1 WP 7457.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7457 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2241 OF 2011 Suman Ramesh Tulsiani Charitable Trust & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. L.M. Acharya with Mr. Sathyam Acharya for the Petitioners. Mr. Sameer N. Patil, AGP for Respondents 1 and 2. Mr, Ashutosh Kumbhakoni with Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent 4. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & A.A. SAYED, JJ. 22 NOVEMBER 2011. P.C. :- The challenge in these proceedings is to a communication dated 5 September 2011, issued by the AICTE, purporting to withdraw an approval granted to the Petitioners on the basis of five deficiencies. The grievance of the Petitioners was that after the AICTE had initially granted its approval on 30 June 2011, the College was placed by the Director of Technical Education in the list of AICTE approved 2 WP 7457.11.sxw Engineering Colleges. The Petitioners admitted students, who were allotted by the Director of Technical Education. Subsequently, as noted earlier, the approval was withdrawn on the basis of 5 deficiencies. 2. When this Petition came up on 12 September 2011, the Division Bench directed the AICTE to send an Expert Visiting Team to make another inspection of the infrastructure and amenities available at the College and to specify the deficiencies, if any, so that the Petitioners can take remedial action. This Court issued these directions since it was noted that one of the deficiencies was that lifts were not planned. According to the Petitioners the building consists of only two floors, a ground floor and the first floor and the lift was required to be provided only if the building is constructed of three storeyes. As regards the other deficiencies noted by the AITCE, reliance was placed on a certificate of an Architect dated 26 April 2011. Pending further orders, an ad-interim stay was granted in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as follows :- “(b) pending the hearing and final disposal of this 3 WP 7457.11.sxw Writ Petition, the operation, implementation and effect of impugned letter dated 5/9/2011 issued by Respondent No.3, annexed at Exhibit-I to the petition, may kindly be stayed,” 3. At the hearing of these proceedings, Counsel appearing on behalf of the AITCE states on instructions that AICTE has conducted an inspection in pursuance of the ad-interim order of this Court and will shortly decide as to whether all the deficiencies as noted have been rectified. As directed in the order of the Court dated 12 September 2011, AICTE, after making an inspection is required to specify if any deficiencies persist, so as to enable the Petitioners to take remedial action. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that though the Petitioners contended that all deficiencies have been rectified, the Petitioners would be ready and willing to abide by such remedial actions as are directed by the AICTE. 4. In this view of the matter, we dispose of the Petition taking on the record the statement of Counsel appearing on behalf of the AICTE, on instructions, that following the inspection which has been conducted, the AICTE will issue a communication to the Petitioners after taking a decision within 4 WP 7457.11.sxw a period of one week from today. The ad-interim order passed by this Court on 12 September 2011 shall continue to remain in force until the AICTE takes a final decision and in the event, an adverse decision is taken to withdraw the approval for a further period of two weeks from the date of communication, so as to enable the Petitioners to take necessary steps in accordance with law. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. 5. In view of the disposal of the Petition, Civil Application No. 2241 of 2011 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A.A. Sayed, J.)