Allowed

Immanuel Arasar International v. The Regional Officer

Madras HC24 Apr 2019WP/6298/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed AICTE to grant B.Pharm. course approval pending DTCP concurrence for a building approved by the Panchayat. It mandated a four-week timeline for DTCP to review plans and allow AICTE to approve the course by 27.04.2019 if other norms are met.

What did the court decide?

AICTE directed to grant B.Pharm. course approval by 27.04.2019 pending DTCP concurrence; DTCP directed to review within four weeks.

Immanuel Arasar International Vs The Regional Officer — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.04.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶5

W.P.No.6298 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.7143 of 2019

¶6

Immanuel Arasar International Institute of Science and Technology Educational Charitable Trust

¶7

rep. by its Founder Trustee Mr.Sam G.Jebajoselin,

¶8

S.G. Hospital, Pammam Old Theatre Junction, Marthandam Kannyakumari District establishes and administering Immanuel Arasar J.J. College of Engineering Marthandam, Kannyakumari District. .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Regional Officer, Southern Regional Office, AICTE, Shastri Bhavan, 1st Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development (UDA[3]) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

The Director of Town and Country Planning, 807, Annasalai, Chennai-2 4. The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning (In-charge), Pallayamkottai, Opp. New Bus Stand, Tirunelveli.

¶11

Nattalam Panchayat rep. by its President, Killiyur Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

- R2 to 5 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 23.04.2019 in WMP No.10527/2019 in WP.6298 of 2019

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

Prayer :

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent AICTE to grant approval without insisting on DTCP approval by accepting the approval of the Panchayat for B.Pharm. Degree course from the academic year 2019-20 onwards in accordance with law.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar

¶18

For Respondent : Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, Senior Central Govt. Counsel for R1 Mr.N.Inbanathan, AGP for RR 2-5

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is an educational trust running Immanuel Arasar J.J. College of Engineering from the year 2008-09 after obtaining appropriate approvals from the authorities and also affiliation from the Anna University. The All India Council for Technical Education (in short, "AICTE") also granted provisional affiliation year after year from 2008 till date.

¶21

It is stated that the petitioner college was started after obtaining necessary approval from the competent authorities, including the building approval from the Executive Officer, Nattalam Panchayat and affiliation from the Anna University. As per the AICTE approval Process Handbook 2019-20, Engineering Colleges are permitted to start B.Pharm. course as well.

¶22

In so far as the approval granted by the Executive Officer of the Village Panchayat is concerned, where the college was functioning, the college had applied to the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) for concurrence as per G.O.Ms.No.76, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 14.06.2018 and also remitted more than Rs.6,00,000/- as fees.

¶23

As the petitioner college has necessary infrastructure, the petitioner trust had applied to the AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India for obtaining approvals to start B.Pharm. Degree Course from the academic year 2019-20. The Scrutiny Committee report of the AICTE had shown the deficiency only with respect to the building plan not being approved by the DTCP. The petitioner college was given hearing. Since the AICTE did not accept the explanation offered by the petitioner trust qua DCTP approval, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

direction to the AICTE to grant approval without insisting on DTCP approval, by accepting the approval by the Panchayat for B.Pharm. Degree course from the academic year 2019-20 onwards.

¶26

This Court had granted an interim order directing the first respondent/AICTE to consider the approval of the petitioner college without insisting on the DTCP approval, which would be subject to the result of the writ petition.

¶27

As stated already, the petitioner Trust had applied under G.O.Ms.No.76 for concurrence with the DTCP and the same is pending and the petitioner cannot be faulted with and the AICTE cannot insist on approval from the DTCP for buildings constructed prior to 01.01.2011. G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 14.06.2018 required the educational buildings in non-planning areas constructed prior to 01.01.2011, which is the date of coming into force of Section 47-A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, to obtain concurrence, if it was not obtained so far. The said G.O.Ms.No.76 was later quashed by this Court on 01.12.2018. However, it was clarified that any application, which was made during the relevant period, i.e., before the expiry of three months, the DTCP was directed to consider the same and pass orders.

¶28

It is also now stated that that portion of the order is under challenge in Writ Appeal. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is settled position of law that buildings, which are constructed in a panchayat area after 1994 do not require to get approval from the DTCP and for approval, the application has to be filed with the Executive Authority of the Village Panchayat and the Executive Authority before giving approval has to get concurrence with the DTCP.

¶29

At this juncture, it is also relevant to advert to the following directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Tamil Nadu Unaided Polytechnic Management Association V. Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2018) 4 CTC 129.

¶30

"46. In cases, which may include the petitioners herein, where the Executive Authority of the Panchayat might not have consulted either the Joint Director or the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning before granting permission for construction of public buildings, this Court declares:

¶31

(a)In all such cases, the Executive Authority is directed to forward the papers to the Town Planning Authority, who may now consider them, and

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

if required visit the premises in question, and offer his advice if the constructions have complied with all necessary statutory Rules and Regulations, and the latter shall forward his views or opinions to the Executive Authority. If opinions offered are positive, in that if the constructions are found to have complied with the Rules and Regulations and such other legal requirements, then the Executive Authority shall issue an order ratifying his earlier order granting his permission. This will apply only to those public buildings in the Panchayat area constructed after the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 till today, the date of this Order, and not to any future application for constructions.

