PNP 1 WP9961-16.12.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9961 OF 2011 Shree Warana Vibhag Shikshan Mandal and another ..Petitioners. versus All India Council for Technical Education and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Nitin Dhumal for the Petitioners. Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sameer N. Patil, AGP for Respondent No.2. Mr. Amit Borkar for Respondent No.3. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A.A.SAYED, JJ. 16 December 2011. P.C. : 1. On 24 March 2011 the Petitioners submitted an application for starting a new post graduate degree course viz. M.E. in Civil Engineering with an intake of 18 students for the academic year 2011-12. On 28 August 2011 a proposal was submitted to the Third Respondent, Shivaji University for extension of affiliation and for the grant of affiliation for starting a new additional branch in the proposed post graduate course. The Third Respondent by a letter dated 7 March 2011 informed the Petitioners that the Petitioners should first obtain the approval of the AICTE and the State Government after which the University would start the procedure for affiliation. The AICTE granted its approval which was published on the PNP 2 WP9961-16.12.sxw web portal on 30 June 2011 by which the Petitioners were permitted to commence an additional post graduate course of M.E. in Civil Engineering with an intake of 18 students for the academic year 2011-12. The State Government issued a Government Resolution dated 30 June 2011 granting its permission. The Shivaji University was moved for the grant of affiliation on 23 July 2011. On 20 September 2011 the Second Petitioner admitted 16 students in the new branch which was sanctioned by the AICTE. The Third Respondent appointed a local inspection committee on 30 July 2011. By a communication dated 12 September 2011 the Third Respondent refused to grant affiliation to the Petitioners on the ground of certain alleged deficiencies. The Petitioners responded by a letter dated 18 September 2011. By a communication dated 3 October 2011 the Third Respondent declined the request for the grant of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2011-12. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya1 and submitted that once AICTE has granted its approval, it was not open to the Third Respondent to decline affiliation. Yesterday, when the Petition was taken up for admission, counsel appearing on behalf of the Third Respondent submitted that the Petitioners have not annexed a copy of the approval granted by the AICTE. It was urged that the letter of approval would disclose as to whether any further conditions for the grant of approval were required to be complied with. Accordingly the proceedings were 1 (2006) 9 SCC 1. PNP 3 WP9961-16.12.sxw placed for hearing today on the request of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. During the course of the hearing, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has placed on the record a copy of AICTE s approval dated 5 September 2011 which grants ’ permission to the Petitioners to commence a post graduate degree course in the Civil Engineering with a total intake capacity of 18 students for the academic year 2011-12. The approval records that the institutions concerned shall generate a deficiency report through the web portal rectifying deficiencies, if any, before 30 September 2011. Counsel for the Petitioners has also placed on the record a deficiency report, which is auto generated which indicates that no deficiency was found. Counsel appearing for the AICTE has affirmed the correctness of this factual position on the basis of instructions. Counsel appearing for the AICTE states that in view of the fact that no deficiencies were noticed, at the stage of the auto generation of the deficiency report, it is not necessary for the AICTE at this stage to conduct either a further scrutiny of documents or a physical verification. 2A. Counsel appearing for the University, the Third Respondent does not dispute the position in law that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra), it would not be open to the University to decline affiliation once the AICTE has granted its approval under the Central Act. However, learned counsel submitted that while the University would therefore have to grant provisional affiliation, liberty may be given to the University to bring to the notice of the AICTE the deficiencies which were noticed upon a physical inspection of the PNP 4 WP9961-16.12.sxw infrastructure of the Petitioners and recorded in the letter dated 12 September 2011 of the Third Respondent. We find that request to be fair. Ultimately, it is for the AICTE to take a decision on whether, notwithstanding the letter of approval and the auto generated deficiency report, any deficiencies do exist as a matter of fact. 3. In the circumstances we dispose of this Petition in terms of the following directions : i) The Third Respondent is directed to grant provisional affiliation to the Petitioners for the academic year 2011-12 in view of the approval granted by the AICTE on 5 September 2011; ii) The students who have been admitted by the Petitioners for the academic year 2011-12 for the post graduate M.E. course in Civil Engineering shall be permitted to appear for their examination, subject to compliance with the necessary requirements; iii) The Third Respondent would be at liberty to bring to the notice of the AICTE, the First Respondent, such deficiencies as were noticed by the inspection team and which were recorded in the letter dated 12 September 2011 or otherwise. Upon receipt of the communication of the Third Respondent, the First Respondent would be at liberty to take such steps as it is advised to take in accordance with law. iv) Since the examinations are due to commence on 19 December 2011, the Third Respondent is directed to take all the necessary steps so as to ensure that the students who have been admitted for the course are able to appear for the examination, subject to their fulfilling the necessary requirements. PNP 5 WP9961-16.12.sxw The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)