Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
Archana Institute of Technology - Petitioner
Vs.
All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.Nos.1775 and 14379 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
Decided On : 10.07.2015
Approval Process - Educational Institution - AICTE Act, 2013 - [AICTE Act, 2013, Section 10(1)(g), Section 10(1)(n), Section 10(1)(o)] - The court discussed the provisions of the AICTE Act, 2013, particularly Sections 10(1)(g), 10(1)(n), and 10(1)(o), which outline the requirements for approval and extension of approval for educational institutions. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner institution challenged the withdrawal of extension of approval for the academic year 2014-2015 and the rejection of the application for extension of approval for the academic year 2015-2016 by the first respondent, AICTE. The petitioner claimed compliance with the deficiencies pointed out by the AICTE.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner institution was given multiple opportunities to rectify the deficiencies and present their case. The court noted that the deficiencies mainly pertained to the subdivision of land and building plan approval. The court also highlighted that the AICTE had followed the prescribed procedures and provided fair and reasonable opportunities for the petitioner to be heard.
Issues: The main issues involved the withdrawal of approval and rejection of the extension of approval by the AICTE, the alleged compliance with the deficiencies by the petitioner institution, and the procedural fairness of the AICTE's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the AICTE's withdrawal of approval and rejection of the extension were justified based on the absence of infrastructure facilities and other requirements stipulated under the AICTE Act, 2013. The court emphasized that students cannot be allowed to continue in unrecognized institutions solely on sympathetic considerations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the impugned orders warranted no interference. The petitioner was given the option to approach the concerned authority for re-inspection and to deal with issues related to payment of staff in accordance with previous orders.
By consent, both these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
2. In W.P.No.1775 of 2015, challenge is made to the order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the first respondent, in and by which withdrawal of extension of approval for the academic year 2014-2015 accorded to the petitioner institution was withdrawn. In W.P.No.14379 of 2015, challenge is made to the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the first respondent wherein it took a decision not to grant extension of approval for the academic year 2014-2015 to the petitioner institution. Facts relating to these writ petitions as well as the grounds of challenge are almost similar and identical and hence, both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
3. The deponent of the affidavit is the Managing Trustee of Archana Educational and Charitable Trust and according to him, the said trust was established in the year 2008 by him to provide valuable and technical education to the downtrodden living in and around Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri Districts. The Chairman of the Trust has been conferred with Rajiv Gandhi Shiromani Award and Golden medal for the achievement of individual in the field of technical education for the year 2010 and he was also conferred with Indira Gandhi Sadbhavana award in recognition of his yeomen service in the field of education and earned very many awards. The petitioner would further state that the trust decided to start Engineering college and technical institution in the name and style of Archana Institute of Technology by providing six streams of courses, namely Mechanical, Civil, Electronics and Communication, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Computer Science and Petroleum Engineering and providing Post Graduate courses in M.E. Computer Science and Structural Engineering and more than 650 students are studying in the said institution and is having 150 teaching and non-teaching staff with an aggregate area of 2,10,000 sq.ft. and it is also provided with all sophisticated facilities to the students such as air conditioned class rooms, High tech laboratory facilities etc.
4. The first respondent, on being satisfied with the infrastructure and other facilities, has granted approval dated 05.06.2009 for starting of a new technical institution and subsequently granted extension of approval for the years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. It is further stated by the petitioner that the first respondent rejected the extension of approval for the year 2013-2014 on the basis that Polytechnic College was functioning without the approval and it was clarified and extension of approval for the year 2013-2014 was granted on 30.04.2013. The first respondent, without proper verification of the records, has initiated proceedings against the petitioner institution during the academic year 2013-2014 and has directed its regional office by its letter dated 28.05.2013 to submit a report regarding the land documents, building plans, land use certificate of the college without any proper notice and the Regional Office, vide letter dated 12.06.2014, has directed its Advocates to submit a report after verification of revenue records and it was also submitted on 20.06.2014.
5. The petitioner institution has received a letter dated 21.07.2014 calling upon it to present before the Standing Complaint Committee of the respondent on 24.07.2014 within 3 days from the date of receipt of the letter and the petitioner institution prayed for furnishing of reports of the Regional Committee and sought for time and it was also granted. The petitioner would state that the Chairman of the trust appeared before the Standing Complaint Committee on 04.09.2014, which in-turn directed the production of certain original documents and also directed the Southern Regional Office to submit all the original documents filed by the petitioner. However, the Standing Complaint Committee, without waiting for the reply of the petitioner, has forwarded
AI
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
