SARATHI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY HYD Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have assailed the validity of the statutory action of the All India Council for Technical Education (for short 'AICTE') vide its proceedings in F.No.732-50-024 (NDEG)/ET/95 dated 21-10-1997 refusing to grant approval to the petitioners for establishing an Engineering College during the academic year 1997-98.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition be summarised briefly as under:

(3.) The 2nd petitioner is the Chairman of M/s Seva Trust, Habsiguda, R.R. district. The Seva Trust desiring to establish an Engineering College in the name and style of "M/s Sarathi Institute of Engineering and Technology", which is arrayed as petitioner No.1, made an application dated 29-12-1995 to the AICTE for grant of approval to establish an un-aided Engineering College from the academic year 1996-97 with the strength of 300 students, comprising five disciplines viz. Mechanical Engineering, Electronics and Communications Engineering, Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Computer Engineering and Production Engineering, each discipline consisting of sixty students. The Committee constituted by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh inspected the proposed petitioner's college and recommended to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for making recommendation to AICTE for grant of approval. Subsequently, an expert committee of the AICTE, consisting of representatives of the State Government and the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (for short 'JNTU') inspected the College on 30-5-1996. The AICTE after consideration of the reports of the Committees, passed the order on 4-11-1996 declining to accord approval for establishing the College. Aggrieved by the said order of the AICTE, the petitioners filed writ petition No. 25125 of 1996 in this Court and this Court disposed of the said writ petition finally on l9-6-1997. The operative portion of the order reads thus: "It is necessary that the fresh inspection has to be made to ascertain whether the norms required have been fulfilled. As the petitioners agreed to pay inspection charges of Rs. 25,000.00 and the Counsel for AICTE agreed for inspection within 15 days, since the question itself has arisen only because of the difference of opinions of expert Committee, it is appropriate that the Committee which is to make fresh inspection will not consist of those members who have come earlier. It is also agreed that because of the delay in the process of the application, the respondent AICTE shall consider the application in the light of the conditions prevailing on the date of the application for the purpose of passing appropriate orders regarding approval on the basis of the report of the fresh Committee. Such orders shall be passed before31-7-1997."In the meanwhile, the petitioners made another application to the AICTE for grant of approval for the academic year 1997-98. For the purpose of considering the applications made for the academic year 1997-98, the Government of Andhra Pradesh constituted a High Power Committee, headed by the Vice-Chancellor of JNTU and that Committee reviewed 86 applications received during the year 1997-98. In the report submitted by the said High Power Committee, the petitioner's institution was placed at Sl.No.l in Category-I and recommended to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and AICTE to grant approval to the petitioner college. The petitioners as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No. 25125 of 1996paid the inspection charges. The AICTE Expert Committee inspected the petitioners' proposed college on 12-7-1997 and the management of the college made available all the informations and particulars to the Committee. The Expert Committee of the AICTE prepared the report on 30-7-1997 and the same was submitted to the AICTE by fax. The AICTE passed the order on the same day i.e. 30-7-1997 rejecting the application of the petitioners for grant of approval. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order of the AICTE filed Writ Petition No. 20323 of 1997 in this Court. This Court by its order dated 30-9-1997 allowed the writ pet ion. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "I have considered the respective contentions. I am not convinced with the way in which the matter was dealt with. Admittedly, the report was dated 30-7-1997 and on the very same day, an order of rejection was passed by the first respondent stating that the report was faxed. Even assuming that the report was faxed, it is necessary that the matter should be dealt with proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and it cannot be dealt with for the sake of compliance of procedure. What is required is application of mind and fair decision. I am convinced that the decision was not taken in a fair atmosphere. It only appears that in order to comply with the directions of this Court to pass orders within the time limit fixed, such an order was passed. Therefore, for these reasons, without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration and disposal to the first respondent with the following directions: "The first respondent shall consider the matter keeping in view the report of the Regional Committee dated 30-7-1997 and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear if any minor deficiencies are noticed by the authorities which could be rectified in the course of running educational institution, it would be fair for the authorities to grant conditional approval pending compliance of the minor deficiencies. For this purpose, the institute should not be denied the facility of conducting Engineering Classes. However, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that such a conditional approval was granted to D.V.R. College of Engineering in proceedings dated 30-5-97/ 2-6-97 and it is the case of the petitioners that though the said institution did not comply with the basic requirements, it was granted conditional approval. "I am not inclined to go into this aspect. Suffice it to say, if the petitioners fulfill the criteria at least for conditional approval, the same should be considered and appropriate orders be passed. The authorities are also at liberty to take a decision as to whether the petitioners could be given temporary approval pending compliance of certain minor deficiencies for the establishment of an Engineering College. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs."As per the above directions of this Court, the application of the petitioners for grant of approval was re-considered and the same was, however, rejected by the impugned proceedings of the AlCTe dated 21-10-1997. Hence this writ petition.