Disposed

The All India Council for Technical Education Rep. by its v. M/s. Gayathri Educational Society

Telangana HC25 Jun 2013WA/111/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal was disposed of by granting the appellants three days to file a counter-affidavit in the underlying writ petition. The bench directed the single judge to consider the issue afresh and maintain the status quo pending final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Three days granted to appellants to file counter-affidavit. Writ appeal disposed of; status quo maintained; miscellaneous applications disposed of as infructuous.

The All India Council for Technical Education… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶4

WRIT APPEAL No.111 of 2013

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and another.

¶7

…APPELLANTS

¶8

AND

¶9

M/s. Gayathri Educational Society, Nalgonda District and others.

¶10

…RESPONDENTS

¶11

Counsel for the Appellants: MR. K. RAMAKANTH REDDY

¶12

Counsel for the Respondents: MR. P. VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)

¶15

This appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the learned single Judge in WPMP.No.24770 of 2012 in WP.No.19339of 2012 dated 26.11.2012 as under:

¶16

“Though time was granted to the AICTE, as early as in June, 2012, when the writ petition came for admission, no counter-affidavit is filed so far.

¶17

The petitioner submitted an application for grant of approval for establishing a Polytechnic in a remote village in Nalgonda District. An inspection was conducted and certain deficiencies were also pointed out. After the formalities were completed, approval was granted by AICTE to the petitioner for establishing the institution for the academic year 2011-2012. On the basis of the communication received from the AICTE, the Government has also allotted candidates to the petitioner.

¶18

A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.12.2011, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why approval granted earlier be not withdrawn. It is stated that when a surprise visit was made, certain deficiencies were noticed. Most of them are to the effect that the premises were found locked. The petitioner states that such notice was not received by them at all. However, in the name of reminder, a letter of rejection was issued to the petitioner on 05.01.2012. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for AICTE, at some length.

¶20

Once the approval is granted by the AICTE for an institution, it remains at least for one academic year. The question of making surprise visit, once the college started functioning, does not arise. Further, if any, deficiencies were noticed, at any stage, that would have been a ground for rejection of renewal. Not being clear, as to whether it is refusing renewal or withdrawing the approval that was already granted one after the other, letters/notices were issued. The result is that the future of a batch of students admitted in the petitioner-institution on allotment by the Convener is in uncertainty. This Court would not permit such state of affairs.

¶21

Hence, it is directed that there shall be interim suspension of the impugned proceedings and the petitioner shall be entitled to function, notwithstanding any proceedings that have ensued so far.”

¶22

2. A Division Bench of this Court while admitting the writ appeal, by order dated 05.02.2013, granted interim suspension of the order of the learned single Judge.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents herein has now filed a vacate petition, being WAMP.No.1695 of 2013, alleging that the academic year has already started but in view of the interim suspension of the order of the learned single Judge, the sixth respondent, Convener, is not

¶24

allotting student to their institution.

¶25

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents and we have perused the interim order passed by the learned single Judge.

¶26

5. The aforesaid interim order has been passed at the threshold, as no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellants herein, however, submits that they would file counter affidavit in the writ petition.

¶27

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we deem it fit to grant three (3) days time to the appellants/respondents in the writ petition to file their counter affidavit and request the learned single Judge to consider the whole issue afresh by taking into account the contents of the counter affidavit, to be so filed by the appellants herein.

¶28

We also request the learned single Judge to pass orders either in the interlocutory application or in the main writ petition itself within a period of two (2) weeks from today. However, till the disposal of either the interlocutory application or the writ petition, status quo, existing as on today, shall be maintained.

¶29

The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

N. V. RAMANA, J

¶31

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶32

June 25, 2013 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 27.06.2013. (B/o)

¶33

DSK

The All India Council for Technical Education Rep. by its v. M/s. Gayathri Educational Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The All India Council for Technical Education Rep. by its v. M/s. Gayathri Educational Society

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

Kakarlapudi Venkata Narasimha Raju, S/o Jagannadha Raju, Vs The Government of A.P.

Bollineni Venkata Satyavathi Vs The A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

M/s. Nikhil Tobaccos Vs The Tobacco Board

M.Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs The Spl. Court under a.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act

Mir Mohsin Ali, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board

Aitha Ravinder, Vs The Andhra Bank, Rep by its General Manager