Adherence to the time schedule for approval and lack of exceptional circumstances to grant approval for the academic session 2016-2017.

DARSHAN SINGH, J.

Appellant-Keshav Educational Society (for short ‘Society’) has directed this appeal against the judgment/Order dated 06.05.2016, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Civil Writ Petition No. 6913 of 2016 filed by the appellant-Society.

2. the appellant-Society is running a Pharmacy College under the name and style Keshav College of Pharmacy, Assand-Kohand road, V.P.O Salwan, District Karnal, Haryana (for short ‘College’) the said College was accorded approval by the All India National Council for Technical Education (hereinafter called ‘A.I.C.T.E.’) in the year 2007, which was extended up to2014-2015. But, it did not apply for extension of approval for the Session 2015-2016 the Pharmacy Council of India put the College under ‘no admission category’ for 2015-2016 Session. Thereafter, the appellant-Society applied for extension of approval for the Session 2016-2017. An Expert Valuation Committee (for short ‘E.V.C.’) was appointed to visit the college in order to verify about the infrastructure as per A.I.C.T.E. norms, which visited the College on 29.03.2016 and pointed out about 24 deficiencies in its report the case of the appellant was referred to the Standing Appellate Committee (for short ‘S.A.C’.) for consideration. During the pendency of the writ petition, the S.A.C. decided the matter for grant of approval against the appellant on 04.04.2016 the appellant amended the writ petition with the permission of the Court to challenge the said action.

3. the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment/order dated 06.05.2016. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal.

4. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present appeal, the Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Science, Rohtak was ordered to be impleaded as respondent no. 4 to apprise the Court whether the appellant college can be considered for admissions for the current academic session.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously gone through the record.

6. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that approval to the appellant-Society to run B. Pharmacy Course was granted from year to year without any break up to academic year 2014-2015. However, due to financial constraints the accounts of the appellant-Society were declared as ‘non performing assets’ and the bank initiated the proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and took over the physical possession of the premises of the college on 29.01.2015. On payment of the arrears of loan, the possession was restored on 16.03.2015. So, the appellant-Society could not apply for grant of approval for academic Session 2015-2016. Thus, the said non-grant of approval was not on account of any deficiency but for the reasons beyond the control of the appellant.

7. He further contended that the E.V.C. of the respondents conducted the inspection of the appellant-Institute on 29.03.2016 and the deficiencies were pointed out on 02.04.2016. the appellant was directed to be present before the S.A.C. on 04.04.2016 at 10.00 a.m. along with relevant documents the time given to the appellant was extremely short. Even then the appellant attended the meeting and presented the application seeking two week's time to remove these deficiencies. But, the S.A.C. by cryptic and without appreciating practical difficulty passed the impugned order dated 04.04.2016. He contended that the said order is illegal the respondents have not adhered to the time schedule for inspection of the College. He contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education [(2013) 3 SCC 385] has laid down that there should be strict adherence to the time schedule for the grant of approval which has been violated in this case. He further contended that Civil Writ Petition No. 9844 o