Allowed

Marasthwada Mitra Mandal and Anr. v. the Council of Architecture and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2014CAW/961/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for admission permission, the High Court of Bombay set aside the Council of Architecture's refusal to approve the petitioner college. Despite an Executive Committee denying approval due to cited deficiencies, the Court found the decision arbitrary as it ignored a favourable Expert Committee report and State Government recommendations.

What did the court decide?

Decision of Executive Committee set aside; Petitioner allowed to admit 30 students in B.Arch. course 2014-15 provisionally; New principal appointment required.

Marasthwada Mitra Mandal and Anr. Vs the Council of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

CAW961.2014

¶2

krs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.961 OF 2014

¶6

In WRIT PETITION NO.5334 OF 2013

¶7

Marathwada Mitra Mandal & Anr.

¶8

: Applicants/ Petitioners

¶9

V/s.

¶10

The Council of Architecture & Ors.

¶11

: Respondents

¶12

Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the Applicants/ Petitioners.

¶13

Mr.A.V.Bukhari, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Rahul L. Nerlekar for Respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶14

Ms M.P.Thakur, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent no.3.

¶15

… CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶16

¶17

P.C.:

¶18

This Civil Application has been taken out by the

¶19

Applicants/original Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the

¶20

“Petitioners”) to allow them to admit students in the B. Arch. course for the academic year 2014-15.

1 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

Petitioner no.1 is a Trust which runs Petitioner no.2 college for imparting education in the field of Architecture. The Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioners, inter alia, seeking to quash and set aside the public notice dated 10.05.2013 issued by Respondent no.1 Council whereby approval to Petitioner no.2 College was shown as withdrawn by Respondent no.1 Council. The Petitioners also sought a direction to quash Resolution no.374 of December 2007 of Respondent no.1 Council recommending to the Central Government to de-recognise the Bachelor of Architecture degree awarded by the University of Pune to the students admitted in Petitioner no.2 college and to inform the State Government to submit its report to the Central Government accordingly, as according to Respondent no.1 Council, Petitioner no.2 college was not maintaining the minimum standards.

¶25

On 11.07.2013 this Court issued Rule and refused to grant interim relief to the Petitioners who were seeking permission to admit students as per the approval of AICTE which granted an intake capacity of 60 students to Petitioner no.2 college. Relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition no.5942 of 2004 (Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of Architecture and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), this Court held that the final

¶26

CAW961.2014

¶27

krs

¶28

authority for the purpose of fixing norms and standards would be Respondent no.1 Council and that the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 must prevail over the AICTE Act, 1987 in regard to matters of prescribing and regulating norms and standards of architectural institutions. The Division Bench did not deem it appropriate to follow the decision of another Division Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2008 in Writ Petition no.345 of 2007 (State of Goa & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.) cited on behalf of the Petitioners. The consequence of the aforesaid order dated 11.07.2013 was that the Petitioners could not admit the students for Petitioner no.2 college for the academic year 2013-14. The Petitioners carried the matter to the Supreme Court which allowed the Petitioners to withdraw the SLP and requested this Court to decide the Writ Petition within three months.

¶29

The above Civil Application has now been filed in view of subsequent developments which are stated to be as follows:

¶30

A Local Inquiry Committee was appointed by the University of Pune which visited Petitioner no.2 college and submitted a favourable Report dated 13.01.2014 and has granted continuation of affiliation to Petitioner no.2 college. The Petitioners have also relied upon the letter

¶31

CAW961.2014

¶32

krs

¶33

dated 20.11.2013 addressed by the Government of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Department, to the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, wherein the State Government has recorded the factum of inspection by five-member Committee under the Chairmanship of the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, and stated that in view of the infrastructure, equipment, faculty, etc., and consistent good results, Petitioner no.2 college should not be derecognised. The Petitioners have also adverted to a letter dated 04.03.2014 addressed by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, to the President of Respondent no.1 Council informing him that it had accepted the recommendation made by the State Government for withdrawal of the derecognition notice of Petitioner no.2 college. It is thus prayed in the Civil Application that in the light of the aforesaid developments, it was necessary to permit the Petitioners to admit students for the academic year 2014-15 through the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State.