¶34

(b) Where any permission has been granted by the Executive Authority of the Panchayat without consulting the joint or Deputy Director of Panchayat in terms of Proviso to Rule 25, but no construction has yet commenced, it shall not be commenced, till opinion of the Town Planning Authority is obtained. If the opinion is not negative, then the earlier permission granted shall, subject to other provisions of law, remain in force. If the opinion of the Town Planning Authority is negative, the Executive Authority of the Panchayat shall forthwith cancel the permission earlier granted after following the due process of law.

¶35

(c) In cases of partially constructed buildings, no completion certificate or other amenities be provided unless a favourable opinion is given by the Town Planning Authority.

¶36

(d) In all cases falling under (a) and (c), if the opinion of the Town Planning Authority is negative, then such authorities as are empowered to initiate action for illegal constructions shall initiate appropriate actions as per law. The power to grant sanction for construction by the Panchayat is no answer to a builder or a developer violating Rules and Regulations pertaining to construction activities."

¶37

Though the judgment of the Division Bench was passed on 06.07.2018, the G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 14.06.2018 issued by the Government was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. The Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment gave certain directions emphasizing that a procedure has to be adopted while

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

obtaining DTCP approval, hence, the petitioner has to follow the same. The Division Bench also made it clear that there should be single window system through which, either past or future approvals could be done.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that since the cut-off date for obtaining the approval of the AICTE is on or before 30th April of each year, the anxiety of the petitioner is that the approval should not be rejected for want of certification from the DTCP authorities. It is also pointed out that the "Approval Process Handbook 2019-20" of the AICTE is a legal document as per the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and other various acts, including the University Grants Commission Act. Annexure XVI provides for answers to frequent queries. 14.4. says "if an Institution intends to utilise a Building constructed earlier, the Building approvals obtained from the then authorities shall be produced, else the approval for the same shall be obtained from the current approving authorities."

¶41

Going by the above clarification, as issued by the first respondent/AICTE, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the original approval granted by the Village Panchayat on 08.04.2007 itself is sufficient for the AICTE to consider the application of the petitioner for approval. However, in view of the subsequent development, namely, issuance of G.O.Ms.No.76 and the directions issued by the Division Bench, as stated supra, the petitioner is bound to follow the same.

¶42

Learned counsel for the AICTE also pointed out that the Handbook is applicable for each of the States all over India and when there is a specific direction given by this Court, particularly, for the State of Tamil Nadu, even the AICTE is bound to follow the said procedure and consequently, without any doubt, the petitioner is also bound to satisfy the authorities by producing the DTCP approval.

¶43

Though the Division Bench has given certain directions, since time-frame for each of the authorities is not prescribed and the approval of the AICTE is to be granted by 30th April of each year, the petitioner as well as similarly placed institutions find it difficult to get the order of approval within time.

¶44

In such circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to submit the duly self-attested copies of the plan documents to the fifth respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the fifth respondent is directed to forward the copies of the papers, either available with them or as submitted by the

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶46

petitioner, with due endorsement to the concerned DTCP authorities within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶47

The DTCP authorities, thereafter, have to follow the procedure mandated in paragraph 46 of the judgment of the Division Bench in Tamil Nadu Unaided Polytechnic Management Association case (cited supra) and complete the said exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the papers pertaining to the petitioner institution.

¶48

In the meanwhile, the first respondent/AICTE is directed to give approval to the petitioner institution as sought in their application for offering B.Pharm. Degree Course on or before 27.04.2019, without reference to DTCP approval, if otherwise all the other norms and conditions are complied with, which will be subject to the concurrence/affiliation to be obtained from the Pharmacy Council of India and Dr.M.G.R. Medical University. The first respondent/AICTE shall indicate in the approval that the same would be subject to the production of the approval of the DTCP, immediately upon receipt of the same from the DTCP authorities, as directed above and other affiliations.

¶49

This writ petition is ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶52

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶53

gg To 1. The Regional Officer, Southern Regional Office, AICTE, Shastri Bhavan, 1st Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.

¶54

1. The Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development (UDA[3]) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶55

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶56

The Director of Town and Country Planning, 807, Annasalai, Chennai-600 002

¶57

The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning (In-charge), Pallayamkottai, Opp. New Bus Stand, Tirunelveli.

¶58

Nattalam Panchayat rep. by its President, Killiyur Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶59

+1cc to Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.39243 +1cc to Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, Advocate, S.R.No.39010 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.39934

¶60

W.P.No.6298 of 2019
KK(CO)
CS/27/04/2019

¶61

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Immanuel Arasar International v. The Regional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Immanuel Arasar International v. The Regional Officer

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

Rukmani Vs The Chairman

Angammal Educational Trust, Vs The Member Secretary

Selvam Educational and Vs The Member Secretary

Fathima, Vs The Commssioner of Police

Indra Ganesan Educational and Charitable Trust Vs The Member Secretary

Acoustics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Loesche Energy Systems India Pvt. Ltd.