DEV BHOOMI INSTITUTION OF POLYTECHNIC AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-88
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 19,2013

Dev Bhoomi Institution Of Polytechnic And Another Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K. Bist, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent no. 2 and Mr. P.S. Bisht, holding brief of Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for respondent no. 3. On 26th April, 2013 All India Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE) granted permission to the petitioner no. 1 -institution for opening new Diploma Courses in Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Computer Science Engineering and Mechanical Engineering (Automobile) with intake of 60 seats each. This was communicated to the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education (for short Board) as well as State Government. On 15.05.2013, the Board declined affiliation in respect of the aforesaid courses to the petitioner no. 1. The reason for declining affiliation is mentioned in the order dated 15.05.2013. A bare perusal of the order dated 15.05.2013 reveals that the Principal Secretary, Technical Education of the State Government wrote a letter to AICTE on 13th May, 2013 informing that recognition to the new courses in Diploma Engineering in plain districts may not be granted in view of the fact that State Government has opened ten Govt. Polytechnic Colleges in hilly areas, inasmuch as, the Government has received complaint about the private institutions that they are charging exorbitant fees from the students.
(2.) CONTENTION of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the recognition is granted by AICTE, after verifying the norms and after being satisfied that the institution fulfills all required conditions, the Board has no authority to decline affiliation. He submits that the ground on which the affiliation has been declined, is not a valid ground, inasmuch as, the Board has refused affiliation with malafide intention to preclude the petitioner institution for imparting Diploma courses. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the Board, on the other hand, submitted that in fact the petitioner no. 2 is a Society and is running several institutions in the same campus. He submitted that last year one inspection was conducted by the Committee and that Committee recommended for cancellation of the recognition. Report of the Committee was sent to the AICTE vide letter dated 13.02.2013. He submits that in view of this factual position, the AICTE should not have granted recognition to new institutions for opening new Diploma courses. He further submits that once affiliation has been refused within time, no interim order should be granted in favour of the petitioner's institution.
(3.) MR . Paresh Tripathi, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State referred the letter written by the Principal Secretary, Technical Education dated 13.02.2013 and submitted that, in fact, the AICTE was duty bound to decide the objection before granting permission to new institutions. He submitted that the said letter was in respect of institutions run by respondent no. 2. Learned Addl. C.S.C. also referred the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 2141 of 2013 (MS) and contended that controversy involve regarding grant of affiliation has already been decided by this Court in which this Court has held that Board has no jurisdiction to refuse affiliation regarding seats, which have already been approved by AICTE. He also submits that the AICTE has not challenged the observations made in para -10 of the judgment rendered in WPMS No. 2141 of 2013.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.