¶34

On 18.06.2014, since the Civil Application was opposed on behalf of Respondent no.1 Council, we passed an order directing Respondent no.1 Council to inspect Petitioner no.2 college through its Expert Committee in accordance with the schedule set out in the said order and

4 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

to take appropriate decision. This order was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The Expert Committee of Respondent no.1 Council visited Petitioner no.2 college and filed its 'Assessment Report' for extension of approval to Petitioner no.2 college. This Assessment Report was examined by the Scrutiny Committee who in turn submitted its Report to the Executive Committee, which in its meeting dated 05.07.2014 decided not to grant approval to Petitioner no.2 College on the ground that the Petitioners had failed to comply with the deficiencies.

¶39

The issue for consideration before us is whether to permit the Petitioners to admit students in Petitioner no.2 college in the Academic Year 2014-15 notwithstanding the decision of the Executive Committee denying approval to the Petitioners.

¶40

It is not in dispute that Petitioner no.2 college is imparting education in the field of Architecture for the last almost three decades. In the decision dated 05.07.2014 of the Executive Council of Respondent no.1, the deficiencies which are cited are essentially in respect of: (i) land and building; (ii) faculty; and (iii) non-compliance of the deficiencies pointed out in the year 2007. The deficiencies set out in the decision of the

¶41

CAW961.2014

¶42

krs

¶43

Executive Committee dated 05.07.2014 are in the following terms:

¶44

“A. Land & Building:

¶45

1.1 The Occupancy Certificate and the certified copy of sanctioned plans submitted by the Institute have Survey No.282 whereas the drawings submitted tally with the land over the existing canal abutting Final Plot No.302.

¶46

1.2 The Occupancy Certificate issued on Survey No.282 mentions about a canal water way which does not tally with the extract of Draft Development Plan that shows the land as `canal'.

¶47

1.3 The Institute mentions its location address as F.P. No.302A whereas there is no trace of 302A and 302 happen to be part of Fergusson College.

¶48

1.4 The Building is constructed blocking the water way (Mutha Left Bank Canal) and appears to be illegal encroachment.

¶49

1.5 The details displayed on the website of University of Pune, Board of College and University Development, the area of Land mentioned is 1.00 Acre whereas the requirement of land as per CoA Regulation is 2.00 Acres.

¶50

B. : Faculty:

¶51

Based on the data/information provided by the Institution:

¶52

(a) the Faculty is not paid as per prevalent Government Norms;

¶53

(b) the Faculty Appointments mention the Nomenclature as per Sixth pay Commission but Scale as per Fifth Pay Commission. It is further observed that the Statement of Accounts provided in the Institutional Report and seen in the mandatory disclosures uploaded by the Institution on its Pune University website do not match.

¶54

( c) The Institution presently has 342 students in B.Arch.

6 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

Course from previous batches on its roll and required strength of faculty as Council norms is as under:

¶59

Required faculty	No.	Eligible with the COA Nor
Principal	1	0
Professor	3	2
Associate Professor	6	3
Assistant Professor	15	3 + 6*
Total	25	8 + 6*

¶60

(* Faculty appointed on 30.05.2014 for academic session 2014-2015)

¶61

It is, therefore, noted that the institution had only 8 qualified faculty for the student strength of 342 during the previous years as against the requirement of 25 and even after appointment of 6 faculty members in May, 2014, the number is far short from the required strength.

¶62

(d) The other Faculty Members also do not possess qualifications as prescribed by the Council and are not eligible.

¶63

(e) The Principal was appointed on the 1^st of June 2014 and he is neither qualified nor it is a regular appointment. Further, he is also above the age of 65 and hence, is not eligible for the appointment.

