JUDGMENT :

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed by sister institutions, assailing identical show cause notices dated 08.06.2021 and orders dated 23.07.2021 passed by the respondent-All India Council for Technical Education [“AICTE”] declining the petitioners’ request for Extension of Approval [“EOA”] for the year 2021-22 for conducting their engineering and polytechnic courses.

2. The petitioners established their courses, with AICTE approval, in 2009-10 [in W.P. (C) 7426/2021] and 2012-13 [in W.P. (C) 7551/2021]. Both the institutions were granted EOAs annually, including for the year 2020-21.

3. For the 2021-22 session, they submitted their applications in March, 2021. Although the applications remained pending, the AICTE, in the meanwhile, received a reference from the Central Vigilance Commission [“CVC”] regarding a complaint of one Mr. Sunil Kumar. The AICTE thereafter issued a show cause notice dated 08.06.2021 to the petitioners. The AICTE also apparently referred the case to its Standing Appellate Committee [“SAC”] which purported to give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

4. The AICTE ultimately declined the EOAs to both the petitioners. Although the decisions were made on 11.07.2021, they were communicated to the petitioners vide orders dated 23.07.2021.

5. As there was a dispute with regard to the effectiveness of the hearing which had been granted by the AICTE, while issuing notice in these petitions on 03.08.2021, the AICTE was directed to consider the replies submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notices and grant them a further opportunity of hearing.

6. Pursuant to this order, the petitioners were granted a hearing before the SAC on 04.08.2021 and it passed orders on the same date, recording a conclusion that the institutions were being run without following the AICTE’s norms. The SAC reiterated the earlier orders wherein “no admission” was recommended for these two institutions for the academic year 2021-22.

7. It appears from the orders of the SAC dated 04.08.2021 that it has considered seven deficiencies on the basis of the complaint forwarded by the CVC. The SAC has proceeded on the basis that the petitioners were unable to produce the relevant documents for the period before March, 2021. It further appears that several documents were sought in the meeting of the SAC itself without prior notice, which the petitioners were unable to produce.

8. Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that several of the deficiencies enumerated in the orders dated 04.08.2021 are entirely misconceived, inasmuch as the points raised are not applicable to the petitioners at all. He submits that the original show cause notices dated 08.06.2021, as also the communication dated 05.07.2021, by which the contents of the complaint were forwarded to the petitioners, were generic and vague, making it impossible for the petitioners to satisfy the queries raised, without further opportunity being given after specifying the documentation required. Mr. Sharawat submits that the SAC has misguided itself in considering the cases of both the institutions together, although the particulars of each institution relating to building plans, fire safety regulations, electricity connections etc. are different.

9. Mr. Sharawat has also drawn my attention to the Approval Process Handbook, 2021-22 [“the Handbook”] read with Regulation 12 of the AICTE Regulations, 2020, which admittedly govern the petitioners. In the Handbook, Chapter VIII deals with “Penal Action in case of Violation of the Norms and Regulations.” Clauses 8.1 and 8.17 are relevant for the adjudication of the present cases:-

“8.1 Introduction

(a) An Institution offering any Programme/Course in Technical Education in violation of Regulations/Approval Process Handbook, shall be liable to appropriate Penal action including fin