Akole Taluka Education Soc. and Anr. v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jan 2011WP/8312/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad quashed a letter withholding approval for four Diploma courses due to a technical error on a website after students were already admitted. The Bench allowed the petition partly, directing the AICTE to restore the approval.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the letter dated 16.9.2011 withholding approval; directed Respondent No. 1 to issue approval letter for four Diploma courses for the present academic year with respective intake capacity.

Akole Taluka Education Soc. and Anr. Vs All India… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

wp8312-11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 8312 OF 2011

¶6

1. Akole Taluka Education Society, Akole, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar, through its Secretary Yashwant s/o Dashrath Abhale, R/o Kolhar Ghoti Road, Opp. Agasti Vidyalaya, Akole, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶7

2. Akole Taluka Education Society's Technical Campus, Akole, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar, through its Director PETITIONERS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi, through its President.

¶10

2. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶11

3. The Director of Technical Education, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai.

¶12

4. The Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, 49, Kherwadi, Ali Aawarjung Marg, Bandra, Mumbai, through its Secretary.

¶13

5. The Union of India, through its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Department, New Delhi RESPONDENTS

¶14

(2)

¶15

wp8312-11

¶16

....

¶17

Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate with Mr. V.R.
Dhorde, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General
for Respondent Nos. 1 and 5.

¶18

Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, advocate for Respondent No. 4.

¶19

....

¶20

CORAM :B.R. GAVAI AND
M.T. JOSHI, JJ.

¶21

DATE OF JUDGEMENT RESERVED : 15th DECEMBER, 2011
DATE OF JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED: 10th JANUARY, 2012

¶22

JUDGEMENT : (PER : M.T. JOSHI, J.) :

¶23

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally, by consent.

¶24

2.By the present petition, the petitioners

¶25

pray that the letter dated 16th September, 2011,

¶26

issued by the Respondent No. 1 - A.I.C.T.E., to the
extent of not granting approval to the four Diploma
Courses with respect to intake capacity in the
Petitioner No. 2 - College for the academic year
2011-2012, be declared as illegal and accordingly, it
be quashed and set aside.

¶27

3.The petitioners besides the courses of
M.B.A. and M.C.A., had moved the concerned

¶28

(3)

¶29

wp8312-11

¶30

authorities for grant of recognition and approval
from the respective respondents for Diploma Courses
as below.

¶31

`Sr.No.`	`Name of Course`	`Intake Capacity`
`01.`	`Mechanical Engineering`	`120`
`02.`	`Civil Engineering`	`60`
`03.`	`Computer Engineering`	`60`
`04.`	`Electronics and` `Telecommunication Engin`	`60` `eering`

¶32

According to the petitioners, as for the academic

¶33

year 2011-2012, it was not sure that the
infrastructure for the above four Diploma Courses

¶34

would be ready, before the Expert Visiting Committee,
it showed its disinclination to start all the four

¶35

courses. According to the petitioners, almost all
infrastructure was ready for first year course of all

¶36

the four courses. However, out of anxiety that the
complete infrastructure may not be ready, the said
disinclination was shown. The respondent No. 1,

¶37

however, granted approval on its official Website on
30th June, 2011 to all the four Diploma Courses with
intake capacity as detailed above.

¶38

(4)

¶39

wp8312-11

¶40

4.Thereafter, as per the direction of

¶41

respondent No. 1 - A.I.C.T.E., the security deposit
of Rs. 45 lacs was also deposited. Thereupon, the
affiliation was granted by the Respondent No. 3 on
13th July, 2011. For that purpose, a Fixed Deposit
Receipt of Rs. six lacs was also deposited. A Code
Number 5385 was issued to the petitioners and
accordingly, the petitioners' Institute was included

¶42

for Centralized Admission Process and even the
students are admitted.

¶43

5.On 22nd August, 2011, the Respondent No. 1 -

¶44

A.I.C.T.E. in its official Web-Portal, however,

¶45

showed Zero Seats as against the said four Diploma
Courses. Therefore, the petitioners sent an
application by fax to the Respondent No.1 requesting
to rectify the said technical error. In fact, the
Respondent No. 4 Board had also issued a letter dated
29th August, 2011 allotting Code Number 1554 to the
petitioners for further correspondence with the Board
and affiliation was also granted by the Respondent

¶46

No. 4 in favour of the petitioners. Lastly on 30th

¶47

(5)

¶48

wp8312-11

¶49

August, 2011, the Respondent No. 1 - A.I.C.T.E.
informed the Respondent No. 2 - State Government,
stating that it had granted approval for the academic
year 2011-2012 for conducting the M.B.A. and M.C.A.
courses. The approval, however, was not extended for
the four Diploma Courses. It was also stated in the
said letter that the Institution can rectify the
defects by generating the deficiency report through
Web-Portal, if any, before 30th September, 2011.
Accordingly, the petitioners have submitted the
report on 27th September, 2011. Now, in all 219
students are admitted for four Diploma Courses by
accepting necessary admission fees and the college
has also started from 16th September, 2011. Even

¶50

examination forms of the students have been filled in
and submitted the same to the Respondent No. 4 Board

¶51

and the examinations are to be conducted now as per
the calender of the Respondent No. 4 Board.

