IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21827 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KERALA INSTITUTE OF CO-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT, NETTUKAL HILLS, NEYYARDAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, DR. RAVI VIKRAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, 7TH FLOOR, CHANDER LOK BUILDING, JANPATH, NEW DLEHI - 100 001. 2. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMURTHY,SC, AICTE R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 21827/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPROVAL DATED 14/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OIF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 06/05/2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KICMA/8236/2010 DATED 08/10/2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR-SECRETARY STATE CO OPERATIVE UNION. P6: COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION NO.1-463243371 DATED 22/06/2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 06/07/2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. P8: COPY OF THE NORMS AND REGULATIONS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 28/07/2011 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. P10: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 27/07/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P11: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 03/08/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P12: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/08/2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(a):COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS HAND BOOK. R2(b):COPY OF THE SURPRISE VISIT COMMITTEE. R2(c):COPY OF THE HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 09/05/2011. R2(d):COPY OF THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE REPORT /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21827 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The Kerala Institute of Co-operative Management, set up by the State Co-operative Union, a body established under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, is the petitioner. In this writ petition the orders under challenge are Exts.P6 and P12. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Exts.P1 and P2 are the letters of approval issued by the first respondent, permitting the petitioner to conduct the MBA course admitting 60 students, for the years 2009-2010 and 2010- 2011 respectively. While so an inspection was conducted and based on Ext.R(1(d) report, Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, pointing out two defects which reads as under. “1. Kerala Institute of Co-operative Management, Kerala is not adhering W.P.(C) No. 21827 OF 2011 :2 : to AICTE Pay Scale. 2. Girls Hostel and Boys Hostel are located in same building.” 3. Though, belatedly, Ext.P4 reply was submitted by the petitioner enclosing Ext.P5, proceedings of the Secretary of the State Co-operative Union and contending that AICTE pay scale has been approved for the teaching faculty. In so far as the absence of separate hostel for boys and girls is concerned it was stated that a separate hostel was being constructed. Accordingly the representative of the petitioner was heard and Ext.R1(c) shows that the allegations in the show cause notice were confirmed and the matter was placed before the Appellate Committee with the recommendations. 4. Ext.R1(d) is a report of the Appellate Committee, which contains its recommendation to order seat reduction in all courses by 50%. Accordingly Ext.P12, appellate W.P.(C) No. 21827 OF 2011 :3 : order was issued on 6.8.2011, reducing the students intake by 50%. Meanwhile, this was also published in the website as per Ext.P6. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P6 and P.12 and for consequential reliefs. 5. A statement has been filed by the respondents in which it is stated that the impugned proceedings were issued based on clause 56.4 and 56.7 of the Approval Process Handbook of the first respondent, the relevant extract of which is Ext.R1(a), which provides for the action to be taken in case of violation of AICTE regulations. 6. In so far as the non-adherence of AICTE pay scale is concerned, going by the statement filed on behalf of the respondent, Ext.P12 has been issued considering show cause notice Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 reply. Relying on these documents, the stand taken by the AICTE is that the staff requirement is not satisfied and it was therefore that W.P.(C) No. 21827 OF 2011 :4 : 50% reduction was ordered. However Ext.P13 is a document produced by the petitioner which according to them show the details of the faculty members and also the non teaching staffs together with the qualifications, pay scales and such other details of the faculty members. Obviously these materials were not placed before the AICTE either at the time of inspection or at the time of hearing. Coming to the allegation regarding the non availability of separate hostel, relying on the provisions contained in the Approval Process handbook, it is the contention of the petitioner that only adequate hostel facility is required to be provided and that such required facilities have been provided. It is stated that at the time of inspection the hostel facility provided for both boys and girls were in one building, but however the building has separate entrances for boys and girls and that both W.P.(C) No. 21827 OF 2011 :5 : sections were inaccessible to each other. Therefore it is contended there is no violation of the Regulations. In spite of this contention, it is also now brought to the notice of this Court that a separate hostel building for boys has been constructed and the photograph of which is said to be Ext.P14. Obviously this again has not been brought to the notice of AICTE when the proceedings were pending before the said authority. 7. Having regard to the above aspects and also taking note of the fact that it is a statutory organization in the Co-operative sector which has established the Institution, I feel this is a case where AICTE should conduct a fresh inspection and with the facilities now offered by the petitioner and the pay scales provided to the faculty, if the Institution satisfies requirements laid down in the Regulations, should pass orders revising Ext.P12. W.P.(C) No. 21827 OF 2011 :6 : 8. Therefore I dispose of the writ petition directing that a fresh inspection be conducted as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three weeks from today and consequential orders be passed as directed above. Needless to say that amounts necessary for such inspection shall be remitted by the petitioner in advance. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge