Dismissed

Jiwan Jyoti Polytechnic College Jalalabad v. Aicte and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Aug 2013CWP/13108/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought an extension of institutional approval with a late fee payment. The court rejected the plea, holding that the petitioner was duly notified of the cut-off date mandated by the Approval Process Handbook 2013-14.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the application was rightly declined due to submission beyond the cut-off date.

Jiwan Jyoti Polytechnic College Jalalabad Vs Aicte and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Kumar Vinod 2013.08.06 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶2

CWP No.13108 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

[ 1 ]

¶4

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

CWP No.13108 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:02.08.2013

¶7

Jiwan Jyoti Polytechnic College Jalalabad

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

All India Council for Technical Education and others ...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶12

Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶14

Mr. V. Ramsawroop, Addl. A.G., Punjab. *****

¶15

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J .

¶16

The sole grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that its application for extension of approval with late fee has been declined by the respondents.

¶17

It is submitted that extension of approval can be allowed to the minority institution on payment of late fee of `2 lacs. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the late fee, but the respondents have declined it on the ground that as per regulations and Approval Process Handbook (APH) 2013-14 the last date for submission of application with late fee/penalty was 20.02.2013.

¶18

After notice, respondent nos.1 and 2 filed their reply in which it

¶19

Kumar Vinod 2013.08.06 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13108 of 2013 (O&M) [ 2 ]

¶20

is averred that a wide publicity was carried out in daily news papers for inviting applications for approval/extension of approval intimating the cutoff-date as well. Public notice was also issued for inviting online application w.e.f. 30.09.2012 to 31.12.2012 and the last date for accepting online application was extended up to 15.01.2013 without late fee and with late fee it was 15.02.2013 with a specific stipulation that no application shall be accepted beyond 15.02.2013. The date was further extended up to 12.02.2013 and with late fee up to 20.02.2013. However, the petitioner had applied on 06.05.2013, much after the cut-off-date and as such, the application was declined.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents should not have adopted pedantic approach rather in view of the laudable object for which the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, was enacted, the approach of respondent nos.1 and 2 should have been pragmatic and the application submitted by the petitioner even on 06.05.2013 should have been accepted with late fee as there is a provision for it in the APH 2013-14.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed because the petitioner was apprised of submission of the application for extension of approval by way of public notice in various newspapers. It cannot be accepted that the petitioner, being the educational institution, was not aware of the dates within which it had to apply for extension of approval. It is also not the case of the

¶23

Kumar Vinod 2013.08.06 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13108 of 2013 (O&M) [ 3 ]

¶24

petitioner that respondent nos.1 and 2 have not offered for submission of the application even after the due date with late fee, which is the main plank of the arguments of the petitioner, but the petitioner did not choose to submit the application with late fee before the cut-off-date which was 20.02.2013 and applied for extension of approval on 06.05.2013 which has been rightly declined by the respondents as no application beyond 20.02.2013 could have been entertained as there is a cut-off-date provided for submission of the application given in the APH 2013-14.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶26

August 02, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE

Jiwan Jyoti Polytechnic College Jalalabad v. Aicte and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiwan Jyoti Polytechnic College Jalalabad v. Aicte and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Avtar Vs Arun Kumar Gupta

Surinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhawani Shanker Anangupuria Charitabla Trust and Ano Vs Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University etc.

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Isha Karwasra Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kartaro Devi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.