¶64

(f) Almost all of the faculty members' joining letters are from 2011 onwards which clearly indicates that the appointments are very recent. Many of the faculty members as appointed by the institution are not eligible as per COA Norms, as reported by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶65

(g) There is a serious dearth of regular senior faculty.

¶66

C. Compliance with deficiencies pointed out by the Council in the year 2007:

¶67

The Institution has not made up the deficiencies pointed

7 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

out in the previous inspections reports regarding, Land and Building, creation of activity space, parking space, creation of additional premises for B.Arch Course, shifting of Law and Management colleges of MMM Society to new campus at Karve Nagar. The details of the same have been mentioned in the Scrutiny Committee Report.”

¶72

Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has pointed out that Petitioner no.2 college is being given step treatment by Respondent no.1 Council inasmuch as there are as many as 11 cases filed by the Petitioners against Respondent no.1 Council, including a proceeding pertaining to the appointment of the President of Respondent no.1 Council. He submitted that the decision of Respondent no.1 Council suffers from mala fides and is biased. He pointed out that the Assessment Report of the Expert Committee has given a favourable Report and there were no deficiencies as such. However, Respondent no.1 Council has not considered the said Assessment Report for obvious reasons. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has taken us through the material on record to demonstrate that there are no deficiencies as such. He submitted that even otherwise, the deficiencies, if any, were minor and curable.

¶73

Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent no.1 Council, on the other

¶74

hand, submitted that the Petitioners have not adhered to the minimum standards required for running Petitioner no.2 college. He submitted that

8 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

the Petitioners have not adhered to the minimum standards required right

¶79

from the year 2004 and despite undertaking being given by them in the year 2004 to remove the deficiencies, the deficiencies have continued till date. He further submitted that there are several courses being run by the Petitioners in the same premises and the Petitioners did not honour their undertaking of 2004 to shift the courses to other premises. He submitted that as held in Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of Architecture (supra), Respondent no.1 Council is the supreme body to prescribe the norms and standards for B.Arch. course. He submitted that it is Respondent no.1 Council which is required to decide the intake capacity of Petitioner no.2 college and despite Petitioner no.2 college being placed under the “No Admission” category right from the year 2007, the Petitioners have been admitting students without authority of law. Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the Petitioners had earlier filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition no.54 of 2007, inter alia, raising the issue of intake capacity and the Division Bench of this Court did not grant any relief to the Petitioners. The matter was carried to the Apex Court and the Apex Court has also dismissed the Special Leave Petition of the Petitioners and in this background and in view of the decision of the Executive Committee denying approval to the Petitioners, no relief ought to be granted to the Petitioners. The learned Senior

9 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

Counsel for Respondent nos.1 and 2 has also pointed out various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court which lay down that the Courts ought not to interfere in matters of admission of students where the approval to the institution has been denied on the basis of decision of Experts.

¶84

The Petitioners have been running Petitioner no.2 college for the last almost three decades. The AICTE has been consistently granting Petitioner no.2 college approvals with intake capacity of 60 students. It was only last year, in view of the order of this Court dated 11.07.2013, that the Petitioners did not admit any students. Subsequent to the said order, there have been several developments. A five-member Committee under the Chairmanship of the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, was constituted to inspect Petitioner no.2 college, which has submitted a favourable report in respect of the land, infrastructure facilities, equipments and faculty. Moreover, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, has also accepted the recommendation of the State Government as regards withdrawal of de-recognition notice in its letter dated 04.03.2014 which letter is addressed by the Government of India to the President of Respondent no.1 Council. The Local Inspection

10 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

Committee of the University of Pune has also by its Report dated 04.02.2014 which runs into several pages granted continuation of affiliation after examining the infrastructure facility, etc.

¶89

Land and Building:

¶90

Our attention is invited to the Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the “1983 Regulations”) and in particular Appendix-C thereof which sets out the “physical facilities” which are required for an institution running Architecture course. The same reads as under:

¶91

“The institution of architecture should be located in a building to have a floor area of about 15 sq. m. per student. The building should include class rooms and at least 5 studios, adequate space for faculty members, library, workshop, materials, museum, laboratories, exhibition/conference room, office accommodation and common area for student and staff. The space requirements per student for architectural education whether in the institution or in the Hostel are apt to be more than for most other types of professional courses like engineering and medicine because of the large space required for preparation of drawings. The factor should be borne in mind in the design of Hostels and Studios.

