- (1.) The order dated 21.07.2016 reads as under. Interim prayer was refused at that stage. "Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order dated 28 June, 2016 (Annexure-15) passed by the AICTE, submits that it was only as per the letter-email of the AICTE (Annexure-12) that the petitioner made a request for approval for 2016-17 session of Engineering and MBA course as early as 6th February, 2016 (Annexure-13) before the AICTE. This application of the petitioner was also in consonance with the observation contained in the judgment dated 1st October, 2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.1545/2015 by the learned Single Judge of this Court in view of the fact that the petitioner possesses 2.52½ acres of land as per the revised guidelines for approval of Engineering and MBA courses. Though the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge but the learned Division Bench in LPA No.612/2015 along with LPA No.676/2015 has, after taking note of the provisions of RegulationVI of the AICTE (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010 and reduced requirement of 2.5 acres of land as per the revised guidelines of AICTE granted stay of the impugned judgment primarily taking care of the cause of the students projected before it. The said issue relating to withdrawal of approval by letters dated 7th April 2015 and 14th April 2015 are still sub-judice before the learned Division Bench for adjudication in the Letters Patent Appeal. There has been no fresh inspection by the respondents to disbelieve the land registration deed submitted by the petitioner dated 18th June 2015 and 27th October, 2015 for taking a fresh decision in the matter of approval for the 2016-17 session. The petitioner college shall be unnecessarily denied approval for new session 2016-17 for the Engineering and MBA course on the basis of the impugned order passed by the AICTE acting on pre-conceived notions of withdrawal of the earlier recognition of the petitioner which itself is a subjudice matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 6021/2014 and 6293/2014 has been pleased to grant interim protection to such an Institute who were denied approval by the AICTE vide orders dated 14th July 2014 and 3rd September, 2014. It is submitted that the process of counseling is on and petitioner Institute may be permitted to be included in the counseling process and admit students provisionally. Despite the fact that the application was made on 6th February, 2016, but AICTE kept the matter pending and finally refused approval by the impugned order dated 28th June, 2016 that too only after filing of a writ petition by the petitioner and upon specific direction by this Court on AICTE to take an early decision in the matter. The AICTE has on its own delayed the matter for unnecessary length of time in teeth of the deadline prescribed under the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. Vs. AICTE & Ors., 2013 3 SCC 385 . Petitioner's lawful remedy and chance of running the college for 2016-17 session would be defeated by such arbitrary and casual approach of the AICTE. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted an interim protection to be involved in the counseling process and admit students on provisional basis, as otherwise the matter itself would be rendered infructuous after the expiry of the deadline prescribed for taking admission for a particular year in the Engineering course. 3. Learned counsel for the AICTE seeks time to respond to the writ petition. He, however, submits that the case of the petitioner for approval of 2016-17 session has been properly dealt with as is evident from the impugned order. The land registration deeds dated 18th June, 2015 and 27th October, 2015 may not improve its case, so far as the reduced requirement of land for approval of Engineering and MBA courses are concerned, as the Institute is in existence since much earlier and that its approval has been withdrawn because of suppression of material facts relating to ownership and title of lands for establishment of the Institute. The petitioner Institute had suppressed the fact that the lands conveyed to it through Dream Consultants Private Ltd. were already mortgaged to HUDCO. On coming to know the approval granted to the petitioner institute has been withdrawn after show-cause notice. AICTE had also requested the Director, Department of Science and Technology to do the needful to shift the affected students to other AICTE approved institution in consultation with the concerned University as per rules. 4. It is submitted that there are specific deadlines to be followed in the admission process as laid down by the Apex Court in the case Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. . As per the prescription contained in para-46.6 of the Report, college which has been granted approval prior to 30th of April alone can be permitted to be included in the list of colleges to which admissions are to be made and not otherwise. In other words, even if the Appellate Authority grants approval after 30th April, it will not be operative for the current academic year. 5. Petitioner college has been denied approval for the session 2016-17 by AICTE. As has also been brought to the notice of the Court, counseling of the candidates are to commence from 25.07.2016 which would go on up to 31.07.2016 in line with the time schedule prescribed in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. . It is further informed that the last date for counseling may extend, as per exigency, up to 15.08.2016. 6. Considering the present state of facts of petitioner Institute, so far as the 2016-17 session for the Engineering and MBA Courses is concerned, in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. , at this stage, interim protection cannot be granted. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent AICTE is however required to file its affidavit positively by 28.07.2016. 8. List the case accordingly on 28.07.2016 under the heading for admission for consideration on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a request to implead the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board as party Respondent in the matter as it is a proper party. Let such addition be made by the counsel for the petitioner during course of the day in the array of parties and pleadings be served upon the counsel for the Board Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta today itself. Let the name of Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, appear in the cause list as learned counsel for the Respondent Examination Board henceforth."
