Allowed

Parshvanath Charitable Trust and 2 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Aug 2010WP/1754/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the exclusion of Parshvanath College of Engineering from the Centralised Admission Process due to a pending AICTE show-cause notice regarding unapproved shifting of premises. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the exclusion order, and directed the college's inclusion in the second round of admissions.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned communication excluding the college from admissions and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the Central Admission Process. Ordered the Municipal Co

Parshvanath Charitable Trust and 2 Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

１

srk

wp-L-1776-10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1776 OF 2010

¶6

Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others. ... petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr.Venkatesh Dhond with Mr. Akshay Patil, Mr. Hemant Mehta, Mr. Vishal Mehta and Ms. Dipti Shah i/by M/s. Mehta & Co. for the petitioners. Mr. M.D. Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Rui Rodrigues for respondent No.3. Mr. Mandar Limaye for respondent No.4.

¶8

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶9

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶12

Mr.M.D. Naik, learned Asstt.Government Pleader waives service for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Rui Rodrigues, learned counsel waives service for respondent No.3. Mr. Mandar Limaye, learned counsel waives service for respondent No.4.

¶13

What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 28th July,2010 of the Director of Technical Education not including the name of Parshwanath College of Engineering run by petitioners No.1 trust in the Centralised Admission Process for engineering colleges in the State of Maharashtra. As per the Centralised Admission Programme contained in the admission notification dated 24th July,

２

srk

wp-L-1776-10

2010 for the academic year 2010-2011 issued by the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra, the admission process has already commenced from 28th July, 2010. The on-line option forms were to be submitted between 29th July, 2010 and 2nd August, 2010. The provisional allotments were displayed on 4th August, 2010 and the students were required to report to the colleges on 5th August, 2010. For the second round of the admission process, applications are to be submitted through on-line option forms between 11th and 14th August, 2010 and provisional allotments are to be displayed on the website on 17th August, 2010 and the students are required to report to the institute as per the allotment between 18 and 21st August, 2010 and the process in question and the classes are to commence from 23rd August, 2010.

¶18

The petitioners' case is that the petitioners-trust have been running the engineering college since 1994 and when the petitioners college shifted to a new building in 2008, the petitioners had informed all the respondentauthorities about shifting of the college in the new building and, therefore, by letter dated 24th June, 2008 (Exhibit-G) the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) had informed the Regional Officer, Western Regional Office to conduct the expert committee visit to the petitioners-institute to verify the infrastructure facility at the new site where the institution has shifted. After the said inspection, by letter dated 20th August, 2009, AICTE had granted approval for increase in the intake capacity of the course in Information and Technology from 40 to 60 and for starting new class in Civil Engineering for 60 students. Accordingly, the AICTE granted approval to the engineering college of petitioners trust with the following note:

¶19

"The approval for increase in intake/additional course(s)/variation in intake is valid for two years from the date of issue of this letter for obtaining affiliation with concerned University and fulfilling concerned State

３

srk

wp-L-1776-10

Government requirements for admission."

¶24

The University of Mumbai thereafter by communication dated 27th January, 2010 (Exhibit `I') granted extension of affiliation for the academic year 2010-2011.

¶25

The State Government also by resolution dated 8th February, 2010 (Exhibit `J' at page 57 of the compilation) granted approval to the provisional courses run by the petitioners-engineering college for all the courses for which the approval was granted by AICTE.

¶26

The grievance in the present petition is that the Western Regional office of AICTE issued show-cause notice dated 18th May, 2010 calling upon the petitioners to show-cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated including withdrawal of approval on the ground that the petitioners have shifted the engineering and pharmacy institution to another location without obtaining approval from AICTE which is gross violation of AICTE norms. The petitioners immediately submitted a reply (Exhibit `L') dated 21st May, 2010 to the said show-cause notice pointing out that the petitioners had submitted proposal dated 23rd May, 2008 for shifting the college in new premises stating therein that new premises was at a distance of 500 meters from the existing premises and all these required documents were submitted alongwith the said proposal dated 24th May, 2008. Similar proposal dated 23rd May, 2008 was made to the AICTE for shifting of the pharmacy college to the new premises. It is further indicated in the reply that petitioners had also applied to the Director of Education on 29th May, 2008 for no objection to shift the engineering college to the new premises. It was further pointed out that the AICTE expert committee had visited the institution and thereafter, AICTE had granted extension of approval dated 30th June, 2008 for the period 2008-2011.

