Disposed

The All India Council for Technical Education v. Visakha Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Telangana HC12 Oct 2012WA/1025/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition and appeal regarding the rejection of an educational institution's approval renewal. The court held that the institution had misrepresented its address and location of infrastructure. It directed the Registrar of AICTE to consider a fresh application conditionally, subject to the depositing of a penal fee to protect the interests of existing students. The

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- as a penal fee; AICTE to consider a fresh application for address change and continuance of the institute without admitting new students until decided

The All India Council for Technical Education Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NO.1025 OF 2012 AND WRIT PETITION NO.25081 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:12.10.2012

¶5

W.A. NO.1025 OF 2012 Between: The All India Council for Technical Education Rep. by its Advisor (approval) 7^th Floor, Chanderlok Building Janpath New Delhi and others … Appellants And Visakha Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences Potina Mallayya Palem Opp. Visakhapatnam and others … Respondents W.P. NO.25081 OF 2012 Between: Visakha Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences Potina Mallayya Palem Opp. Visakhapatnam … Petitioner And The All India Council for Technical Education Rep. by its Advisor (approval) 7^th Floor, Chanderlok Building Janpath New Delhi and others … Respondents

¶6

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1025 OF 2012 AND WRIT PETITION NO.25081 OF 2012

¶9

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶10

(per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶11

The writ appeal is filed against the order dt.14.8.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. No.25081 of 2012.

¶12

Respondent No.1 - writ petitioner filed the writ petition to declare the order dt.3.8.2012 in F.No.AICTE/App/SCR/2011 (Visakha) passed by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) as illegal and arbitrary and for a direction to the AICTE to grant the renewal of approval to the petitioner institution from the academic year 2012-13 onwards. By the said order, the AICTE rejected the petitioner’s representation dt.20.7.2012 for extension of approval for academic year 2012-13.

¶13

On consideration of the matter, the Hon’ble Single Judge passed the impugned interim order in the appeal, by suspending the order passed by AICTE dt.3.8.2012.

¶14

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, AICTE and two other respondents in the writ petition, respondent Nos.1, 4 and 6 respectively, filed this appeal.

¶15

The writ appeal as well as the writ petition are taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶17

material available on record.

¶18

When the matter was taken up on 12.9.2012, this Court directed the AICTE to inspect the writ petitioner institute and pass a fresh order in the matter, only considering the difficulties which have been faced by the students who were already got admitted in earlier years in the petitioner institute and their continuing in the said institute with the course. Accordingly, the AICTE has passed an order dt.01/03-102012 in the matter. It was stated therein that the writ petitioner society vide their letter dt.14.12.2011 requested for approval stating under:

¶19

“I had already stated that we have acquired land of an extent of Acre 5-58 cts. in S.No.153/1 and 154/1 of Paradesipalem Village, Madhurawada and Visakhapatnam. With a generous heart and broad mind, we request you to kindly refrain from taking any action against us as proposed in the show cause notice as we are sure and certain that by the next academic year, we will definitely, positively and certainly comply with all the AICTE norms without exception.”

¶20

At the time of inspection, it appears that the authorities found the petitioner society has shown the address of the college as D. No.1-35, Plot No.10, Opposite to YSR Cricket Stadium, P.M.Palem, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam, whereas the society submitted land documents pertaining to land in Survey No.153/1 and 154/1 situated at Paradesipalem, Visakhapatnam, admeasuring an extent of Acre05-58 cents, where there is no building or any structure. In fact, the petitioner society is running the college at a different place. In these circumstances, the AICTE recorded in paragraph 16 of its order as under:

¶21

“Since the year 2007, the society by playing fraud and resorting to forgery has been submitting documents pertaining to land in Survey No.153/1 and 154/1 situated at Paradesipalem, Visakhapatnam, admeasuring extent of Acre 05-58 cents where there is no building or any structure, and running the college at Door No.1-35, Plot No.10, opposite to ‘YSR Cricket Stadium’, P.M. Palem, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam – 530041.”

¶22

It further appears that the petitioner society never made online application as per rules seeking approval/extension of approval to run

¶23

the college at Door Number 1-35, Plot number 10, P.M. Palem, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam, and in fact even on the date of inspection, no college or any structure exists on the land shown by the petitioner to have the said licence. In these circumstances, the AICTE stated in its order as under:

¶24

“Showing one location and running the institution in a different location amounts to gross violation of AICTE rules and regulations. Institution can’t be permitted with inadequate infrastructure as per AICTE norms.”

¶25

Accordingly, the request for extension of approval was rejected by the AICTE.

¶26

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the AICTE submitted that if the writ petitioner wants to apply for the approval afresh, it must apply before the AICTE in accordance with the norms laid down by the AICTE with proper address, and further it can have the approval to run at D.No.1-35, Plot No.10, Opposite to YSR Cricket Stadium, P.M. Palem, Madhurawada, after having all the infrastructure.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted before us that even if petitioner do not admit any student in the first year in this present academic year 2012-13, it has to cater to 400 students who were still in the institute and pursuing their studies with the Institute. Under these circumstances, he prays leave of this Court to apply before the AICTE afresh after giving proper address, wherein in fact the petitioner institute is being run, it would satisfy all the norms and infrastructure as has been stipulated by the AICTE.

¶28

Since the petitioner wants to change the address of their institute and wants the approval from the AICTE, we direct the AICTE, New Delhi, to consider the said prayer of the appellant on condition of the writ petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) with the said authority since in our opinion, the writ petitioner gave a wrong address to have the approval and has not taken any steps for a long time since 2007 till date for necessary approval to change the said address, nor applied properly as required

¶29

to have been done by it.

¶30

Under these circumstances, as it appears to us that the fate of 400 students is really in jeopardy at the institution, we direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- at the moment as a penal fee to AICTE, which will consider the request and will change the address of the appellant for continuance of the institute in question and further allow it to run, provided the petitioner fulfil criteria stipulated by the AICTE. The said amount should be kept by the AICTE. If such compliance is made by paying the penal amount by the petitioner, the AICTE shall take necessary steps in the matter for approval, including for the next academic year. Till the matter is decided by the AICTE, the writ petitioner shall not admit any new/fresh students into the institute.

¶31

With the above directions and observations, the writ appeal and the writ petition stand disposed of. No costs.

¶32

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶33

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 12.10.2012

¶34

bnr

The All India Council for Technical Education v. Visakha Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The All India Council for Technical Education v. Visakha Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences

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

V. Amarender, S/o. Late v. Chiranjivi Rao Vs The Commissioner of Police

Arundathi Gangi Reddy, Vs Kanala Obula Reddy

Sri.Ch.Narasimha Rao, Vs The Land Acquisition Officer (R.D.O.)

Scorpio Construction Private Limited, Vs The Department of Economic Affairs

Gundu Ramulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Vendra Sriramulu, Vs The Axis Bank