The mandatory nature of the occupancy certificate and the need for clear and uniform implementation of eligibility norms by AICTE.

ORDER :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. By the order dated 30.04.2019, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), declined to grant the extension of approval for the academic year 2019-20 to the petitioner, and put the petitioner under the "no admission" category for the academic year 2019-20.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and has assailed it in this writ petition.

3. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhinav Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been denied the requisite approval, overlooking the past credentials of the institution. The impugned order, dated 30.04.2019, was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The provision for an occupancy certificate was introduced for the first time in the academic session 2017-18. No date has been fixed, for applicability, of the aforesaid provision, to pre-existing institutions. The institution, has been running since 1996, and has been continuously granted approvals' over the years.

4. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), in opposition to the writ petition, submits that the provision, for submission of occupancy certificate, is mandatory. He, emphatically contends, that the petitioner, has failed to submit the occupancy certificate, and hence, cannot be granted the approval for academic year 2019-20.

5. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhinav Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5-University and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

6. From a perusal of pleadings, as well as submission of the learned counsel for the parties, certain facts, essential for a just adjudication of the controversy, are beyond the pale of dispute.

7. The petitioner-institute, is running post graduate courses in Business Administration. The institute is affiliated to the APJ Abdul Kalam University. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) granted approval to the petitioner-institute, for conducting the post graduate diploma course in management, for the first time, in the year 1996. Thereafter, till the disputed academic year, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regularly granted approvals, without any break.

8. By letter dated 19.07.2016, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), introduced the requirement, for submission of occupancy certificates, by all institutes. The occupancy certificate, is a mandatory condition for approval of the institution.

9. However, the letter dated 19.07.2016, bifurcates the institutes into two categories, namely, the new technical institutes applying for approval for the first time, and preexisting institutes which were being granted approvals', in the previous years.

10. The letter, dated 19.07.2016, states that the new institutes, which had failed to submit an occupancy certificate, were not eligible for approval, on account of this deficiency. The letter, dated 19.07.2016, referencing the existing institutes, records "however, this condition was not applied to existing institutes".

11. The order, dated 19.07.2016, discusses the rationale, for making the occupancy certificate, a compulsory requirement. The order finally clarifies, that the occupancy certificate, shall be compulsory, for all existing All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) approved institutes, for getting extension of approval, from the academic year 2017-2018.

12. The petitioner-institute, comes in the category of preexisting institutions, which had approval, prior to the letter dated 16.09.2017. The petitioner-institute does not possess the occupancy certificate.

13. The All India Council