¶92

Facilities may also be provided for extracurricular activities and sports.

¶93

The equipment in the workshops/laboratories has also to be provided to meet with the special

11 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

requirements for architectural education. It is desirable to provide locker facilities in the studios for students.

¶98

The Library, Workshops, Laboratories and Photographs Unit should be managed by professionally qualified staff with adequate supporting staff to assist the students and faculty members in their academic programmes. There should also be administrative supporting staff to run the Architecture Institutions.

¶99

It is desirable to provide hostel accommodation and residential accommodation for staff and students in close proximity of the Institution.”

¶100

On going through the Assessment Report of the Expert Committee who has taken inspection of Petitioner no.2 college, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, it is noticed that in respect of the “activity spaces”, the Expert Committee has given “100 out of 100” marks. We further fail to understand if the deficiencies as stated in the decision of the Executive Committee existed, how Petitioner no.2 college was granted approval at the threshold and for more than two decades thereafter. Prima facie, it appears that Respondent no.1 Council did not look upon deficiencies mentioned in the decision of the Executive Committee as deficiencies for more than two decades.

12 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

Faculty:

Insofar as the faculty is concerned, it appears that the Executive Committee has incorrectly proceeded on the basis of data which is not updated on the website/portal of the University which shows 342 students in B.Arch. course from previous batches on Petitioner no.2's roll and it is on this footing that it has calculated strength of faculty as per Council norms. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has pointed that admittedly, last year there have been no admissions and, therefore, in any event, the intake capacity has reduced. He submitted that at the highest, the strength of the students is about 202 which is also reflected now in the updated portal of the Pune University. He has produced a copy of the print out of the updated portal of the Pune University which shows the strength of the students as 202. In these circumstances, the faculty requirements arrived at by the Executive Council on the basis that the strength of the students as 320 is wholly erroneous. Our attention is invited to the affidavit of Respondent no.1 Council wherein in paragraph 16 it is stated as follows:

¶106

“Assuming without admitting that Petitioner has intake capacity of 220 students, then they require faculty as under:-

13 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

	Required	Actual
Principal	01	00
Professor	02	02
Associate Professor	04	03
Asst. Professor	10	09
------------------------------- Total -------------------------------	------------------- 17 --------------------	---------- 14 ” ----------

¶111

If the aforesaid figures are seen in juxtaposition with the figures in the Assessment Report of the Expert Committee, it is apparent that the faculty requirement is adequate and fulfills the norms of Respondent no.1 Council. Pertinently, even the Expert Committee has in its Assessment Report given “79.5 out of 100” marks to the staff/teaching faculty.

¶112

Insofar the issue of the qualification of the Principal is concerned,

¶113

the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that the Executive Committee has wrongly concluded that the Principal is not qualified. He has invited our attention to Annexure III of the 1983 Regulations which shows that the qualification required for the Principal is G.D. Arch. or equivalent with ten years of experience in teaching, research, professional work experience of guiding research or M.Arch. or

14 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

equivalent with eight years of experience in teaching/research/ professional work. The qualification of the present Principal Mr.R.R.Nene is G.D.Arch., B.E. Civil. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that the Principal is qualified as he falls within the parameters of qualification laid down in the 1983 Regulations. The learned Senor Counsel for Respondent no.1 Council, however, invited our attention to section 21 of the Architects Act and the hand-book of Respondent no.1 Council and pointed out that the minimum standards required for the Principal is as follows:

¶118

First class Architecture in Architectu	Bachelor's Degree in ; AND Master's Degree re OR	Eighteen years of teaching experience out of which Ten Years Teaching Experience as Assistant Professor.
Bachelor's D AND First C Architecture	egree in Architecture; lass Master's Degree in	OR Eighteen years of teaching
First class	OR Bachelor's Degree in	experience out of which Five Years Teaching Experience as Professor.
Architecture Architecture (Desirable— OR Publish journals professional considered e	; AND Ph.D. In . Ph.D. in Architecture ed work in referred OR significant work which can be quivalent to Ph.D.	(Desirable—Experience in Administration at responsible position)”

¶119

He submitted that the present Principal does not possess a Master's degree or Ph.D. and, therefore, he is not qualified.

