- (1.) R. K. Agrawal, J. Amity Business School, Noida and Ritnand Balved Education Foundation, New Delhi, have preferred this special appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, 1952 against the judgment and order dated 23-12-2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the Writ Petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65741 of 2005, filed by the aforementioned two persons, has been dismissed with certain observations. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follow :
(2.) RITNAND Balved Education Foundation, appellant No. 2, (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with its registered office situate at E-27, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Its aims and objects, inter alia, are to establish educational institution of all descriptions including public school, management training institution, colleges carrying out research in all aspect of education including applied science. It has established an institution in the name and style of Amity Business School (hereinafter referred to as "the Institution") at Sector 44, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar (U. P.), appellant No. 1. The Society runs various educational institution by the name of AMITY. According to it, at present it has more than 40,000 students, 130 programmes and 22 campus all over India. It is also offering various graduate and post graduate professional technical career decrees. It claims to be dedicated for the last more than 5 years in building the nation through world class education. It offers varied courses in engineering, bio-technology, computer science, information technology, nano-technology, medical science, research, management courses, communication, design, fashion technology, law and a number of international courses. Some of its institutes, as is being claimed, have been ranked as number one private Institution in the country, namely, the Amity School of Bio Technology and the Amity School of Engineering and Technology. It has also established the Amity University. U. P. , pursuant to an Act passed in the year 2005 by the Legislature of the State of U. P. . According to them, the Institution which has been established in the year 1994, is an autonomous institution. It does not receive any Government grant/aid. It is a private unaided institution and imparts only two programmes, viz. , Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Full Time) and (Part Time) (hereinafter referred to as "the PGDM (FT)" and "the PGDM (PT)" ). To that extent, aforesaid programmes which require approval of the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "the AICTE") had been approved by the AICTE on 16- 12-1994 with annual intake of 120 and 60 students, respectively. The renewal has been continuously granted by the AICTE. The intake of students in PGDM (FT) has been increased to 150 students. The Association of Indian Universities has also recognised the PGDM course run by the institution as equivalent to MBA. The AICTE granted extension of approval to the Institution on 14-5-2004 for the period 2004-06. It claims to have been ranked at No. 8 in the whole country amongst top business schools in terms of availability of infrastructure and in the past 10 years, its students have been placed in top multinationals and the Indian Companies of repute. It is accredited with ISO 9001 : 2000 and ISO 14001 : 1996. The Institution is an independent entity having separate building, infrastructure for the two AICTE approved courses, viz. , PGDM (FT) and PGDM (PT) ever since 1995. According to them, the Amity Unversity has no correlation with the Institution. The Institution has separate faculty and other facilities, as per norms of the AICTE. It does not impart any other programme except PGDM (FT) and PGDM (PT ). On 26-7-2005, a fax message under the signature of the Advisor (UG/pg) of the AICTE was received by the Institution, intimating that an inspection under Section 10 (p) of the All Indian Council for Technical Education Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by an Expert Committee will be made on 27-7-2005 at 11 a. m. for verifying the maintenance of norms and standard of management education. The Institution informed the AICTE that the Head of the Institution was on business trip abroad and the notice given was very short. However, the Expert Committee visited the Institution on 27-7-2005. The requisite information could not be made available to the Expert Committee as required by them. Another inspection was fixed on 5-8-2005 at 10 a. m. on which date and time the Expert Committee visited the Institution and made the inspection. According to the appellants, the Committee was apparently satisfied with the infrastructure facilities, norms and academic standard being maintained by the Institution. However, a letter/show cause notice dated 18-8-2005 was issued calling upon the Institution to show cause within 10 days as to why action including withdrawal of approval for 2005-06 should not be taken against the Institution with respect to certain deficiencies mentioned therein. The deficiencies pointed out in the said show cause notice were to the following effect : (i) Running multiple courses in a single campus; (ii) Exclusive faculty for PGDM (FT) is difficult to ascertain; (iii) Fee being charged under Section 153-A/153-C of the Act the institution seems to be on higher side; (iv) The built up area is not adequate; (v) The computers and library are being shared with other AICTE unapproved programmes; (vi) Admission policy is not clear; and (vii) Academic ambience and hygiene is not proper as it is congested and crowded. The Institution, vide letter dated 23-8-2005, replied to the show cause notice, in which it was specifically stated that - (i) When the Apex