G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for quashing of the letter Annexure P.5 vide which the petitioner was conveyed the decision of the Vice -Chancellor, Mahar -ishi Dayanand University, Rohtak declining its prayer for affiliation of Anupam Institute of Management, Gurgaon (for short, the Institute) on the ground of non -production of No Objection Certificate (for short, 'NOC') from the State Government. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of mandamus to respondents No. 3 and 4 directing them to grant affiliation/permission for conducting two years full -time M.B.A. course.
(2.) THE petitioner -society was formed with the main object of providing technical education by establishing technical colleges. It is running Aditya Institute of Technology, Delhi; Anupam College of Engineering, Agra; Anjali College of Pharmacy, Agra and Anupam College of Engineering, Gurgaon. The Institute was started by the petitioner -society in July, 1996 after obtaining permission from the Director, Technical Education, Haryana, (respondent No. 4). After about two years, the petitioner made a representation to the State Government and All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the Council) for grant of permission to convert Post Graduate Diploma in Management course into M.B.A. course Vide letter F.No. 435/NW/EXT(ENT)/99 dated 14.7.1999, the Council informed the Commissioner and Secretary to Technical Education, Haryana that approval has been accorded to the Institute for conducting MBA full -lime course with an annual intake of 60 students. After receiving a copy of the afore -mentioned letter, the petitioner made a representation to the Vice -Chancellor of respondent No. 3 for grant of affiliation to the Institute for M.B.A. course and, as mentioned above, the same has been declined on the ground of its failure to obtain NOC from the State Government. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondent No. 4 for grant of NOC but failed to evoke any response. The petitioner has averred that in view of the provisions contained in All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short the 1987 Act) and All India Council for Technical Education Regulations, 1994 (for short, the 1994 Regulations), the Council has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate admissions to the professional courses and the University cannot decline affiliation on the ground of non -issuance of NOC by the State Government. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. I and 4, it has been averred that NOC was not granted to the petitioner due to pendency of the investigation in the matter of tampering of record of the Committee constituted by the Government to verify the availability of infrastructural facilities in the Institute. In paragraphs 1 and 2 of preliminary submissions, respondents No. 1 and 4 have averred as under; "That the petitioner Institute had requested the answering respondent for grant of NOC to convert existing PGDBM course into M.B.A. course from the session 1999 -2000 vide his letter dated 24.11.1998 (Annexure R -1) - The answering respondent, vide memo No. dated 15.6.1999 (Annexure R -11) constituted a committee to verify the availability of infrastructural facilities for M.B.A. course available in the petitioner -Institute, The Committee submitted its inspection report on 13th July, 1999 (Annexure R -III). In the inspection report there was an overwriting in the figure of intake recommended by the committee from 30 to 60. When it came to the notice of the answering respondent, then it was confirmed from the Chairman of the Expert Committee about the actual No. of the seats recommended by the Committee. It was intimated vide their letter dated 6.8.1999 (Annexure R -IV) that they recommended just 30 seats for the M.B.A. programme. It is further submitted that it has been decided to investigate the matter of tampering of record from the Vigilance Department. Accordingly, the case was referred to Vigilance Department vide U.O. No. 38/19/96 -4 TE dated 25.4,2000 (Annexure R.V.) and action will be taken on receipt of the report from Vigilance Department. 2. That as no legal/fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed by the answering respondent, hence the petitioner has no right to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Sections 226, 227 of the Constitution of India."
(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it has been averred that vide resolution No. 7 dated 16.12.1998 passed by the Academic Council and resolution No. 43 dated 9.7.1999 passed by the Executive Council, the production of NOC from respondent No. 4 has been made mandatory for grant of affiliation for starting a new college/institute and as the petitioner could not produce the required NOC, the Vice -Chancellor of respondent No. 3 declined its request for affiliation.;