Remanded

Sukhdev and Kamal Sharma Educational Trusts v. All India Council for Technical Education and Anr.

Bombay HC3 May 2016WP/5287/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order categorizing a college for no admission due to deficiencies, remitting the matter to the AICTE Committee for a fresh decision after granting liberty to submit relevant documents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to AICTE Committee for fresh decision with liberty to petitioner to submit documents; petition disposed of.

Sukhdev and Kamal Sharma Educational Trusts Vs All… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp-5287/16.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5287 OF 2016

¶4

Sukhdev and Kamal Sharma Educational Trust's, Mile-Management Institute for Leadership & Exceelence, Wagholi, Pune.

¶5

..Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

All India Council For Technical Educational Through its Western Regional Office and Another.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surel S. Shah, Mr. Saurabh Butala for the Petitioner. Mrs. Meena M. Doshi for Respondent No. 1.

¶10

Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No. 2.

¶11

Coram : SHANTANU KEMKAR & RANJIT MORE, JJ. Date : May 3, 2016 .

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

Parties through their counsel.

¶14

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order

¶15

dated 11^th April 2016 [Exhibit-J to the petition] by which the Petitioner-college has been categorised for the “no admission” on account of the deficiencies shown in the impugned order.

¶16

According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing

¶17

for the Petitioner, most of the deficiencies were already removed

1 / 3

patilsr

wp-5287/16.

and only few deficiencies which could have been removed, but for which the Respondent – AICTE have not granted time to the Petitioner and without granting such opportunity, drastic order in the nature of no admission category has been passed against the Petitioner.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that in fact the Petitioner did not produce the requisite documents to show that the deficiencies pointed out in the inspection have been cured by the Petitioner. She submits that the Petitioner was given ample opportunity but the Petitioner failed to produce any material to support his contentions.

¶23

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the documents and the pleadings, we are of the view that the matter requires to be remitted back to the Committee of AICTE for taking fresh decision in the matter with liberty to the Petitioner to submit relevant documents afresh as may be necessary. The Petitioner to appear before the said Committee along with relevant documents on 30^th May 2016. The

2 / 3

patilsr

wp-5287/16.

Committee may also consider the undertaking as may be given by the Petitioner about the time required for installation of the lift. The appropriate decision in this regard to be taken by the committee within three weeks from the date of appearance of the Petitioner before it.

¶28

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that during this time, the Petitioner–institution has already admitted 56 students to the 1^st year of the course in question. Be that as it may, those admissions will also be subject to the decision as may be taken by the Committee. The students who have already been admitted shall not be entitled to claim any equity in case the approval is rejected. All contentions are left open. It is clarified that all admissions will be subject to the outcome of the decision by the Committee.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. Petition stands disposed of.

¶30

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶31

[SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.]

¶32

3 / 3

¶33

patilsr

Sukhdev and Kamal Sharma Educational Trusts v. All India Council for Technical Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev and Kamal Sharma Educational Trusts v. All India Council for Technical Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Amar Thakur and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Fatimabi Noormohamed Bawani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Khandala Vibhag Shikshan Samiti through Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Chavan Dattajirao Namdeo Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Rupali Dipak Lakhan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri Rajendra Mohan Wabale and Anr. Vs the Director Directorate of Technical Education and Anr.