Court quashed the Private University Act of Chattisgarh, on 11-2-2005, leaving all the students of Amity University, Raipur, in darkness and uncertainty about their education and future, the responsibility of management programmes of erstwhile Amity University, Raipur was entrusted on appellant Institution temporarily till Amity University, U. P. , became operative when the Ordinance was issued on 12-1-2005 and all the AICTE approved management programmes have been taken over by Faculty of Management Studies, Amity University, U. P. , pursuant to the Amity University Uttar Pradesh Act, 2005, enacted by the Legislature of Uttar Pradesh; (ii) The appellant Institution does not have any collaboration with any foreign University/institution and it does not conduct any coaching/teaching for and on behalf of any foreign University leading to award of any diploma/degree. The programmes mentioned in the notice are under MOUs with Amity University, which is a separate entity and even the said University did not prove for any foreign University to impart training in India; (iii) The appellant Institution has 25 exclusive faculty members for two years full time PGDM programme in the cadre ratio of 1:4 5:15 which fulfills the AICTE norms. A list of full time faculty members, exclusive faculty for PGDM, time table of PGDM and other programmes of AUUP were furnished alongwith the reply; (iv) Between July 27, 2005 and August, 2005, 20 out of 25 faculty members who exclusively teaching PGDM, have interacted with the AICTE Expert Committee. On the said date, three faculty members in the class room while 2 faculty members were on leave. The Committee observed that those faculty members who were in the class room, should not be disturbed, as academics are sacrosanct; (v) All the persons shown as members of the faculty in the information brochure, are involved in teaching and/or co-ordinating the programme/courses of a specific area, which includes recruitment activities also. The observation of the Expert Committee regarding fee is not factually correct. As per information provided to the Expert Committee, the PGDM fee is Rs. 4,10,000/- payable in four equal instalments over a period of two years. The laptop, textbooks for each courses are provided to each student which becomes the asset of the student concerned after completion of the course; (vi) The fee for three years part time PGDM programme is Rs. 2,00,000/- payable in nine instalments spread over three years. Three years PGDM (PT) has since been discontinued and there have been no admissions in 2004- 2005 and 2005-2006; (vii) The figure of 1583 sq. meters indicated in earlier report is a computation and clerical error. The carpet area under instructional area 2390 sq. meters, administrative area is 160 sq. meters, amenities area is 40 sq. meters and circulation etc. is 736 sq. meters; (viii) The approved building plan is for the Ritnand Balved Education Foundation, which has demarcated specific area for the Institution. The resolution of the Board of Foundation was enclosed with the reply; (ix) Five of the class rooms shown to the Expert Committee as a matter of fact are on the lower ground floor and on the basement. All the rooms are fully ventilated and centrally air-conditioned; (x) The Institution imparting PGDM has exclusive built-up area while the University programme being run by Amity University, Uttar Pradesh have separate infrastructure; and (xi) The admission policy is very clearly defined. The applicants are short listed on the basis of merit list of AIMA. The short listed candidates are invited for selections test on different dates, Which include the group discussion and interview held by a panel of three members of which two members are very senior faculty members and at least one member from the industry. The entire selection process is fully computerized and every candidate gets a micro-site with his personal password by which he can access his own result on the web site. Reply to every issues raised in the notice was submitted alongwith list of enclosures. The respondent No. 2, vide, letter dated 17-9-2005, addressed to the Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, respondent No. 3, communicated the order of the AICTE to withdraw the approval to the Institution for. conduct of the courses of PGDM (FT) and PGDM (PT) from the academic year 2005-06. It also suggested that as the admission for the academic year 2005-06 have already taken place and the students were studying, the students already admitted in the Institution would be transferred and distributed amongst the institutes approved by the AICTE in the nearby locality. The order dated 17-9-2005 including the notice dated 18-8-2005 was challenged by the present appellants by means of a Writ Petition before this Court, which has been dismissed. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellants assailed the validity of the action undertaken by-the AICTE on the ground that the said action was totally unwarranted, unjustified and arbitrariness was reflected on the face of it inasmuch as in passing the impugned order, no reasons whatsoever have been assigned and conclusions had been arrived at without adverting to the reply filed pursuant to the show cause notice by the appellants and coupled with this, the copy of the report of the Expert Committee, which had been made the foundation and basis for passing the impugned order, had not at all been supplied to them and on this ground the impugned order was unsustainable. Apart from this, it has been contended that even on merits, the view which has been taken, was perverse and unreasonable and opportunity ought to have been afforded to them for rectifying the deficiencies, if any, and straightaway such a drastic action of withdrawal ought not to have been taken.
