IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24463 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN (K.J.ABRAHAM), KADAMMANITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.MATHEW K. SIMON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, CHANDRALOK BUILDING, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110001, (REP. BY ITS MAMBER SECRETARY). 2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, AICTE, SOUTH WESTERN REGION, P.K.BLOCK, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. 3. THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE, (REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN), ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, NEW DELHI-110001. ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMURTHY,SC, AICTE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24463/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT 14.2.2011 ISSUED FROM THE AICTE. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 24.2.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF THE ISNPECTION TEAM BY THE AICTE. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRSENTATION DATED 21.6.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.1.11 TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24463 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Educational agency which has established a Womens' Engineering College. In this writ petition, they are challenging Ext.P5, reducing the intake by 50% for the academic year 2011-12. It is now submitted on behalf of respondents that subsequently 1st respondent had issued a Corrigendum dated 25/8/11 making certain corrections to Ext.P5. However, the reduction of the intake position as reflected in Ext.P5 remains as such. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent and in para 3 of the statement, it is stated that following inadequacies were noticed by the Surprise Visit Committee and the inadequacies read as under:- 1. The institute does not fulfill the AICTE norms and standards for built up area and instructional area. 2. The construction of building not as per approved building plan from competent authority. 3. Institute is not adhering to the AICTE pay scale. 4. Institute does not fulfill the AICTE norms and standards for workshop, library, laboratory equipments and computers, software, internet, printers. WPC No. 24463/11 :2 : 5. Institute does not fulfill the AICTE norms and standards for faculty requirements. 6. Institute does not fulfill the norms for journals. 7. Institute does not fulfill the AICTE norms and standards for other essential and desired requirements in technical institution like language laboratory, potable water supply and drinking water barrier free environment. 8. Toilets for physically challenged safety provision including fire and other calamities and girl common rooms not available. 3. It is stated that it was because of the aforesaid inadequacies that the impugned order reducing the intake was ordered. An affidavit has been filed by the petitioner requesting for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and in the said affidavit, petitioner has stated thus; 4. As per the present statement, the deficiencies shown are in the built up are of the college, ie; Instructional Area, Administrative Area, Amenities area and circulation area. As per the report, based on which the statement was filed, in paragraph 3 the Instructional area available in the college at the time of inspection on 26/10/2010 was 1650 Sq.Mtrs. 5. When the inspection was conducted on 26/10/2010 the college was running the second year. Therefore the facts and figures, which is submitted hereunder relate to the area required and available as on that time. 6. At that time the actual available instructional WPC No. 24463/11 :3 : area was 3339 Sq.Meters and not 1650 Sq.meters. The required area for that category, as per the AICTE norms is 3060 Sq.Mtrs. The inspection team, which visited the college on 26/10/2010, had never physically measured the area. They would have made guess work and that too they had not inspected the entire area in the college. 7. The next deficiency was mentioned in the Administrative area. As per the figures given in the statement what was available in the college was 300 Sq.Mtrs, whereas the actual available area for that purpose was 645 Sq.Mtrs and what was required was only 570 Sq.Mtrs. 8. In the category of Aminities Area, nothing is seen reported in the statement. The available area was 294 Sq.Mtrs whereas the required area was only 270 Sq.mtrs. 9. The next issue was the Circulation Area. As per the report stated in the statement what we had was only 540 Sq., Mtrs. What we actually have is 1350 Sq.Mtrs. and what was required is only 1020 Sq.Mtrs. Therefore as per the figures now said to be available with the AICTE, the total available area as on 26/10/2010 was only 2490 Sq.Mtrs, whereas the actual area available is 5334 Sq.Mtrs. and what was required was 4650 Sq.mtrs. 10. From this it can be seen that either the report was prepared callously or what was stated was a deliberate mistake. The total available area in the college as per the above said report has been reduced by more than 50%. 11. The AICTE specifies a total of 40 labs of average area of 66 Sq.Mtrs, each for all the 4 years put together for 4 branches. The 2nd year the lab space required (Proportionately calculated) is 1320 Sq.Mtrs. The lab space available at the time of inspection was 1365 Sq.Mtrs. The report has not even mentioned WPC No. 24463/11 :4 : about this aspect. The present area available as of now is much more. 12. The Inspection team, which came on 26/10/2010 is known to be from Bombay. There was a cross checking of the complaints and an inspection team visited the college in February, 2011, we understand, from Delhi without knowing about the report of the earlier Committee. That report was sent to the Appellate Committee, wherein they had not mentioned any of these defects. 4. Thus, while the AICTE pleads that the infrastructural and other facilities provided by the petitioner are inadequate, with the facts and figures now furnished by the petitioner, they contend otherwise. In my view, this factual controversy can be resolved better if the AICTE itself conducts a fresh inspection rather than the task being undertaken by an Advocate Commissioner of this Court. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- (1) That within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the AICTE will appoint a fresh inspection team, who will inspect the college in the light of the inadequacies pointed out in Ext.P5 and the details furnished by the petitioner as above. WPC No. 24463/11 :5 : (2) Based on the report submitted by the team, the AICTE will reconsider Ext.P5 and a fresh order in the matter will be passed. The whole exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 6 weeks. (3) Needless to say that the expenses involved will be intimated to the petitioner and immediately thereupon the same will be remitted by the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp