IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2767 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30305/2009 Dated 10/11/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: -------------------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 & 4: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, MET'S SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM(SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2767 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 institution and directing the appellant University to grant affiliation, the present appeal is filed. 2. The writ petitioner which is a Self-Financing Engineering College sought affiliation from the appellant University for additional intake of students to B.Tech in Electronics and Communication and in Computer Science and Engineering and for commencing B.Tech in Mechanical Engineering in the light of Ext.P1 approval given by the AICTE so as to enable the petitioner to commence the classes during the academic year 2009-10 itself. 3. The first and main contention raised before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court by the appellant is that there was no intimation of approval of the WA No.2767 of 2009 -:2:- AICTE and the respondent Institution has not produced it in time and it is not the duty of the University to check whether such approval by the AICTE is given or not. Secondly, it is contended that even if there was some fault or irregularities on the part of the University in rejecting the prayer, the learned Single Judge could not have directed to grant affiliation exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instead of issuing mandamus to the University to consider afresh. It is also contended that the University is not bound to consider the approval granted by the AICTE and it can take its own decision. 4. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the records. As regards the last contention is concerned, as to the independent power to be exercised by the University, vis-a-vis, after the approval given by AICTE, as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Vikram Sarabhai E.Trust & B.Ed. College v. University of Calicut [2008(2) KLT 1027], the issue in no longer res integra. In the said decision it has been held that “It is trite law that when the central body grants recognition, WA No.2767 of 2009 -:3:- based on the finding that the College has necessary infrastructural facilities, the University has no power or authority to decline affiliation, on the ground of lack of infrastructural facilities. In view of the decision in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya's case[(2006) 9 SCC 1], affiliation cannot be declined on the ground that the application for the same was not submitted in time in terms of the provisions of the Calicut University First Statutes. Going by the decision of the Apex Court in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government[2000(2) KLT 267(SC)], the University can insist that the requirements as per the Statutes, which are not in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act and the Regulations, should be complied with, for grant of affiliation.” As such, we do not agree with the contentions raised by the University that it can independently consider the affiliation part. 5. Once AICTE has granted approval, of course, in the very same Full Bench decision, this Court had made it clear that if there are certain deficiencies in respect of the approval given by AICTE, it was the duty of the University to intimate the same to WA No.2767 of 2009 -:4:- the institution so as to give a chance to the institution to correct it. In this regard it is also to be noted that as long back as on 16.07.09, immediately after receiving the approval of the AICTE on 15.07.09, the institution has intimated the appellant University regarding the approval given by the AICTE and it was stated that immediately after receiving communication from the University, it shall remit the prescribed fees. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that requisite fee had already been remitted on October 5, 2009 itself. 6. The institution had also enclosed a copy of the AICTE sanction for the perusal of the University. In spite of the receipt of such intimation, no action was taken by the University and the institution cannot be found fault with. It is to be noted that the institution had filed the application on 25.07.09 and as there was no communication from the University, it was forced to approach this Court by filing the present impugned writ petition and that too after issuing Ext.P8 communication. 7. The ground now taken by the University that the application form was either defective or did not satisfy the WA No.2767 of 2009 -:5:- requirements possibly appears to be a new hyper technical ground. If there was some mistake, the University is bound to communicate the same in time. Admittedly, no such communication has been sent to the institution for the alleged inaction. 8. The learned Single Judge, in our view, keeping the interest of the students community, was justified in issuing the impugned direction. In this regard learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the reported judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shivaji University v. Bharti Vidyapeeth [(1993) 3 SCC 224]. In our view, considerations in that case were totally different. It was a case where commencement of new Law College was under consideration and as such the Apex Court observed that “if in a given case, the university has gone wrong in declining such permission by relying upon a ground which is arbitrary or unreasonable or otherwise defective, the court should set aside such refusal and return the matter to the University for reconsideration”. The words underlined clearly indicate that the law declared by the Apex Court in that case was based on the WA No.2767 of 2009 -:6:- facts and circumstances of that case and it was not the universal declaration restricting jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find absolutely no ground to interfere with the well considered judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and hence it is rejected. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb WA No.2767 of 2009 -:7:-