Allowed

R.T.E.Society S v. All India Council for Technical Education

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2019WP/110219/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner college sought approval from the AICTE for its Polytechnic course, which was denied due to shared facilities with an Engineering course. The Court set aside the refusal order, directing the AICTE to consider the petition for approval within 15 days by granting two years' time for compliance of deficiencies.

What did the court decide?

The order refusing approval (Annexure-Q) was set aside and the petitioner was granted two years to comply with deficiencies.

R.T.E.Society S Vs All India Council for… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

W.P. NO. 110219/2019 (EDN-ADM)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R.T.E. SOCIETY’S

¶8

RURAL POLYTECHNIC, HULKOTI, TQ. & DIST: GADAG-582 205. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BY SRI K.L. PATIL AND SRI S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 070, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, AGA FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NOT EXTENDING THE APPROVAL AND STOPPED THE PETITIONER COLLEGE TO TAKE ADMISSION FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-20 VIDE ANNEXURE-M & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs.

¶20

a. To issue the Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned action of the Respondent No.1 in not extending the Approval and stopped the Petitioner College to take admission for the Academic Year 2019-20 vide Annexure-M;

¶21

aa. To issue the Writ of Certiorari quashing the order bearing No. F. No. AICTE/ AB / SWR / 1-477616701/2019 dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Respondent No.1 vide Annexure Q.

¶22

¶23

b. To issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to issue Extension of Approval and permit the Petitioner College to take admission for the Academic year 2019-2020;

¶24

c. Any other suitable Orders or Directions which the Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of these Petitioners along with costs of this petition.

¶25

¶26

The petitioner submits that the petitioner-

¶27

Society came into existence in the year 1980 with a view to develop the young minds in the academic field and inculcate professionalism and to produce world class engineering professionals. It is stated that the petitioner is running a Rural Polytechnic at Hulkoti, Gadag District for the last 40 years. The petitioner obtained approval from the respondent-AICTE in

¶28

¶29

the year 1994 when the respondent No.1 came into existence.

¶30

The respondent-AICTE deputed its Expert Visiting Committee for inspection of the

¶31

petitioner College for approval process. The Committee after visiting the petitioner institution pointed out certain deficiencies. The main deficiency pointed out by the respondentExpert Committee is that the petitioner is running the Polytechnic in a building where the petitioner is also running Engineering College. The petitioner has no independent building of its own to run the Polytechnic College. The other deficiencies pointed out by the respondent Committee is consequential to the deficiency of not having building of its own, such as the laboratory, library facility, instructional area and other facilities.

¶32

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶34

would submit that with regard to building that both the Polytechnic course and the Engineering Course run by the petitioner institution, it is stated that both are in the same building and facilities are shared by both the courses. The instructional area and laboratory are as per the requirement of the AICTE but the same is being shared by both the Engineering Course and by Polytechnic Course. Subsequent to pointing out deficiency that the petitioner should have independent building of its own, they have acquired land for the said purpose and they have obtained sanctioned building plan. If two years’ time is granted they would provide all facilities as required under the norms of the respondent-AICTE.

¶35

¶36

It is stated that they have ear marked 5 acres 29 guntas of land in R.S. No. 357/1A+1B+2/1 at Hulakoti village for

¶37

construction of separate College building for the Polytechnic course and obtained building licence. They have filed affidavit dated 04.06.2019 to that effect and in the said affidavit itself they have sought two years’ time to comply with all the deficiencies of infrastructure like building, equipment, etc. The affidavit dated 04.06.2019 filed by the Principal of the College wherein two years’ time is sought for compliance of deficiencies is placed on record.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶39

respondent would submit that it is essential to have a separate building of their own to run the Polytechnic course as required under the AICTE.

¶40

¶41

At present, as per the requirement of the Expert Visiting Committee, the building is shared by the Polytechnic course as well as by Engineering Course which is impermissible. The petitioner has no independent laboratory and instructional area. Therefore, the approval is not extended.

¶42

Today, this Court in W.P. No. 109588/2019 taking note of the fact that the respondentAICTE has granted two years’ time for compliance of deficiency pointed out to 38 Government Polytechnic Institutions. The petitioner is also entitled to such time. The counsel for the respondent-AICTE has not disputed and admitted the fact of granting two years’ time to Govt. Polytechnics for compliance of deficiencies. For the reasons stated above and following the decision in W.P. No. 109588/2019 disposed on 20.06.2019 this Writ

¶43

¶44

Petition is also disposed of and Annexure-Q dated 30.04.2019 is set aside.

¶45

The respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of approval by granting two years’ time to the petitioner to comply with the deficiencies if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. The same shall be considered within 15 days from today.

¶46

It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled for extension of further time for compliance under any circumstances.

¶47

SD JUDGE

¶48

bvv

R.T.E.Society S v. All India Council for Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.T.E.Society S v. All India Council for Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvatagouda S/O. Fakkiragouda Patil, Vs Smt. Ratnavva W/O. Virupakshagouda Patil

Mohammed Iqbal S/O Sattar Sab Vs Rahimabi W/O B. Mohammed Ghouse

M/S.Tarade Brothers Constructions(P) Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Miss.Nirmala Shivanappa Naikar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Gomatesh Vidyapeeth Vs Chairman All India Council for

Friends Social Club Vs the State of Karnataka