Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nirzar S. Desai, J
Asia Pacific Institute Of Hotel Management – Appellant
Versus
Commissionerate Of Technical Education – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10099 of 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. B. Gohil
For the Respondents: Henil Shah, Harsheel D. Shukla, Nikunt K. Raval

Adherence to natural justice requires that any adverse administrative action be preceded by a show-cause notice covering all grounds. Where an order, stayed by interim relief, pertains to an academic cycle that has already concluded, the challenge to that order becomes infructuous while requiring ongoing procedural compliance.

Headnote:(A) Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement of show-cause notice - Procedural fairness - Any order passed based on grounds not mentioned in the show-cause notice is a violation of natural justice, as it denies the opportunity to respond to those specific grounds prior to an adverse administrative decision. (Paras 6, 9)

(B) Academic matters - Infructuous petitions - Where an interim order has allowed an institution to function for a specific academic cycle and the period has already elapsed, the petition challenging the restriction becomes infructuous, enabling the court to quash the impugned order while preserving legal questions for future determination. (Paras 4, 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an administrative order placing the institution in a restriction zone for a specific academic year due to alleged infrastructure deficiencies and fee regulation violations. The court granted interim relief in 2018, enabling the institution to continue admissions. In the years following, the students admitted under this relief completed their courses. The matter reached final stages with the petitioner offering to pay a token cost for the relief received.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the challenged order was predicated on new grounds that were absent from the original show-cause notice, violating procedural norms. Furthermore, noting that the restriction period had long expired and the students had already passed out, the court determined the original order had been rendered moot by the passage of time.

Issues: The main issues were whether an administrative order issued on grounds not stated in the show-cause notice violates natural justice and whether the petition remains maintainable once the academic cycle in question has concluded.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative orders must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice by providing proper notice of all reasons for the proposed punitive action. When an impugned decision, stayed by interim relief, relates to a past academic period and has been overtaken by events, justice is best served by setting aside the order while keeping broader legal principles open for subsequent adjudication.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order quashed and set aside, with token costs imposed.

Table of Content
1. administrative actions must strictly follow natural justice and the scope of show-cause notices. (Para 1 , 2)
2. appellate courts uphold interim protections when procedural improprieties exist in administrative orders. (Para 3)
3. legal proceedings challenging time-bound academic orders become infructuous after completion of the affected academic cycle. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :

=========================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

=========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

“{A} Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions in the form of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ Quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.6.2018 (Annx – F Supra) passed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner herein as the same being illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and nothing but colourable exercise at the hands of the respondents;

{B} Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions in the form of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ pending admission and final disposal of this petition, implementation and/or operation of the order dated 21.6.2018 (Annx – F Supra) passed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner herein, BE STAYED;”

2. Learned advocate Mr. M. B. Gohil submitted that the petitioner by way of this petition had challenged the order dated 21.6.2018 whereby the respondents restrained the petitioner from admitting students any more for the Academic Year 2018 – 19 till the issue about allegation relating to the petitioner Institution charging more fees than the fees prescribed by the Fee Regulatory Committee is decided. According to learned advocate Mr. Gohil, after issuance of notice and after by-parte hearing, the coordinate Bench of this Court on 17.7.2018 passed the following order :-

“1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following interim relief :-

“17(B). Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions in the form of mandamus or any other appropriate writ pending admission and final disposal of this petition, implementation and/or operation of the order dated 21.06.2018 (Annexure F Supra) passed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner herein, be stayed.”

2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a recognized Institute by the All India Council of Technical Education since 8 years and vide order dated 04.04.2018, the AICTE granted extension of approval for 60 Intakes for academic year 2018-19 at Under Graduate level in Hotel Management and Catering Programme.

4. The respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice dated 07.06.2018 for compliance of deficiency, namely,

“1. No full time Endorsed Regular Principal.

2. Shortage in teaching staff-Professor-2, Asso.Prof.-3, Asst.Prof.-3.

3. Not mentioned cadre ratio.

4. In almost all the subject, there is a shortfall in the number of lectures taken.

5. Short fail in Laboratory / Workshop-1 & Seminar Hall-1.

6. Shortage in Library;- National Journals – 6.”

5. The petitioner was instructed to rectify the deficiency and to submit compliance report to the respondent No.2 along with all the documentary proof before 15.06.2018.

6. Vide reply dated 20.06.2018, the petitioner furnished clarification and documents, as sought for, by the respondent No.2. Without considering the reply dated 20.06.2018, the respondent No.2, vide order dated 21.06.2018, put the petitioner – College under ‘No Admission Zone’ for the academic year 2018-19. The reasons/grounds shown in the impugned order are not as shown in the show-cause notice dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADNirzar S. Desai, JAsia Pacific Institute Of Hotel Management – AppellantVersusCommissionerate Of Technical Education – RespondentR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10099 of 2018

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nirzar S. Desai, J
Asia Pacific Institute Of Hotel Management – Appellant
Versus
Commissionerate Of Technical Education – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10099 of 2018