15 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

It is, however, pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in rejoinder that the norms laid down by Respondent no.1 Council insofar as the Principal is concerned has no force of law and the same is inconsistent with the 1983 Regulations and if Respondent no.1 Council desires to lay down higher qualification for the Principal than what has been stated in the 1983 Regulations, the same is required to be done only by way of amending the Regulations which requires approval by the Central Government and a Notification in the Official Gazette is required to be issued as per section 45 of the Architects Act, 1972. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent no.1 Council, on the other hand, pointed out that it is always open for Respondent no.1 Council to lay down higher standards of qualification. There is also a dispute as regards the age of the Principal inasmuch as, according to Respondent no.1 Council, the age of the Principal cannot be more than 65 years. On the other hand, relying upon the letter dated 23.03.2007 of the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the Principal can be re-employed beyond 65 years and upto the age of 70 years. He submitted that the present Principal is less than 70 years of age and there is nothing exceptionable as regards the qualification of the Principal.

16 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

We, however, do not wish to go into the above issues inasmuch as the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has fairly stated that the Petitioners have already issued an advertisement in newspapers for appointing another Principal which would meet the criteria laid down by Respondent no.1 Council. In the circumstances, so far as this issue is concerned, we accept the statement of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that a new Principal shall be appointed at the earliest and an Affidavit of compliance shall be filed in this regard. We are thus of the opinion that insofar as the issue of Principal is concerned, the same is being worked out and the deficiency, even if it were so viewed, is being removed.

¶128

We may at this juncture refer to the Report dated 13.01.2014 of the

¶129

Local Inspection Committee of the University, wherein it has been observed as under:

¶130

“Academic Excellence:

¶131

Marathwada Mitra Mandal's College of Architecture, 302/A, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune— 411 004 was established in the year 1985 to conduct Five Year Full Time Degree Course in Architecture (B.Arch.)

¶132

Right from the inception, the college has maintained an excellent academic record at all

17 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

University Examinations. The college students are consistently maintained the I/II ranks at all the years (I, II, III, IV & V B.Arch) examinations conducted by University of Pune. The overall results of the college are also excellent and are above 90% consistently.

¶137

Result Analysis from 2004-2

¶138

Academic Year 2004-2005 Final year Result – 90%

¶139

Academic Year 2005-2006 Final Year Result – 97%

¶140

Academic Year 2006-2007 Final Year Result – 98%.

¶141

Academic Year 2007-2008 Final Year Result – 94%.

¶142

Academic Year 2008-2009 Final Year Result – 100%

¶143

Academic Year 2009-2010 Final Year Result – 97%.

¶144

Academic Year 2010-2011 Final Year Result – 92%

¶145

Academic Year 2011-2012 Final Year Result – 91%

¶146

Academic Year 2012-2013 Final Year Result – 87%.

¶147

Many students of the college are pursued/pursuing Post Graduate studies abroad including U.K., USA, Italy etc.

¶148

The students of the college have won many awards for their academic excellent performance including Maharshi Karve Kale Trophy.

18 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

The students of the college have also won many awards at National Level for their professional achievements including 55th Annual NASA Convention – Reubens Trophy, G. Sen Trophy, NARI Gandhi Trophy, HUDCO Trophy, Zonal NASA Convention Zone—3--CORN CRAKE, Pidllite award for excellence, NASA certificate of excellence etc.

