Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 20870
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society and others – Appellant
Versus
AICTE, Sultan-Ul-Uloom Society and others – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos.17148, 17161, 17168 of 2017 and 8877 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy, Mr.B. Chandrasen Reddy
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Vivek Reddy, Mr.M.Govind Reddy
Educational institutions must comply with regulatory requirements for land ownership and documentation as stipulated under the AICTE Act.
Headnote:The AICTE Act of 1987 necessitates strict compliance with regulatory norms for approval of technical institutions. In these consolidated writ petitions, the Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society contested the AICTE's withdrawal of approval for failing to demonstrate lawful possession and ownership of land. The court focused on procedural adherence and found sufficient grounds for the AICTE's actions, concluding that approvals were validly rescinded due to non-compliance with requisite documentation and ownership regulations, as per the AICTE Regulations. The petitions were dismissed, emphasizing the importance of proper adherence to educational regulatory frameworks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of the educational society and land ownership (Para 8 , 10) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction over title disputes (Para 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. court's examination of aicte's regulatory compliance (Para 20 , 24) |
| 4. final decision on compliance and dismissal of petitions (Para 34) |
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, forming part of in Sy. No.359, Shaikpet village, situated at Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and consequently direct the 1st respondent to withdraw the approval or not to extend the approval to the respondent 4 to 7 Institutions for the Academic Year 2019-20 and subsequent years, over the above pe
