S.K. SHARMA AND ORS. Vs. MAULANA ABUL KALAM AZAD UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
LAWS(CAL)-2016-4-68
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 29,2016

S.K. Sharma And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University Of Technology Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioners inter alia, comprising of a trust and two colleges have assailed a decision taken by the respondent No. 1 in its executive council's meeting held on June 18, 2015. The petitioners have sought for cancellation of the final report of the fact finding committee of the respondent No. 1. The petitioners have also asked for other reliefs with regard to the functioning of the two colleges and their dealings with the respondent No. 1.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, at the final hearing of the writ petition has restricted the relief sought by the petitioners in the writ petition to the resolution (b) of the executive council of the respondent No. 1 taken on June 18, 2015 and as contained in the writing dated June 22, 2015. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the petitioners are not aggrieved by the decision of the executive council of the respondent No. 1 dated June 18, 2015 in so far as it has censured the college and reserved the right to monitor the functioning of the college. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the respondent No. 1 does not have the jurisdiction to reduce the sanctioned strength of intake of a student in an academic year. Such power vests solely with the All India Council for Teachers Education (AICTE). AICTE has not taken such decision. Therefore, the decision of the respondent No. 1 to such extent is beyond jurisdiction and has to be struck down. He has referred to correspondence exchanged between the colleges and the respondent No. 1 leading up to such decision of the respondent No. 1. He has submitted that, the colleges had forwarded of requisite financial details as sought for by the respondent No. 1.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners have relied upon Ss. 15 and 16 of the General Clauses Act and has submitted that since the respondent No. 1 does not have the power to sanction the intake of a student for any academic year, it does not have the jurisdiction to reduce the intake of students.;


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