Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 1328
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra, JJ.
M/s. Dhaya College of Engineering - Petitioner
Versus
Anna University & Ors. - Respondents
Special Leave to Appeal (C)No(s). 21901 of 2014 in WA No. 873 of 2014
Decided On : 13-08-2014
For the Petitioner:Shalini Kaul, Sivaraman, Senthil Jagadeesan, Adit Pujari, Govind Manoharan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General, Subramanium Prasad, AAG, M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate.
The court has the authority to direct respondents to allow the commencement of an academic session despite objections, if it deems the objections should not impede the commencement.
Headnote:
Recognition - Academic Session Commencement - Court directs respondents to allow petitioner to commence academic session within one week and conduct counselling based on merit list prepared by competent authority
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-institution, granted recognition by AICTE in 2011, has been struggling to commence the first academic session due to delay in necessary affiliation from Anna University. The impugned order depicted deficiencies in paragraph 4.9, which the court found should not impede the commencement of the academic session.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to commence the academic session within one week and conduct counselling based on the merit list prepared by the competent authority. The counselling process should be completed by a specified date, and admissions should be finalized under all circumstances by a certain date.
Issues: Delay in commencement of academic session due to lack of necessary affiliation, objections depicted in the impugned order, financial loss to the petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the delay in commencement of the academic session would cause extensive financial loss to the petitioner despite the fulfilment of all essential norms, and therefore directed the respondents to allow the commencement of the academic session within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The court ordered the respondents to allow the petitioner to commence the academic session within one week, conduct counselling based on the merit list, and finalize admissions by a specified date. The matter was listed for further hearing on a specific date.
ORDER :
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy in hand and having heard the learned Attorney General representing respondent Nos.1 to 7, we are of the view that the petitioner-institution having been granted recognition by the AICTE as far back in 2011, has been struggling to commence the first academic session. The commencement has been delayed, on account of the Anna University having not granted the necessary affiliation. Paragraph 4.9 of the impugned order depicts some deficiencies. We feel that the objections contained in paragraph 4.9 should not act as an impediment to the commencement of the academic session, and accordingly, we find it appropriate to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to commence the academic session within one week from today by adhering to the different steps laid down by this Court. The counselling shall be conducted on the basis of the merit list prepared by the concerned competent authority, for which a Notification shall positively be issued by tomorrow i.e. 14.08.2014. The students who have already been admitted to other institutions, will not have the option to seek admission in the petitioner-institution.
2. The counselling process, in terms of the directions issued by this Court shall be completed by 19.08.2014, and the admissions shall be finalised under all circumstances by 20.08.2014.
3. The reason for us to extend the schedule expressed by this Court in its earlier orders, is based on the fact, that the institution in question i.e. the petitioner before this Court had assailed the action of the Anna University before the High Court by filing a writ petition as far back in 2013. It is only because, the judicial process extended up to 21.07.2014 (when the impugned order was passed) that the deadlines have been crossed. The last date for finalising admissions, has yet not crossed. The denial of commencement of the academic session would cause extensive financial loss to the petitioner, despite the fulfilment of all essential norms. It is in these peculiar circumstances that the instant order has been passed. In view of the above, the instant order shall not be taken as a precedent, for any other matter.
4. It will be open to the respondents, to examine at their own, from the relevant parties concerned, the veracity of the objections depicted in paragraph 4.9 of the impugned order. In case the objections subsist and there is a serious deficiency on the part of the petitioner-institution, the same shall be brought to the notice of this Court on the next date of hearing.
5. List again on 21.08.2014.
6. The Registry is directed to furnish a copy of the order to the learned counsel representing both sides today itself.
