B. MAHESH SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), flags the issue, of the respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. Union of India (UOI), the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) having not taken any action and having thereby allowed the respondent No. 4 Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) through its Dean Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri to fraudulently use "MBA / BBA" in relation to the Courses offered by it, thereby misleading, cheating and exploiting students attracted to the said Institute under the belief that they will acquire the qualification of MBA / BBA. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University (M.S. University), Tamil Nadu which had franchised its MBA programme to the respondent No. 4 IIPM, allegedly in violation of the norms of the respondent UGC and the principles laid down in Prof. Yashpal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh : (2005) 5 SCC 420, is impleaded as respondent No. 5 and the various foreign Universities and the Institutions whose names the respondent No. 4 IIPM was using in its advertisements, allegedly to lure the students, are impleaded as respondents No. 6 to 11. The following reliefs have been claimed in the petition:

(2.) THE petition was entertained and ordered to be taken up for hearing along with certain writ petitions filed by the respondent No. 4 IIPM against the respondents UGC and AICTE. Vide order dated 27th January, 2011, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) was also impleaded as a respondent to the petition. The other petitions along with which this petition was being taken up for hearing were however disposed of inter alia in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education : (2013) 8 SCC 271 holding that MBA is not a technical course within the definition of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act) and AICTE does not have jurisdiction concerning the same. The order dated 2nd December, 2013 in this writ petition records that the respondent UGC vide its order dated 19th November, 2013 had found the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 4 IIPM to be having the potential to mislead the students and public at large and having taken a decision that the respondent No. 4 IIPM should forthwith stop the practice of issuing such dubious advertisements to attract students deceptively; faced therewith, the counsel for the respondent No. 4 IIPM stated that till IIPM takes recourse against the said order of the UGC, it shall not print / publish / insert / issue / place any advertisement either in any newspaper, journal or Television or website without the prior approval of this Court. This Court in the order dated 2nd December, 2013 recorded the said statement of the counsel and accepted the same and ordered the respondent No. 4 IIPM to be bound thereby.

(3.) THE respondent UGC in its counter affidavit filed in October, 2010 to the petition has inter alia stated: