Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 20874
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J
Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society – Appellant
Versus
All India Council For Technical Education – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos.17148, 17161, 17168 of 2017 | 8877 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Niranjan Reddy, B. Chandrasen Reddy
For the Respondents: K.Vivek Reddy, M.Govind Reddy
Technical institutions are mandated by statutory regulations to possess clear land title and approved construction plans. Regulatory bodies tasked with maintaining educational standards have the authority to verify these documents, and failure to meet these mandatory requirements justifies the withdrawal of approval or extension of approval.
Headnote:(A) All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - Section 10 - Regulations for Grant of Approvals - Requirement for clear land title and approved building plans - Technical institutions must possess clear title to land and approved building plans from competent authorities as a condition precedent for approval or extension of approval - Failure to provide these documents constitutes valid grounds for withdrawal of approval. (Paras 21, 23, 25, 33)
(B) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Constitution of expert committees - Use of expert committees by statutory bodies to evaluate compliance with regulatory norms does not violate natural justice if the party is granted adequate opportunity to respond and produce documents. (Paras 30, 33)
Facts of the case:
A technical education society challenged the actions of a statutory regulatory body that initiated withdrawal of approvals for its institutions. The regulatory body had conducted inquiries regarding land ownership and construction permissions following complaints alleging that the institution lacked valid title and approved plans. The institution contended that it held possessory title and that the committee's actions were without jurisdiction. The regulatory authority maintained that statutory regulations mandated clear title and adherence to building norms, which were not met.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to prove lawful possession or clear title for the subject land as required by statutory regulations and did not possess valid, sanctioned building plans. The court emphasized that the regulatory body has the authority to insist on compliance with mandatory norms, and that the constitution of an expert committee to review documents did not infringe upon the rights of the petitioner, as sufficient opportunity for personal hearings and document submission was provided.
Issues: Whether the regulatory body exceeded its jurisdiction by investigating land title and building plans; whether the committee’s failure to furnish its report to the petitioner vitiated the proceedings; and whether the petitioner complied with the mandatory regulatory requirements for institutional approval.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that AICTE regulations regarding the requirement of land ownership and sanctioned construction plans are binding and mandatory. Statutory bodies are empowered to evaluate compliance with these norms. An expert committee’s opinion does not serve as a final adjudication of civil title disputes but as a necessary assessment of regulatory compliance. Non-furnishing of an expert report does not invalidate proceedings where the institution was granted a fair opportunity to produce evidence and admitted to lacking the mandatory documentation.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history and litigation context regarding educational institution approvals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding regulatory compliance and jurisdiction of aicte. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. legal requirements for land title and regulatory approvals under aicte act. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. compliance with mandatory infrastructure and title norms is essential. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. final order dismissing petitions due to lack of regulatory compliance. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
The issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ Petition No.17148 of 2017 is filed by the Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society and others, seeking following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
i) the action of the 1st Respondent in conducting title dispute adjudication while processing approvals under the AICTE Act including by passing its order dated 29.04.2017 in F.No.South-Central/1-6059891/2016/EOA thereby withdrawal the approval of the 2nd Petitioner Institution order as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same;
ii) direct the 1st Respondent to grant approval for the full sanctioned intake for all the courses of the 2nd Petitioner Institution for the academic year 2017-18;”
3. Writ Petition No.17161 of 2017 is filed by the Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society and others, seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
i) the action of the 1st Respondent in conducting title dispute adjudication while processing approvals under the AICTE Act including by passing its order of approval dated 29.04.2017 in F.No.South-Central/1-3333652321/2017/NO Admission proving for zero admissions as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same;
ii) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the order dated 29.04.2017 in F.No. AICTE/AOO/SCR2016 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same;
iii) Further direct the 1st Respondent to grant approval for the full sanctioned intake for all the courses of the 2nd Petitioner Institution for the academic year 2017-18…”
4. Writ Petition No.17168 of 2017 is filed by the Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society and others, seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
i) the action of the 1st Respondent in conducting title dispute adjudication while processing approvals under the AICTE Act including by passing its order of 'withdrawal of approval' dated 29.04.2017 in F.No. South Central/1-4414044/2016/EOA as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same;
ii) Further direct the 1st Respondent to grant approval for the full sanctioned intake for all the courses of the 2nd Petitioner Institution for the academic year 2017-18…”
5. Writ Petition No.8877 of 2019 is filed by M/s.Sheena Agro Farms (P) Limited and other private companies and individuals against the AICTE, Sultan-Ul-Uloom Society and others, seeking the following relief:
“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare that the respondents 4 to 7 are not entitled for extension of approval for the Academic Year 2019-20 and subsequent years by the 1st respondent for running their respective Educational Institutions, over the extent of petitioners property admeasuring Ac.6-00 guntas, bearing No.8-2-249 to 269, form