(2.) On 29.07.2016 the following order was passed after taking into account the stand of the Respondents brought on record through counter affidavit. "Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 submits that the Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand is also a necessary party in the instant matter and it should also be impleaded. Let the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education be impleaded as Respondent No. 5 in the instant case, for which necessary correction be carried out by the counsel for the petitioner in red ink during course of the day and copy of the entire pleadings be also served on the counsel for the State and receipt thereof be also filed by tomorrow, so that name of the State counsel be also reflected in the cause list henceforth. 3. The order dated 21.07.2016 contains more or less the thrust of the submissions of the parties, which however need not be reproduced hereunder. By Annexure-12 e-mail addressed to the the petitioner Institute dated 01.02.2016, the Respondent AICTE made a request to the petitioner to send the request on or before 14.02.2016 for getting approval for 2016-17 Session, couched in the following language. "In view of the above, you are requested to send a request only through e-mail (approval2016@aicteindia.org) on or before 14.02.2016 with a scanned copy of the request letter (prepared in your Institutions official letterhead) for getting Approval for 2016-17 in case of your Institution. In case if your Institution fails to send a request on or before 14.02.2016, your Institution will continue to get No-EQA/NoAdmission for 2016-17 also." 4. Petitioner Institute made a request letter for restoration of approval for the academic session 2015-16 and EOA for 2016-17 through e-mail as well as scanned copy for getting approval for 2016-17 Session (Annexure-13). It tried to make out a case that the subject matter of withdrawal of recognition of the Institute is sub-judice before the learned Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 612/2015 and L.P.A. No. 676/2015. Under the Regulation 2012 and Approval Process Handbook (2016-17), petitioner Institute possesses the required minimum 2.52 ½ acres of mortgaged free land and had also made its entire infrastructure in the shape of class-rooms, library and laboratory, etc and is being used for imparting the above courses. 5. Petitioner had to approach this Court in Writ petition WPS No. 2260/2016 as no decision was taken on his request for a considerable length of time. The Respondent AICTE were granted time earlier to file counter affidavit in the said writ petition. On 16.06.2016 it was pointed out by the petitioner that there are time line to be maintained by the AICTE for taking a decision on the application by such a Institute as there is a schedule of time for the admission process also to be followed. Vide Annexure-14 order dated 16.06.2016, while granting further three weeks time to enable the Respondent AICTE to take a decision on the petitioner's application and file affidavit before the next date fixed i.e. 12.07.2016, it was made clear that if affidavit in response does not come by the said date, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall be called to appear in person. Annexure-15 order dated 28.06.2016, impugned in the present writ application, was passed on the application of the petitioner thereafter by the Standing Appellate Committee of AICTE. 6. The impugned order recites background history of the Institute and cancellation of its recommendation earlier including the order passed by the LPA Court dated 10.12.2015 and finally records reasons for not recommending further extension of approval. The stand of the Respondent have now been brought on record through counter affidavit which however does not indicate that any inspection was carried out on the part of AICTE in the matter of consideration for grant of approval / extension of approval to the petitioner Institute for the Session 2016-17. 7. Much submission have been canvassed on behalf of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and retorted by the learned counsel for AICTE. However, one of the basic questions which remained unanswered on the part of AICTE is, whether the conclusion drawn in the impugned order are based upon a physical inspection of the Institute on the question of approval / extension of approval for the Session 2016-17. In such circumstances, it would be wholly futile to proceed on an imagined state of circumstances when certain relevant facts could only have been ascertained on a physical inspection of the petitioner Institute in support of its claim of having satisfied the requirement for getting approval for 2016-17 Session. The Respondent AICTE should carry out an inspection of the Institute in the matter of consideration for approval for 2016-17 Session within ten days from today. If so required, petitioner would deposit the inspection fee, as per demand of AICTE forthwith. Inspection be carried out in the presence of the representative of the petitioner Institute. It would be open for AICTE and its inspecting team to satisfy itself on all relevant documents and materials on the basis of inspection. It would also be open for AICTE to ask for undertaking on the part of the petitioner to be satisfied. If fresh inspection necessitates reconsideration of the matter, AICTE should not refrain from indulging in exercise also within the time stipulated. 8. List the case accordingly on 10.08.2016 by which date, the Respondent AICTE should come out with the report and any decision on such reconsideration. It is made clear that the Respondent AICTE should not delay the matter any further on that count. 9. Let a copy of the order be handed over to the counsel for the Respondent AICTE."
(3.) Learned counsel for the AICTE submitted the Original Report of the Expert Committee which visited the petitioner Institute as also the Report of the Standing Appellate Committee for perusal of the Court. The Report of the Standing Appellate Committee, after taking note of the Report submitted by the Expert Visiting Committee, has indicated that Institute representative was not available as the date of hearing was not fixed on that date i.e. 08.08.2016. It recommended that the Institute may be called for hearing, as per AICTE norms, for taking a decision in respect of approval / extension for approval for 2016-17 Session.;