1 RP-166-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 166 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3595 OF 2010 All India Council for Technical ..Review Petitioner Education (Original Respondent) versus M. S. College of Master in Management ..Respondent Studies (Original Petitioner) Mr. S. C. Naidu and Mr. R. Rodriques i/b. Ms. Beena Menon for review petitioner. Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/b. Mr. S. R. Waghmare for Respondent. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 24, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner – original respondents and the learned counsel for the respondent – original petitioner. 2. The review petition is filed in respect of the judgment and order dated 2 RP-166-10 29th June 2010 passed by this Court whereby writ petition no. 3595 of 2010 came to be finally disposed of by following observations made in paragraph 6 of the said order: “6. For the reasons stated herein above, we quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 17th March 2010 and direct the respondents to reconsider the application / proposal of the petitioner dated 12th March, 2010 submitted for establishment of New Management Institute by taking into consideration the following points : i. The application of the petitioner be considered as per old norms. ii. The concerned respondent is expected to consider the decision of this Court dated 11th November 2009 rendered in writ petition no. 8147 of 2009. iii. Respondent to verify whether the deficiencies noticed in the earlier proposal / application submitted by the petitioner and those were informed to the petitioner by the respondents vide communication dated 25th February 2010 are rectified by the petitioner. iv. The petitioner is directed to make e-payment of Rs. 40,000/- within a period of two days from today. The Committee is directed to take a decision, keeping in 3 RP-166-10 view the above referred points on the proposal / application of the petitioner dated 12th March 2010 within a period of two weeks from 29th June 2010.” 3. Before we consider the issue involved in the review petition, following facts are not in dispute: The respondent made an application to the review petitioner (AICTE) for permission to establish the Master of Management Studies College at Kausa-Mumbra, District Thane. The said application was rejected by AICTE vide Order dated 30th March 2009 on the ground that the Land Classification Certificate issued by the Chief Planning Division, MMRDA, revealed that the land falls under the Thane Municipal Corporation Area situated within the Municipal Metropolitan Region and, therefore, the building plans should have been approved by the proper Competent Authority. The respondent challenged the said order dated 30th March 2009 by filing earlier writ petition no. 8147 of 2009. This Court vide judgment and order dated 11th November, 2009 disposed of the said petition with the following directions, which reads thus:- “(1) The respondent shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner for commencement of the said course for the academic year 2009-10 on its own merits. However, the application shall not be rejected on the ground that the Building Plan is not approved by the Competent Authority as we have found that the said 4 RP-166-10 construction is made with prior permission of the Competent Authority. (2) The respondent shall hear the petitioner and take a decision afresh on or before 28.2.2010.” 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 11th November 2009 the AICTE has given hearing to the respondent on 10th February 2010 and vide communication dated 25th February 2010 informed the decision taken by the AICTE. By communication dated 25th February 2010 the respondent was informed that it has been decided after taking into consideration the recommendation of the Hearing Committee that the case / proposal of the respondent was not suitable for issue of LOI on the grounds mentioned in the communication dated 25th February 2010. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent vide application / letter dated 15th March 2010 requested the AICTE to reconsider its communication dated 25th February 2010 since the deficiency / defect notified in the said communication dated 25th February 2010 was rectified by the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the AICTE rejected the application of the respondent dated 15th March 2010 vide order / communication dated 17th March 2010. 5 RP-166-10 6. The respondent being aggrieved by the communication dated 17th March 2010 issued by the AICTE respondent once again filed writ petition no. 3595 of 2010 impugning the said communication issued by the AICTE. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 29th June 2010 by issuing the above referred directions to the AICTE. 