¶153

Following are the observations of the Local Inquiry Committee after visiting, scrutinizing documents and information received from the Principal/Management.

¶154

The admission process is canceled by the Council of Architecture since 2007 and the matter is admitted to the court. University authorities asked the LIC to visit the college and submit a report on the admission.

¶155

The College of Architecture is one of the oldest college in Pune University. It has been approved by the AICTE for 2013-14 and DTE, Maharashtra Government from initial stages.

¶156

The college is affiliated to Pune University and has been receiving continuation of affiliation (last two compliance submitted by the Chairman and letters from UOP about continuation of approval are available, 20112012, 2012-2013).

¶157

It is also learnt from the management during the visit that the DTE committee appointed by the government visited the Institute on September 28, 2013 and has also submitted the report of the same. Details of the report are not available.

¶158

No students were admitted to the first year of architecture in this academic year (20132014) and details of the students admitted in the remaining years are enclosed as

19 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

annexure.

The students of this college have given all university related examinations in the last academic year, 2012-2013.

¶164

Infrastructure and library

¶165

The college has adequate infrastructure to conduct the B.Arch course, affiliated to Pune University.

¶166

Library space is adequate and e journals are subscribed.

¶167

Placement cell, anti-Ragging committee, RTI and Women grievance committee is in existence.

¶168

Faculty and staff

¶169

Though 26 faculty members have been appointed many of them are yet to receive approval. A few senior members are appointed on consolidated salary.

¶170

It must be appreciated that the faculty is energetic and has very good contact with alumini. As a result alumni are well connected to students.

¶171

Sixth pay salary is given to faculty and staff. Three members work on consolidated salary.

¶172

Principal is not approved. The college management have appointed an experienced senior consultant as Principal on consolidated salary.

¶173

Librarian is experienced but is not approved.

¶174

Active participation of Students participation in NASA (National Association of Architecture Students) national level

20 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

competition and local competition with significant number of awards.

¶179

Results are good.

¶180

Recommendation:

¶181

The committee members unanimously recommend that the Marathwada Mitramandal College of Architecture be granted continuation of affiliation to the B.Arch (first year to fifth year) program for the sanctioned in take for the academic year 20132014 subject to fulfilment of following conditions.

¶182

Conditions

¶183

The report of the DTE committee should be submitted to university and decision given by DTE be followed.

¶184

Appointment of regular Principal and required approved faculty should be done to fulfil the norms.

¶185

Approval of librarian should be obtained.”

¶186

As indicated earlier, the Government of Maharashtra through its

¶187

Higher and Technical Education Department constituted a five-member Committee under the Chairmanship of the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, which has inspected Petitioner no.2 college

¶188

and submitted a positive Report based on which the Government of Maharashtra has addressed a letter dated 20.11.2013 to the Government of

¶189

India in its Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education. The material portion of the said letter reads as under:

21 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

“Conclusion:

Considering the infrastructure, Equipment, Faculty, Library facilities and consistent good result of the university examinations the institute should not be derecognised.

¶195

It is very important to note that the grant of approval to the course of Architecture is being given by AICTE as well as COA. The students are admitted through Centralized Admission Process conducted by the State Government every academic year upto 2012-13. For the academic year 2013-14 AICTE has given extension of approval for the course of Architecture, whereas the COA has withdrawn its approval for the academic year 2013-14. The students are not admitted in the Marathwada Mitra Mandal's College of Architecture, Pune through CAP during the academic year 2013-14.

¶196

The college on the basis of extension of approval given by the AICTE for the academic years, admitted the students through CAP conducted by the Directorate of Technical Education, M.S. However now, the question may arise about the students enrolled as on date in the said institution whether they will be liable for registration by the COA since the COA has withdrawn its approval.

