SWASTIK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 3, Ms. D. D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 and Mr. S. P. Choudhury, learned CGC appearing for respondent no. 4, 5 & 6.

(2.) By an order passed today in I.A. (Civil) No. 787/2020, the name of the petitioner herein has been allowed for correction as "Swastika Institute of Technology" from "Swastik Institute of Technology" finding the same to be a typographical error.

(3.) The case projected on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner institute is a registered society and it was granted necessary approvals as a Vocational Training Provider (VTP, for short) under the Skill Development Initiative Scheme (the Scheme, for short) under the Central Government in March, 2012 for imparting training in the courses allotted to it as per the approvals dated 12.03.2012 & 24.12.2012. The petitioner institute started imparting vocational training in the allotted approved training courses to the enrolled trainees in due adherence to the criteria prescribed in the Scheme. After completion of the training, the petitioner institute submitted its bills regularly to the respondent authorities. A review exercise was undertaken by the respondent no. 5 during the year 2014 and it was observed in a communication dated 17.07.2014 that an inspection of the Vocational Training Providers (VTPs) should be conducted in respect of the institutes named therein, on the ground they had provided trainings to more than 500 persons at a place in one year. Pursuant to the communication dated 17.07.2014, the respondent no. 3, by an order dated 26.09.2014, had suspended the registration of these nos. of VTPs including that of the petitioner institute. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner institute asking it to submit its reply showing cause as to why the registration issued to it should not be permanently cancelled. The petitioner institute has submitted his reply dated 09.01.2015 and thereafter, the matter has rested there.