Back
Judges : JAGANNADHA RAO,M.B.SHAH
Jaya Gokul Educational Trust - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner And Secretary to Government - Respondent
Case No : C.A. No. 2589 of 2000
Decided On : 04/11/2000
Advocates Appeared :
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer; For Appellant Mukul Rohtagi; For Respondent
Approval - Establishment of Engineering College - AICTE Act, 1987, S.10(k) - The AICTE Act, 1987 occupied the field relating to 'grant of approvals' for establishing technical institutions, and the provisions of the Central Act alone were to be complied with. The State law requiring the 'approval' of the State Government would be void. The University statute requiring 'approval' would be repugnant to the AICTE Act and void. The University could not impose any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulation or the conditions imposed by the AICTE. The University could not seek approval of the State Government. The AICTE's approval was sufficient and it was not necessary for the State Government to reconsider its decision. The direction to the University to consider the application for final affiliation or continuance of affiliation was to be done on the basis of the AICTE approval or any other relevant factors in the University Act or its statutes, which are not inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a trust, sought to establish a self-financing Engineering College and obtained conditional approval from the AICTE. The State Government refused permission, leading to a Writ Petition. The Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the government's order, and directed the University to consider the appellant's application for permanent affiliation. The Division Bench allowed the government's appeal, but observed that the appellant could make a fresh application to the government for sanction or request the government to consider the earlier application for a future academic year. The appellant appealed against the Division Bench's judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The AICTE Act, 1987 occupied the field relating to 'grant of approvals' for establishing technical institutions, and the provisions of the Central Act alone were to be complied with. The State law requiring the 'approval' of the State Government would be void. The University statute requiring 'approval' would be repugnant to the AICTE Act and void. The University could not impose any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulation or the conditions imposed by the AICTE. The University could not seek approval of the State Government. The AICTE's approval was sufficient and it was not necessary for the State Government to reconsider its decision. The direction to the University to consider the application for final affiliation or continuance of affiliation was to be done on the basis of the AICTE approval or any other relevant factors in the University Act or its statutes, which are not inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulations.
Issues: 1. Whether the AICTE Act, 1987 occupied the field relating to 'grant of approvals' for establishing technical institutions, rendering the State law requiring the 'approval' of the State Government void. 2. Whether the University statute requiring 'approval' was repugnant to the AICTE Act and void. 3. Whether the AICTE's approval was sufficient and it was not necessary for the State Government to reconsider its decision. 4. Whether the direction to the University to consider the application for final affiliation or continuance of affiliation was to be done on the basis of the AICTE approval or any other relevant factors in the University Act or its statutes, which are not inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The AICTE Act, 1987 occupied the field relating to 'grant of approvals' for establishing technical institutions, rendering the State law requiring the 'approval' of the State Government void. The University statute requiring 'approval' was repugnant to the AICTE Act and void. The AICTE's approval was sufficient and it was not necessary for the State Government to reconsider its decision. The direction to the University to consider the application for final affiliation or continuance of affiliation was to be done on the basis of the AICTE approval or any other relevant factors in the University Act or its statutes, which are not inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulations.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Division Bench was set aside. The direction to the University to consider the application for final affiliation or continuance of affiliation was to be done on the basis of the AICTE approval or any other relevant factors in the University Act or its statutes, which are not inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulations. There was no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is a trust which wanted to establish a self-financing Engineering College and submitted an application during 1994-95 to the University of Kerala as well as to All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter called the 'AICTE'). There was an inspection by a team of Professors of the University and it recommended favourably when it stated that the facilities provided by the appellant would be sufficient for establishing an Engineering College. The AICTE sent a communication on 30.4.1995 stating that on the basis of the observations made by the Expert Committee and the recommendations made by the Central Regional Committee, State Level Committee and Central Task Force as per the provisions of the AICTE regulation dated 30.1.1994, the AICTE was granting conditional approval for establishing an Engineering and Technical College. The abovesaid approval was subject to the fulfilment of specific conditions mentioned in Annexure 1 and the general conditions mentioned in Annexure II to the said letter. In the event of contravention of the conditions, guidelines, norms and regulations of the AICTE, the AICTE could withdraw the approval at any time. Under the impression that the State Government was to grant permission, the appellant requested the State Government by letter dated 24.6.1995 for permission to start the college. Meanwhile, the Mahatma Gandhi University by their letter dated 31.5.1995 forwarded to the Government a list of Colleges and Courses for affiliation during the academic year 1995-96. The appellant's college was shown as one of the colleges among the affiliated colleges for the said period. The appellant sent a reminder to the Government on 26.8.1995 for permission for starting the college for the academic year 1995-96 and ultimately the Government refused permission by informing the appellant by a letter dated 16.8.1996 as follows:
"in inviting your attention to the reference cited, I am to inform you that Government regret their inability to comply with your request".
Thereafter the appellant filed Writ Petition O.P. No. 4612 of 1996 for quashing the said order and for a direction to sanction and establish an Engineering College.
3. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated 14.1.1997 allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the abovesaid order of the government dated 16.8.1996 and directed the Mahatma Gandhi University to consider the appellant's application for permanent affiliation without reference to the above letter of the Government and pass appropriate orders within 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the judgment. The direction to pass a fresh order of affiliation was issued in view of the fact that the University contended before the learned Single Judge that unless the Government granted approval, permanent affiliation could not be granted. The Government was also directed to reconsider its decision.
4. Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge the Commissioner & Secretary of the Government (Higher Education Department) filed Writ Appeal No. 1024 of 1997. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Government and dismissed the Writ Petition. The Division Bench, however, observed that the appellant was at liberty to make a fresh application to the Government of Kerala for according sanction for setting up the Engineering College or to request the Government to consider the earlier application, for a future academic year. It is against the abovesaid judgment of the Division Bench that this appeal has been preferred.
5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant Sri. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer contended that the Division Bench erred in reversing the well considered judgment of the learned Single Judge and according to him after the coming into force of the AICTE Act, 1987, the statutes conferring power on the State or University to the extent they were inconsistent with the Central Act
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
