Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 20873
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
A statutory regulatory body in technical education has the authority to insist upon clear land titles, approved building plans, and occupancy certificates as part of the approval process. Failure to satisfy these mandatory norms allows the body to withdraw approvals, provided sufficient opportunity for compliance was granted.
Headnote:(A) All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - Section 10 - Approval Process Handbook - Requirement of lawful possession and clear title for establishment of technical institutions - Obligation to produce approved building plans and occupancy certificates - Failure to comply with mandatory regulatory norms warrants withdrawal of approval.
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of - Fair opportunity to produce documents and be heard before an expert committee satisfies requirements of natural justice - Non-furnishing of expert committee report does not vitiate proceedings if applicant was granted reasonable opportunity to rectify deficiencies.
(C) Educational Institutions - Regulatory control - Expert bodies hold jurisdiction to mandate standards - Courts should not interfere with decisions of expert bodies unless arbitrary or contrary to law - Educational standards should not be diluted by judicial mandates. (Paras 16, 18, 23, 30, 31, 33)
Facts of the case:
A society running educational institutions challenged adverse orders passed by a statutory regulatory body regarding the withdrawal of approval for technical courses. The dispute involved land ownership, lack of approved building plans, and inter-se title conflicts between the society and third-party claimants. The regulatory body constituted an expert committee following receipt of specific complaints regarding lack of documentation.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the society failed to produce required ownership deeds, sanctioned building plans, or occupancy certificates. Admissions made by representatives before the expert committee confirmed the absence of registered conveyance deeds and approved construction plans. The regulatory body, within its lawful authority, provided sufficient opportunity for compliance.
Issues: Whether the regulatory body acted within its jurisdiction in examining land title and building compliance, and whether non-furnishing of the expert committee report violated natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory regulatory bodies possess the mandate to ensure institutions maintain legally recognized infrastructure, clear land titles, and building safety certifications. Admission of a failure to comply with these mandatory norms justifies non-extension of approval. Judicial review is limited when the institution fails to meet baseline regulatory requirements established by expert bodies.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural consolidation of interconnected writ petitions challenging aicte regulatory actions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. factual history regarding land title disputes and aicte regulatory proceedings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. parties' contentions regarding jurisdictional authority and regulatory compliance process. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. legal framework governing aicte's power to regulate land and building standards. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. necessity of showing clear title and approved construction documents for educational approvals. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. judicial restraint regarding expert body decisions and regulatory non-compliance. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. dismissal of petitions due to non-compliance with statutory land and regulatory norms. (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 exte
