The main legal point established in the judgment is that the AICTE regulations and the rejection of the petitioner's application were not in violation of the principles of natural justice or the AICTE Act.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks, i) quashing of Regulations 4&5 of the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for the Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2012 as ultra vires Sections 10 & 11 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE), as well as Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India; ii) quashing of order dated 30.04.2014 of the respondent AICTE; iii) a writ of mandamus directing the respondent AICTE to grant approval to the petitioner for conducting Diploma in Pharmacy with intake of 180 seats from the academic year 2014-15; and, iv) alternatively a direction commanding the respondent AICTE to re-inspect the college of the petitioner to verify whether the deficiencies found by the Expert Committee have been rectified and to thereafter process the application of the appellant for grant of approval for conducting Diploma in Pharmacy with intake of 180 seats from the academic year 2014-15.

2. The counsel for the sole respondent AICTE appeared on advance notice and we finally heard the counsels on the writ petition itself, on 22.05.2014 & 23.05.2014.

3. It is the case of the petitioner:

(i) That the petitioner has been established for the purpose of conducting Diploma in Pharmacy and for which prior recognition is required from the respondent AICTE;

(ii) That the petitioner, on 27.02.2014, made an application to the respondent AICTE seeking approval for the academic Session 2014-15 with an intake of 180 seats and paid processing fee of Rs.5 lacs therefor;

(iii) the application of the petitioner was processed by the Scrutiny Committee of the North Western Regional Office of the respondent AICTE; being satisfied with the application, the Scrutiny Committee recommended a visit by the Expert Committee for conducting physical inspection of the college of the petitioner;

(iv) The Expert Committee conducted inspection on 11.03.2014 and in its report of the same date pointed out eight deficiencies in the petitioner college;

(v) The respondent AICTE vide its letter dated 25.03.2014 to the petitioner, on account of said deficiencies, rejected the application of the petitioner without affording any opportunity to the petitioner;

(vi) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the said rejection is void, being in breach of the principles of natural justice;

(vii) the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Standing Appeal Committee (SAC) of the respondent AICTE which heard the petitioner on 31.03.2014 and being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, recommended scrutiny;

(viii) SAC Scrutiny Committee scrutinized the case and was completely satisfied with the explanations offered by the petitioner and vide its report dated 02.04.2014 recommended inspection of the college of the petitioner; (ix) the Expert Committee again visited the college of the petitioner on 30.04.2014; (x) no copy of the report of the visit dated 30.04.2014 has been supplied to the petitioner; (xi) however the respondent AICTE on the basis of the said report, vide impugned order dated 30.04.2014 rejected the application / appeal of the petitioner, again without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;

(xii) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 30.04.2014 is also violative of the principles of natural justice;

(xiii) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the grounds for rejection in the order dated 30.04.2014 are different from those given in the letter dated 25.03.2014.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to Section 11 of the AICTE Act which is as under:

“11. Inspection – (1) For the purposes of ascertaining the financial needs of technical institution or a University or its standards of teaching, examination and research, the Council may cause an inspection of, any departme