¶27

４ wp-L-1776-10

¶28

srk

¶29

Similarly, it was pointed out that AICTE had not raised any objection till the date of issuance of show-cause notice and that the petitioners was smoothly running its engineering and pharmacy colleges in the new premises wherein about 1200 students are pursuing studies. The petitioners also pointed out in its reply that an application was made by the trustees before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai against their Managing Trustee for his removal from the trust and the Joint Charity Commissioner by his order dated 9th April, 2010 had restrained the said Managing Trustee from dealing with and interfering in administration of colleges and institutions run by them. It was submitted that the trustees apprehend that the said person may make false representations to arrest the educational activities of the petitioners.

¶30

The grievance in the present petition is that inspite of the aforesaid reply dated 21st May, 2010 and without taking any decision on the show cause notice which was given on a technical ground, the petitioners is prevented from participating in the Centralised Admission Process in which they are desirous to admit the students to the first year of the engineering college which has intake capacity of 360 students. It is submitted that the petitioners have all the facilities and infrastructure for the 1200 students and if the petitioner is prevented from admitting any student to the first year engineering course, the petitioner will have to incur the same expenses and overheads without getting any student or fees for the first year engineering course. If the students are not admitted to the first year of engineering college of this year, there will be no second year students next year and third year students in the year thereafter and this will dislocate and paralyse the engineering college being run by the petitioners. It is, therefore, submitted that when the second round of the admission process is commencing from today and students are required to submit their on-line option forms between 11th and 14th August, 2010 and the admissions are to be given and the students are to secure admission between

¶31

５ wp-L-1776-10

¶32

srk

¶33

18th and 21st August, 2010 and the classes are to commence from 23rd August, 2010, if the petitioner is not permitted to participate in the centralised admission process, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss which will be irreversible.

¶34

Vehemently opposing the petitioners' contention, Mr. Rodrigues, the learned counsel for AICTE had submitted that AICTE is likely to take a decision on the show-cause notice tomorrow and, therefore, no orders be passed at present. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not obtained the occupation certificate from the Thane Municipal Corporation for the new premises and they shifted to the new premises without permission of the AICTE. Therefore, the AICTE is justified in instructing the Director of Technical Education not to permit the petitioner- engineering college to participate in the centralised admission process. It is submitted that the inspection report dated 28th June, 2008 was not necessarily in favour of the petitioners and that there were adverse remarks in the said report even though the approval was granted on 20th August, 2009 in a routine manner and that it is always open to the AICTE to withdraw the permission before expiry of the period for which approval was granted.

¶35

The learned counsel further submits that there are also deficiencies in terms of infrastructure and that the petitioners have no right to get any such order from this court. It is submitted that admission process may go on till 30th September, 2010 and, therefore, no irreparable or irreversible loss will be caused to the petitioners.

¶36

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Director of Technical Education has adopted the above arguments.

¶37

６ wp-L-1776-10

¶38

srk

¶39

The learned counsel for Thane Municipal Corporation submits that Municipal Corporation was served only yesterday and, therefore, he is not in a position to state as to why the occupation certificate is not granted in respect of the premises in which engineering college is run by the petitioner.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that this is not a case where an institution has made an application for starting the new college and AICTE is in the process of considering whether or not to grant approval for starting a new college. In this case, the petitioners had applied to the respondent-authorities for permission to shift to the new premises and the expert committee had already inspected the new premises on 28th June, 2008. The observations made by the expert committee in the report pursuant to its visit were overall in favour of the engineering college run by the petitioner. The relevant observations are as under:

¶41

i) The lay-out/master plan including the building plans are approved by the competent authority.