(3.) THE challenge was resisted on behalf of the Institution on the ground that the AICTE had the authority to take such necessary steps, as may be required, for compliance of its directions, and the principle of natural justice had been complied with in the present case. Further, the principle of natural justice could not be put in straitjacket formula and requirement of natural justice must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of enquiry, the rules which authority was acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so forth. While complaining violation of principles of natural justice, party was not only required to show that it had no notice but also that it was seriously prejudiced thereby, and here no prejudice had been established, coupled with the fact that the entire records, as per earlier order of this Court had been produced and perused by the Court and on the own admission of the appellants, the only irresistible conclusion was that the terms and conditions of affiliation had been flouted as such no interference was warranted by this Court. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, the relevant statutory provisions of the Act and the grounds of challenge as raised before him, came to the conclusion that the reply given by the appellants had been considered, though not very elaborately, but the finding has been returned that a large number of courses were being run in the same premises utilising the infrastructure, faculty and other facilities intended for the AICTE approved courses and, thus, diluting the standard of education. The learned Single Judge also summoned the original record and after perusing it, recorded a finding that the representative of the petitioner had admitted that the large number of unapproved courses were being run in the same campus and, if this was not in dispute and the Expert Committee on the basis of the same had concluded that the standard of education is being diluted, then the same could not be termed as arbitrary exercise of authority. This reason in itself was enough to justify the action taken by the AICTE. The learned Single Judge also found that a comparative chart dated 2- 9-2005 had been prepared containing three columns. In the first column, the deficiencies communicated had been taken note of. In the second column, reply qua the same submitted by the petitioner had been taken note of and in the third column, conclusions/observations qua the same had been mentioned indicating brief reasons why the petitioner's claim was not being accepted. On the basis of the same and other records, decision had been taken, which had been duly ratified by E. C. sub committee, vide resolution No. 4, in meeting dated 16-9- 2005 and thereafter communication dated 17-9-2005 had been sent containing brief reasons for conclusion arrived at. The learned Single Judge repelled the plea advanced by the appellants that the principle of natural justice had not been followed by not providing the report on the ground that there was no obligation cast upon the AICTE to supply the copy of the inspection report rather, to the contrary, obligation was that the AICTE should communicate to the technical institution its views in regard to the result of any such inspection and, in the present case, the gist of the report had been mentioned in the show cause notice which had been replied by the appellants, which reply did not find favour and, therefore, it was incorrect to suggest that the cause of the petitioner was, in any way, prejudiced on account of non- supply of the copy of the inspection report. The principles of natural justice had been complied with. The order withdrawing the recognition had been upheld on the ground that it was within its jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge, however, gave liberty to represent the matter before the AICTE after removing all the deficiencies, leaving it open to the AICTE to take appropriate decision on the same in accordance with law.;