LALA RAM RAKHAMAL TRUST Vs. AICTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order Annexure P/1 dated 3.5.2013 passed by the Standing Appeal Committee of the All India Council for Technical Education rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioner's institute in the matter of granting extension of approval for conducting technical programmes, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) LALA Ram Rakhamal Trust (Nyas) is a establishment registered in accordance to law and is carrying out certain educational activities by establishment of an institute namely the Malhotra Technical Research Institute, Bhopal. The institute conducts various courses in Technical Education and it is the case of the institute that after due approval and concurrence of the All India Council for Technical Education, the institute has been carrying out its activity in conducting courses in various branch of Engineering. It is stated that it was granted approval for the academic year 2011-12 vide Annexure P/7 and the extension of the approval for the next academic session 2012-13 was also granted vide Annexure P/8 on 8.5.2012. However, after grant of this approval, it is said that the approval granted for the academic session 2012-13 is being withdrawn. It is pointed out in the writ petition that after the approval was granted to the institute for the academic session 2012-2013, an order was abruptly uploaded in the website of the Council on 11.7.2012 whereby it was indicated that the approval granted for the year 2012-2013 is being withdrawn. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 24.7.2012 was issued pointing out various deficiencies in the institute. The show cause notice was replied to. Documentary evidence was adduced to show that the institute fulfills all the requirement as contemplated under law but in an arbitrary manner vide order dated 16.10.2012 the approval for the session 2012-2013 was rejected. Therefore, in accordance to the requirement of law an appeal was preferred to the Competent Appellate Committee on 31.10.2012. The appeal was not decided within a reasonable time and therefore, petitioners approached this Court in W.P. No.20918/2012 and this Court directed the respondent No.1 to decide the appeal. Inspite thereof, the appeal was not decided in time. Instead after a lot of delay the appeal was fixed for hearing on 23.1.2013 and the petitioners-appellant appeared and submitted their objection to the action taken. The Standing Appellate Committee instead of taking a final decision on the appeal recommended for an Expert Visit committee to conduct inspection of the institute and submit a report. It is said that this Committee without notice to the institute and in total violation to the statutory rules conducted the inspection on 7.3.2013, submitted a report and based on the same the impugned action has been taken. Challenging the impugned action, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) RESPONDENTS represented by Shri Pradeep Sharma has filed a detailed reply and it is pointed out that as action is taken in the present case by the Appeals Committee after conducting an inspection on 7.3.2013 in which the representatives of the petitioner were present and as various discrepancies were seen, it is argued that there is no illegality in the matter and by pointing out the nature of discrepancies that were indicated at the time of inspection, Shri Pradeep Sharma tried to emphasize that the institute cannot be granted approval as various discrepancies in the matter are available. Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents rebutted the averments made by Shri Ajay Mishra, to say that the discrepancies noted by the Committee and its representatives at the time of inspection dis-entitle the institute from getting approval.