statecl that the Univcrsity'always eicts expeditiously and would not cause any delay or hindrance. Mr. \4anjit Singh, leamed Additional Advocate General. for the Statc of llat'yana has stated that tlle.state shall abide by the law. Ncedless to say that whcn thcrc is couclrrrence by the AICTE and University, the State Govcrnnrent in a case bf the present nature- has no role to leflise tlie NOC.

8. In view of the afbresaid, the appeal is disposcd of. As nothing remains to be adjudicated in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5831/2010, the samc also is deemed to have been disposed of. No ilrder as to costs. g! -' CX{XEF J{JS'['ICE I Qc[*. sAN.rIV KIIA.NNA, J. JANUAT{Y 06,2011 VKII. @i @ l.PA NO. 655/2010 - Paec 5 ( T. EXAI*dIt'{