¶197

Looking at the academic career of these students and needs of society and approval of extensions given by the AICTE from time to time, the State Government hereby requests your intervention to resolve the issue with COA so that the students on roll as on date after passing their B.Arch Course be registered as an Architect by the Council and consequently represent as an architect or use the title and style of architect for practising the profession of an Architect in the country or to seek employment for architectural posts/faculty

22 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

positions in institutions.” (emphasis supplied)

¶202

Pursuant thereto, the Government of India has addressed a letter dated 04.03.2014 to the President of Respondent no.1 Council wherein it has categorically stated that the Ministry has accepted the recommendations made by the Government of Maharashtra regarding withdrawal of de-recognition notice in respect of Petitioner no.2 college. Admittedly, the decision of the Government of India has not been challenged by Respondent no.1 Council.

¶203

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the decision of the Executive Committee in denying approval to the Petitioners by disregarding even the Assessment Report of the Expert Committee (appointed pursuant to the order of this Court) is arbitrary and cannot be sustained.

¶204

We are conscious of the fact that ordinarily Courts ought not to interfere with the decision of an Expert Body. However, in the present case, we find that the decision of the Executive Committee, which is contrary to the `Assessment Report' of the Expert Committee, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and prima facie the element of bias cannot

23 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

be ruled out. In these circumstances, we are of the view that noninterference with the decision of the Executive Committee at the hands of this Court would result in gross injustice to the Petitioners. Consequently, the decision of the Executive Committee dated 05.07.2014 deserves to be set aside. We find that the Petitioners have made out a case for permitting them to admit students in Petitioner no.2 college for the B.Arch. course for Academic Year 2014-15. We are informed that the Centralised Admission Process conducted by Respondent no.2 Director of Technical Education has begun and the students are to give their options of colleges on-line in a day or two.

¶209

Insofar as the issue of intake capacity is concerned, it is noticed that the AICTE has granted approval to the Petitioner no.2 college for the intake capacity of 60 students. However, we find that since the Division Bench of this Court in this Petition itself has by its order dated 11.07.2013 refused to grant any interim relief in the light of the law laid down in the case of Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of Architecture (supra), and has held that the Council of Architecture overrides other authorities in the matter of setting standards of education, we are inclined to allow Petitioner no.2 college an intake capacity on the basis of the last intake capacity which was granted by Respondent no.1

24 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

Council to Petitioner no.2 college. We are informed that the intake capacity granted by Respondent no.1 Council to Petitioner no.2 college in the year 2007 (before it was put in “No Admission” category) was 30 students. We are, therefore, inclined to permit the Petitioners to admit students with intake capacity of 30 instead of 60 granted by AICTE.

¶214

In the circumstances, we pass the following order:

¶215

O R D E R

¶216

(i) The decision of the Executive Committee dated 05.07.2014 is set aside.

¶217

(ii) The Respondent-State of Maharashtra shall through the Director of Technical Education upload Petitioner no.2 college's name in the Centralised Admission Process (CAP) and Petitioner no.2 college shall be allowed to participate in the CAP round for the academic year 2014-15 for B.Arch. course conducted by the Petitioners at Marathwada Mitra Mandal's College of Architecture, 302/A, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune—411 004, with an intake capacity of 30;

¶218

(iii) The admission of the students would be provisional and Petitioner no.2 college shall be treated as having been granted provisional approval.

25 of 27

CAW961.2014

krs

(iv) The concerned students shall be intimated accordingly and their admissions would be subject to further orders and/or outcome of the Writ Petition;

¶223

(v)The Petitioners and/or students shall not claim any equity on the basis of this order;

¶224

(vi) The statement of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is recorded that they shall appoint a new Principal expeditiously and the deficiencies, if any, shall be removed at the earliest and that the Petitioners shall refund the fees to the students admitted under this order along with interest, if any orders are passed in future affecting the admission of the said students;

¶225

(vii) The Petitioners shall file a compliance affidavit with regard to the appointment of the new Principal and removal of deficiencies, if any, within six weeks from today.

¶226

(viii) We record the presence of Dr.Rajeev Vishwanath Shetkar, Asstt. Director (Technical) of Respondent no.3 in Court, who shall ensure implementation of this order without waiting for a transcribed copy

¶227