7. The learned counsel for the AICTE - review petitioner has submitted that the proposal of the respondent in view of the Order dated 29th June 2010 passed in writ petition no. 3595 of 2010 was required to be reconsidered on the basis of the grounds mentioned in the said order. It is submitted that from 6th February 2010 the new procedure has been introduced by AICTE in this regard and the old procedure which was earlier in existence has been discontinued. It is submitted that AICTE is ready and willing to reconsider the application / proposal of the petitioner dated 26th December 2008 in the light of the decision of this Court dated 11th November, 2009 passed in writ petition no. 8147 of 2009 as well as decision dated 29th June 2010 passed in writ petition no. 3595 of 2010. The only difficulty expressed by the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that as per the directions issued by this Court vide Order dated 29th June 2010 in writ petition no. 3595 of 2010, AICTE was directed to reconsider the proposal of the respondent dated 12th 6 RP-166-10 March 2010 and not 26th December, 2008. It is therefore prayed that this aspect may kindly be clarified. Similarly, the proposal is required to be considered on the basis of grounds mentioned in the order dated 29th June 2010 and as per direction no. (1) the application of the respondent is required to be considered as per the old norms. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that though the application will be considered as per the old norms, however, the Committee which was constituted as per the old norms no more exist and therefore it is submitted that the application / proposal of the respondent dated 26th December 2008 shall be considered by the Committee / Authority which is competent, as per the old norms within a period of three weeks from today. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has criticized the casual attitude shown by AICTE. It is contended that inspite of the order and directions issued by this Court in earlier writ petition whereby AICTE was directed to take a final decision in respect of the proposal of the respondent, AICTE till this date avoided to take a final decision on the said proposal, on the contrary, issued such communications which the respondent had to challenge by filing earlier writ petitions. It is contended that the application / proposal for starting the new institution was submitted by the respondent in the year 2008 and till this date the decision on the said proposal has not been 7 RP-166-10 taken by AICTE for one reason or the other. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that whatever time IACTE is seeking to decide the proposal should be given by way of last chance since the respondent has already lost two academic sessions. The learned counsel for AICTE has disputed the allegations made by the learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel. It is no doubt true that the respondent submitted application for starting the new institution in the year 2008 which was rejected by AICTE, however the said order of rejection was set aside by this Court in the year 2009 and AICTE was directed to reconsider the proposal of the respondent dated 26th December 2008 afresh as per the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 11th November, 2009. AICTE once again vide communication dated 25th February 2010 informed the respondent about the deficiency noticed in its proposal. The respondent after rectifying the said deficiency again submitted application dated 15th March 2010 to AICTE. AICTE once again rejected the application of the respondent vide order / communication dated 17th March 2010, which was also set aside by this Court vide Order dated 29th June 2010 by issuing directions to reconsider the proposal of the respondent on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Order. 8 RP-166-10 10. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has expressed only two difficulties in implementing the directions. First difficulty is that by order dated 29th June 2010 the proposal / application dated 12th March 2010 submitted by the respondent was directed to be considered instead of 26th December 2008 as well as 15th March 2010. The second difficulty expressed by the learned counsel for the AICTE is that since the new norms came into effect with effect from 6th February 2010, the application of the respondent will be considered by the Competent Authority which is now in existence. 11. In the circumstances, therefore, the learned counsel for the AICTE agreed to reconsider the application / proposal of the petitioner dated 26th December 2008 and subsequent application dated 15th March 2010 by the Competent Authority of the AICTE within a period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that the proposal must be considered by AICTE as per the directions given by this Court vide Order dated 11th November 2009 and 29th June 2010 passed in writ petition no. 8147 of 2009 and writ petition no. 3595 of 2010 respectively. No further time shall be given to AICTE for taking decision on the said proposal. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the 9 RP-166-10 contention of AICTE that the respondent has submitted second proposal / application dated 21st January 2010 seeking permission to start institution is incorrect and the said communication / application need not be treated to be a second application submitted by the respondent seeking permission to start the new institution, it was only uploading of the existing application according to the communication of AICTE. The learned counsel for the AICTE, in the circumstances, seeks liberty to withdraw orders dated 23rd April, 2010 and 6th June 2010 passed by AICTE. 13. We permit AICTE to decide the application / proposal of the respondent by following the procedure as agreed by the learned counsel for AICTE within a period of three weeks from today. Review petition disposed of accordingly. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)