Back
2024 5 Supreme(Telangana) 747
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
Sujoy Paul, Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, JJ.
Vidya Jyothi Educational Society and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
State of Telangana and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 953, 954, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 970, 971 and 973 of 2024
Decided On: 13-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D. Prakash Reddy, S. Niranjan Reddy, P. Sri Raghuram, S. Sriram, Senior Counsels and Tarun G. Reddy
For the Respondents:A. Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate General, GP, Abdul Quddus Mohammed, M. Mehboob Ali and C. Vani Reddy, SCs
The decision-making process in administrative actions must be reasoned and adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring each case is individually assessed.
Headnote:(A) Education Act, 1982 - Section 20 - Intra-Court appeals against common order regarding intake of seats and merger of courses - Appellants sought permissions from AICTE and JNTU, which were granted, but respondents failed to act - Court emphasized the need for reasoned decisions and proper application of mind in administrative actions. (Paras 3, 7, 19, 20)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The decision-making process must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring a reasoned basis for conclusions reached by authorities. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellants sought to enhance their intake of seats and merge courses, having received approvals from AICTE and JNTU, but faced inaction from the respondents.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was found to lack proper reasoning and application of relevant parameters, necessitating a fresh decision by the respondents.
Issues: The main issues included whether the impugned order was reasoned and whether the doctrine of negative equality was appropriately applied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the impugned order was passed mechanically without proper consideration of each appellant's case, violating principles of natural justice.
Result: Writ Appeals disposed of with directions for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT :
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, S.Niranjan Reddy, Sri P.Sri Raghuram and Sri S. Sriram, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General, appears for the State, Sri Abdul Quddus Mohammed, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU, appears for JNTU and Sri M.Mehboob Ali, learned Standing Counsel for AICTE, appears for AICTE.
2. These intra-Court appeals i.e., W.A. Nos. 953, 954 and 957 of 2024 are directed against the common order dated 09.08.2024. However, a request is made that the nine similar writ appeals are also filed against the same common order and although they are not listed, on the request of the counsel and in the absence of opposition by the other aside, they are also clubbed with these appeals. On the joint request of the parties, they were analogously heard and decided by this common order.
3. The facts are taken from W.A. No. 953 of 2024.
The admitted facts between the parties are that this is second visit of the appellants to this Court. The appellants, in order to modify/enhance the intake of seats and merger of courses, preferred applications before All India Council for Technical Education ('AICTE') and Jawaharlal Nehru Technical University ('JNTU'). The case of appellants is that both the statutory bodies granted them necessary permissions and the only impediment was that the official respondents have not taken any decision. The appellants at that stage preferred W.P.No.19102 of 2024 and it was disposed of on 19.07.2024 by directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to examine the case of petitioners for increase in intake of existing courses and also adjustment of seats in other courses as approved by AICTE and JNTU and for inclusion of appellants' institution in counseling process for academic year 2024-25. The learned Single Judge also recorded that in the aforesaid exercise and permission etc., there would be no financial implication on the State Government.
4. In furtherance of the order of this Court, the respondents passed the order dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure-P.14) which became subject matter of challenge before the Writ Court. After quoting certain judgments of the Apex Court, the authority declined to grant permission to the appellants.
5. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the aforesaid writ petitions and apprised the learned Single Judge that the order is devoid of reasons and in the light of constitution bench judgment of Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 651. The validity of the impugned order must be examined on the basis of reasons assigned therein and not on the basis of reasons furnished in the counter affidavit filed before this Court.
6. Another ground of attack to the impugned action was that the respondents on the one hand declined permission to the appellants despite approval from AICTE and JNTU, on the other hand, permitted certain unaided educational institutions to undertake same exercise and granted them permission. There should have been some transparent policy on the strength of which such decisions could be taken. The decision of authority cannot be based on whims and fancies.
7. The learned Single Judge considered the aforesaid aspect and by placing reliance on Section 20 of the Education Act, opined that under the Act, the Government is competent to examine various facets. If permission is illegally granted to certain educational institutions, that cannot be a ground to repeat the same mistake. In other words, the learned Single Judge opined that the negative equality cannot be claimed in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, the relief was declined.
8. The bone of contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellants is that if the operative reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 are carefully examined, it will be clear that the order is an example of non-application of mind. The similar stereotype
