1 wp5755.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5755 OF 2010 Prabhakar Patil Education Society’s Institute of Management Studies& Anr. : Petitioners V/s. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.R. Adsure i/b. Mr.Parag Shelke for the petitioners. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.R. Rodrigues for respondent nos.1 & 2. Ms M.P.Thakur, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.3 & 4. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : JULY 30, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. During the pendency of the petition, the respondents - AICTE issued a communication dated 27th July 2010 whereby the petitioners were informed that after due verification of the recommendations of the appellate committee, the Council did not accord approval on the grounds mentioned in the said communication. In the circumstances, the learned 2 wp5755.10 counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to amend the petition and seeks to challenge the said communications. Oral requests for permission to amend the petition granted. Appropriate amendment in the petition be carried out, during the course of the day. 3. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the communication dated 27th July, 2010, which are impugned in the present petition read thus: “Based on recommendations of scrutiny / rescrutiny committee, an expert committee visit was arranged to verify all the facilities created for the proposed institute. The deficiencies pointed by the expert committee were communicated to you through portal. Further you were given an opportunity to comply the deficiencies before a duly constituted appellate committee. The appellate committee after studying your points of compliance rejected / recommended for revisit of the institution and in case of revisit of the expert visit reports were evaluated by the regional committee and then executive committee. Further, all the recommendations of the appellate committee were considered by the Council. After, duly verifying all the points as per the regulations the council did not accord the approval on the following grounds:- (In every case the grounds are different)” 3 wp5755.10 4. The learned counsel for the respondents AICTE fairly accepted that so far as revisit of the expert is concerned, that has not been done. The learned counsel further makes a statement on the basis of instructions of Dr. P. K. Sahoo, Director and Regional Officer, Western Region, who is present in court, that the Authority proposes to undertake the entire procedure stipulated in the Regulation for verifying as to whether the deficiencies mentioned in the communications in respect of each institution factually exist or not and the entire exercise shall be concluded within a period of two months from today. 5. It is in these circumstances, we dispose of the petition as withdrawn insofar as the petitioner no.1 is concerned and expect that the respondents AICTE shall conclude the exercise as stated by the learned counsel, at the earliest, and in any case not later than two months from today. It is open for the AICTE to take a decision based on the report of expert’s visit within a period of 15 days thereafter. Petition is disposed of, insofar as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, by keeping contentions as well as issues raised therein open. 6. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, on instructions from 4 wp5755.10 Dr.V.N.Mohitkar, I/C. Joint Director, states that appropriate sanction or approval shall be granted by the State Government to the courses started by the Sanstha and mentioned in the letter dated 20.7.2010 issued by the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, within a period of two week. In view of the above referred statement made by the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioners, insofar as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, does not press prayer clauses (e), (f), (g) and (i) of the petition. Petition is disposed of, insofar as the petitioner no.2 is concerned. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)