Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, Abhay Ahuja, JJ.
Rachna Sansad College of Applied Art & Craft, through its Director, Mr. Uday D. Chande and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
All India Council for Technical Education, Through its Member Secretary and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.2122 of 2016
Decided On : 22-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 –Power of high court to issue certain writs - Order rejecting request of petitioners for change of location without hearing petitioners and an order passed by Director, Approval of All India Council for Technical Education placing he petitioners under ‘No Admission’ –Challenged - Seeking for an order and direction against respondent to grant extension of approval for academic and to upload name of petitioner for Centralized Admission Process and to allow to participate in CAP round and Institutional Quota Admission Procedure for academic in respect of B.A.F. (Applied Art) courses conducted by petitioners in its college and for other reliefs - On petitioner college was granted approval by State Government through Director of Technical Education for establishing a college of Applied Arts and Craft and offer B.F.A. Degree course with approved intake of 60 students.
Finding of the Court : Respondent rejected application for change of location/site by order petitioners thus continued both courses in same building. - Respondent continued to grant Extension of Approval for subsequent academic without insisting petitioners to remove alleged deficiencies for academic It is not disputed by respondent that petitioners have subsequently removed deficiencies pointed out by respondent in - Court in case of Medical College & Hospital has considered identical facts wherein permission was refused for particular academic year on ground of deficiencies however was granted Extension of Approval for subsequent years without calling upon petitioners to cure deficiencies pointed out in impugned order therein. - Court considered similar facts and after adverting to judgment delivered by another Division Bench Court in case of held that if AICTE would not have been satisfied that conditions pressed in impugned order and deficiencies pointed out therein were not cured out, AICTE would not have given Extension of Approval for subsequent years - Court accordingly held that conditions imposed in impugned order rejecting application on ground of deficiencies became redundant. – Court view of subsequent permissions granted by respondent and 2 and condoning alleged deficiencies pointed out in impugned order, Court was pleased to quash and set aside impugned order therein and to direct respondent to grant permission.
Result : Rule made absolute
JUDGMENT :
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
Rule. Mr. Abhijeet Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 waives service. Mr. Hemant Haryan, Assistant Government Pleader waives service for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. By consent of parties, the petition is heard finally. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are as under :-
2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order 8th April, 2016 rejecting the request of the petitioners for change of location without hearing the petitioners and an order dated 30th April, 2016 passed by the Director, Approval of All India Council for Technical Education placing he petitioners under ‘No Admission’. The petitioners have also prayed for an order and direction against the respondent no.1 to grant extension of approval for the academic year 2016-2017 and to upload the name of the petitioner no.1 for the Centralized Admission Process and to allow to participate in CAP round and Institutional Quota Admission Procedure for the academic year 2016-2017 in respect of B.A.F. (Applied Art) courses conducted by the petitioners in its college and for other reliefs.
3. On 4th August, 2000, the petitioner no.1 college was granted approval by the State Government through Director of Technical Education for establishing a college of Applied Arts and Craft and offer 4 years B.F.A. Degree course with approved intake of 60 students per academic year.
4. On 8th August, 2001, the petitioner no.1 was granted First Time Approval by the respondent no.1 for the academic year 2001-02 which was extended for each subsequent academic year 2015-16. On 9th August, 2001, the petitioner no.1 college was granted First Time Affiliation by Mumbai University for the said course. It is the case of the petitioner that the only other college imparting 4 years B.F.A. (Applied Art) Degree Course in Mumbai is Sir J.J. School of Arts with intake capacity of 100 students per academic year. Combined intake capacity of both colleges is 160 students per academic year. Minimum 750 students apply for B.F.A.- 4 Years Degree Course.
5. All colleges of Applied Art are registered with the Directorate of Arts, Maharashtra State. The Directorate of Arts is the Competent Authority for conducting Common Entrance Test and admission to 4 years Full Time Degree Course B.F.A. (Applied Arts). The admission Regulating Authority, constituted under section 7 of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fees) Act, 2015 admits students to those course as per inter-se merit.
6. On 10th February, 2016, the petitioner no.1 filed online applications for two separate approvals i.e. (i) Extension of Approval for B.F.A. for 2016-17 and (ii) change of location/site. The petitioners paid separate fees aggregating to Rs. 4 lacs towards the same. On 8th May, 2016, the respondent no.1 rejected the application for change of location/site. On 30th April, 2016, the respondent no.1 rejected the application for Extension of Approval for academic year 2016-17 and placed the petitioners in the ‘No Admission’ category. The Standing Appellate Committee by order dated 30th April, 2016 affirmed the decision of the respondent no.1 for non-issuance of Extension of Approval for the academic year 2016-17. Being aggrieved by the said two orders, the petitioners filed this writ petition.
7. On 1st June, 2016, a Division Bench of this Court granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) thereby staying the operation of the said impugned order dated 30th April, 2016 which were seeking stay of the order dated 30th April, 2016 and to direct the respondent no.1 to grant Extension of Approval for the academic year 2016-17 for the full intake and to upload the name of the petitioners for the Centralized Admission Process Procedure for the full intake of students which was granted by the respondent no.1 for the academic year 2015-16 a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