¶42

ii) The trust has constructed ground plus four building for the purpose of engineering college building (new site) with the total built up area of 17485 sq.mt. approximately.

¶43

iii) On the day of the visit, the Committee found that all the labs have been shifted from the old site to the new college building, however, the class rooms, tutorials, labs and workshops are under under finishing and setting up stage.

７

srk

wp-L-1776-10

iv) The work of central air conditioning in the class rooms is in progress. The class rooms are not ready and furnished.

¶48

v) Once all civil works which are at advance stage of completion are done, the building will be suitable for running engineering college in the metropolitan city.

¶49

The other observations in the committee's report that the building construction done so far is not suitable for running the classes immediately for which heavy reliance was placed by AICTE are therefore, required to be read in the light of the observations in the earlier part of the report which clearly indicate that the building was suitable for running the engineering college but the petitioners had made a little haste in shifting the engineering college from the old building to the new premises.

¶50

Seen in view of the above observations in the report of the expert committee and the fact that the AICTE did grant approval for increase in the intake capacity of the students in the first year engineering college from 280 to 360, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for AICTE that extended approval under communication dated 28th August, 2009 was granted in routine manner.

¶51

The only ground mentioned in the show-cause notice dated 18th May, 2010 is that the petitioners failed to follow due process as per the AICTE norms by shifting from old building to new premises without approval of AICTE. The petitioners have already submitted a reply dated 21st May, 2010 after receiving the show-cause notice on 20th May, 2010. The AICTE did not

¶52

８ wp-L-1776-10

¶53

srk

¶54

take any decision for more than two months and when the admission process was about to start, the Director of Technical Education was instructed not to include the engineering college run by the petitioners in the list of colleges participating in the Centralised Admission Process.

¶55

In this factual backdrop, the contention of the learned counsel for the AICTE that this court should not grant any relief in favour of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The second round of admission process has commenced from today and the students are required to submit their on-line option forms by 14th August, 2010 at 5.00 p.m. Thereafter, the provisional allotments will be displayed on the website on 17th August, 2010 and the students are to secure their admissions by 21st August, 2010 and the classes are to commence from 23rd August, 2010. There is no reason why the engineering college being run since 1994 and which was granted extended approval for a period upto August, 2011 after new site was visited on 28th June, 2008, should be prevented by AICTE or the other respondents from participating in the admission process on the basis of show-cause notice dated 18th May, 2010 on which the AICTE has not cared to take any decision for the last more than two months.

¶56

We, therefore, allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication of the Director of Technical Education and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner-college to participate in the Central Admission Process when the second round has commenced.

¶57

In view of the submission already made by the petitioners in their reply dated 21st May, 2010 i.e. the Joint Charity Commissioner has passed the restraint against their Managing Trustee restraining him from interfering in the administration of the college and the educational institution run by the trust, we

¶58

９ wp-L-1776-10

¶59

srk

¶60

also direct that the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Thane should consider the petitioner's application for grant of occupation certificate for the building in which the engineering college and the pharmacy college are being run without being influenced by any objection taken by Mr. Tekchand Shah against whom the order is passed by the Charity Commissioner.

¶61

It is clarified that it is open to the AICTE to proceed with the show-cause notice but if any order adverse to the petitioner-college is passed, the same shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks from today.

¶62

This order is passed in presence of the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Director of Technical Education and Mr. S.V. Kolla, Officer, Admission Section from the office of Director of Technical Education who shall immediately instruct the concerned persons to place the name of the petitioner-engineering college on the website of the centralised online admission process today itself.

¶63

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶64

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Parshvanath Charitable Trust and 2 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshvanath Charitable Trust and 2 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs Dr. V.K. Shetty and Ors.

Jinang Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. and 12 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 5 Ors.

Vishnu Khandelwal Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Manisha Sanjay Waskar Vs Anil @ Bajirao Balaso Dhavan(Panari) and Ors.

Junot Chagas Pereira and Ors. Vs Omprakash Navani and Ors.

Swaran S. Chawla Vs Mukesh S. Chawla