- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rakesh Pande and Sri Neeraj Tiwari for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as well as respondent No.6 and? the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.1.
(2.) This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 11th September, 2012 passed by the AICTE refusing to grant approval to the petitioner institution for the Session 2012-13 to run the courses in pharmacy as referred to in the impugned order. The ground taken for non suiting the petitioner institution is mentioned categorically in the impugned order to the effect that such orders are being passed in view of the provisions of Clause 3.1 (d) and (e) of Chapter II of the AICTE Approval Process Handbook. According to the same, if the company or society running the institution or its member is charge sheeted in any criminal case, then in that event approval of the institution shall not be considered till the accused is acquitted. The second provision is that no further increase shall be given to the institution where any such FIR has been lodged or investigation or inquiry is pending. Accordingly, on the said basis, since the earlier Chairman of the petitioner institute Mr. Dev Ram Sharma had been charge sheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 31.8.2010, the Council has refused to grant approval.
(3.) This writ petition has been filed bringing on record the previous litigation that the petitioner institute had to undergo and malafidies are also alleged. It is not necessary to trace the entire history of the litigation between the petitioner and Council but suffice it to say that having noticed the same and having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the AICTE, Sri Neeraj Tiwari was called upon to obtain instructions and inform the Court about the applicability of the aforesaid clause in the present case by the order dated 21.9.2012 quoted hereinunder: "Heard Sri Rakesh Pande learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention raised is that the orders impugned dated 29.8.2012 and 11.9.2012 are fundamentally malafide inasmuch as they have been passed only on account of the past litigation between the petitioner and the All India Council for Technical Education which culminated in filing of a contempt application before this Court. Sri Pande learned counsel for the petitioner contends, with the help of a detail interim order passed by the Bombay High Court Division Bench dated 29.6.2012 in Writ Petition No.773 of 2012 that the entire objection of the Council is based on an erroneous assumption of law inasmuch as the clause which has been invoked for non suiting the petitioner, namely clause 3.1 (d) and (e) , is not at all attracted as Ved Ram Sharma the erstwhile Chairman of the Society had been charge sheeted by the C.B.I. on 31.8.2010 on which date the said provisions were not enforced by the respondent Council. In such circumstances if the charge sheet was submitted in the year 2010 then action on the basis of provisions which came to be introduced later on cannot be taken. The second submission is on the basis of the interim order passed by the Bombay High Court referred to herein above. His third submission is that even assuming for the sake of argument that such a provision would be applicable, Ved Ram Sharma has already been removed on 29.4.2012 not only from the post of Chairman but also from his primary membership which aspect has been completely over looked while passing the impugned orders. Sri Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner contends that neither the facts on the basis whereof the impugned orders have been passed did exist nor did the provisions that were introduced later on could have been invoked in relation to the charge sheet which was submitted prior to its enforcement. Sri Pandey further contends that even otherwise in view of the reasoning given by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court the petitioner is entitled for an approval and therefore the impugned orders are unsustainable in law. Prima facie there is no dispute on facts which are also indicated in the impugned orders except for the date of enforcement of the provisions. The same being a legal issue therefore the aforesaid fact of the date of enforcement of the provisions be intimated to the Court by the learned counsel for the All India Council for Technical Education by Tuesday next through instructions or an affidavit. Put up on Tuesday next.";