Allowed

C/M Karmyog Sewa Samiti, Jalaun Thru. Manager Surendra Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2024/4134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the DM Jalaun's report and a subsequent order denying no objection for running D.Pharma and B.Pharma courses on two acres of land. The Court held the report prima facie contrary to Note (b) of the AICTE Approval Process Handbook, quashed both orders, and remitted the matter for a fresh report and decision within fixed timelines.

What the court decided

AI extract

C/M Karmyog Sewa Samiti, Jalaun Thru. Manager… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37319

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4134 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- C/M Karmyog Sewa Samiti, Jalaun Thru. Manager Surendra Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Technical Education, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Lalit Shukla,Ravi Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Aditya Vikram Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 3 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Aditya Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3, Sri Raghvendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 7.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the opposite party no. 3 as well as the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun.

¶9

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Institution, namely, Gyan Yog Siksha Sansthan is running two courses, namely, Diploma in Pharmacy and Bachelor in Pharmacy. He added that the petitioner no. 2 applied for no objection before the District Magistrate, while invoking the provision provided in the Approval Process Handbook of AICTE but the same was denied on the premise that since, four acres of land is required for running both the institutions and the institutions are running on two acres of land only. He has further drawn attention towards the provision of the Approval Process Handbook, Note (b), at page 86 of the paper book and submitted that it is provided that 'Diploma and Degree Pharmacy Programme shall be permitted to run in the same Institution with the same land area'. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that in this view of the matter, only two acres of land is required for running two courses, namely, course of D.Pharma and B.Pharma in the same institution, in the same land area.

¶10

He further argued that the report of the District Magistrate,

¶11

Jalaun is contrary to the provisions envisaged under the Approval Process Handbook and finding itself is contrary. Therefore, submissions is that the report of the District Magistrate, Jalaun as well as the decision thereafter vide order dated 16.04.2024 are erroneous and liable to be quashed.

¶12

On the other hand, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State on the basis of instruction submits that there is only one acre of land with the Institution and rest one acre of land, has been leased out to the Society by the Institution and thus, the District Magistrate has rightly furnished/uploaded the reported dated 30.03.2024.

¶13

Upon considering the submission of the counsel for the parties, it transpires that what instructions is being placed today, is contrary to the findings as recorded in the report dated 30.03.2024 by the District Magistrate concerned as the District Magistrate has observed that there are only two acres of land in the name of Institution as four acres of land is required as per the norms, whereas, the provision of Approval Process Handbook of AICTE is evident that for running two course in one institute, is permitted in two acres of land.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, the report dated 30.03.2024 is, prima facie, erroneous. Thus, the order dated 16.04.2024 and the report dated 30.03.2024 are hereby quashed.

¶15

Matter is relegated back to the District Magistrate concerned to upload/submit fresh report in accordance with the provision Note (b) of the Approval Process Handbook of AICTE, including other relevant provisions as well, within further period of three weeks to the authority concerned.

¶16

It is further provided that if such report is uploaded, the competent authority is further directed to take decision, within further period of two weeks.

¶17

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is hereby allowed at admission stage.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.5.2024 Anurag, PS Gr-I

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

C/M Karmyog Sewa Samiti, Jalaun Thru. Manager Surendra Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

C/M Karmyog Sewa Samiti, Jalaun Thru. Manager Surendra Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhananjay Singh Vs State of Up. through Addl Chief Secretary Basic Education Goverment of U.P and Others

Chhanga Lal Vs Cooperative Tribunal U.P. Thru Its Adhyaksh Lko.and Another

Krishna Shashi Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu. U.P. Lucknow and Ors.

Satya Prabha Charitable Trust, Sultanpur Thru. Managing Trustee Narendra Bahadur Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Medical Education, Lucknow and Another

Smt. Kiran Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others

Amar Dutt Tripathi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko and 3 Others