¶52

6.The petitioners further submitted that
suddenly on 27th September, 2011, though they

¶53

received a letter of approval dated 16th September,
2011 from the Respondent No.1 - A.I.C.T.E. only

¶54

wp8312-11

¶55

(6)

¶56

regarding M.B.A. and M.C.A. courses, the said letter
showed intake capacity for four Diploma Courses as
Zero. Thus, vide its approval dated 16th September,
2011, the approval granted earlier is revoked. In
the circumstances, the petitioners contend that the
act of the Respondent No. 1 in revoking the approval
midterm is not only arbitrary but also against the
provisions of Approval Process Handbook, which
requires an opportunity of hearing to be given before
revocation of any such approval.

¶57

7.The Respondent No. 1 - A.I.C.T.E., in short,
came with a case that only due to technical error in
the computer, it had wrongly displayed on the Web-
Portal that the petitioners had been granted approval
for running the four Diploma Courses. The

¶58

petitioners were very well aware of the fact that the
approval for four Diploma Courses would not be
granted as they themselves had shown disinclination
for starting the same. According to the Respondent

¶59

No. 1 - A.I.C.T.E., now the petitioners are taking

¶60

undue advantage of the mistake occurred and hence,
learned Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of

¶61

wp8312-11

¶62

(7)

¶63

Respondent No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the
petition.

¶64

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶65

9.It is an admitted fact that on the basis of

¶66

the publication on the Official Website of granting
approval to the four Diploma Courses in the
petitioner-Institution, the Respondent No. 2 - State
of Maharashtra has not only granted approval but even
affiliation is granted to the petitioner Institution

¶67

and in Common Admission Process, large number of
students were admitted. In view of this fact, a

¶68

query was put to Mr. Alok Sharma, the learned
Assistant Solicitor General, as to whether the
students can be accommodated at any other Institution
duly approved by the Respondent No.1. Mr. Sharma,

¶69

however, showed ignorance about availability of any

¶70

such alternative arrangement. Though the petitioners

¶71

now claim that as they are having all the
infrastructure available, now they are ready for
starting and conducting the four Diploma Courses, it
is not necessary to go into that aspect as it is the

¶72

(8) wp8312-11

¶73

job of the Expert Visiting Committee to find out as
to whether the infrastructure as is necessary
for those four Diploma Courses is available. It is
sufficient to note that for the present academic
year, the students have already been admitted and
they cannot be left in a lurch midterm.

¶74

10.In Writ Petition No. 9039/2011, a Division
Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Bombay,
inter alia was considering the similar problem i.e.
grant of approval by the Respondent No. 1 -
A.I.C.T.E. to the petitioner therein, namely, Shri
Balaji Society, due to technical error. Taking into
consideration all the relevant facts in the said
case, the Writ Petition was allowed. Here in the
present case, since the students are already admitted

¶75

and since there is no other alternate arrangement for
accommodating them in any other Institution and as an

¶76

opportunity of being heard was not given to the
petitioners, in our view, the impugned letter dated
16th September, 2011, to the extent of not granting

¶77

approval to the four Diploma Courses with respective
intake capacity is liable to be quashed and set

¶78

wp8312-11

¶79

(9)

¶80

aside.

¶81

11.Accordingly,theletterdated16th

¶82

September, 2011, issued by the Respondent No. 1, to

¶83

that extent is quashed and set aside. The Respondent

¶84

No.1 - A.I.C.T.E. is directed to issue letter of

¶85

approval for four Diploma Courses in the petitioner

¶86

No. 2 College, for the present academic year
2011-2012 with respective intake capacity. The

¶87

further course of action as regards granting approval
for fresh admissions of the students to those four

¶88

Diploma Course in the petitioner No. 2 College from

¶89

the next academic year would be subject to the
applicable Rules and Regulations. The petition is,
therefore, partly allowed. The Rule is made absolute

¶90

in the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶91

NPJ/wp8312-11

Akole Taluka Education Soc. and Anr. v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akole Taluka Education Soc. and Anr. v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrawan Onkar Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Panditrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijay Sakharam Fadat and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Deepak Bhuralal Patel Vs Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors.

Shakuntala Madhavrao Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Adivasi Vikas Ashram Shala Rojandari Shikshak and Chaturthashreni Karmachari Ksanghatana Nashik Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.