1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4325 OF 2009 Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, having its office at Deogiri College, Boyes Hostel, Station road, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad, through its Secretary, Shri Madhukarrao s/o Haribhau Mule, Age 72 years, Occu.Business, R/o”Shivneri” Bansilal Nagar, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus 1. All India Council for Technical Education, A Statutory body established under The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 Through its Member Secretary 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi 110 001 2. The Regional Officer, All India Council for Technical Education, Regional Office (W.R.O.), Industrial Assurance Building, Church Gate, Mumbai 3. The Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 4. The Director of Technical Education having his office at 3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 2 5. The Joint Director of Technical Education, Regional Office at Osmanpura, Aurangabad .. Respondents Shri V.D.Hon, Advocate for petitioner Shri Vivek Dhage, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondents 3 to 5 - AND - WRIT PETITION NO.4445 OF 2009 Shri Durgamata Bahuuddeshiya Krida and Shaikshanik Sanstha’s Durgamata Institute of Pharmacy at Dharmapuri, Tq. and District Parbhani Through its Vice President, Shri Kapil s/o Gajananrao Gaikwad, Age 30 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o At and Post Pedgaon, Taluka and District Parbhani .. Petitioner Versus 1. All India Council for Technical Education, A Statutory body established under The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 Through its Member Secretary 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi 110 001 2. The Regional Officer, All India Council for Technical Education, Regional Office (W.R.O.), Industrial Assurance Building, Church Gate, Mumbai 3. The Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 3 4. The Director of Technical Education having his office at 3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 5. The Joint Director of Technical Education, Regional Office at Osmanpura, Aurangabad .. Respondents Shri V.D.Hon, Advocate for petitioner Shri Vivek Dhage, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondents 3 to 5 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 7th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri V.D.Hon, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Vivek Dhage, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Shri V.H.Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 3, 4 and 5. 3. In Writ Petition No.4325 of 2009, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the letter of 4 approval dated 30.6.2009 issued by respondents 1 and 2 to the extent of permitting the petitioner to admit the students from the academic year 2010-11. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondents 4 and 5 to include the name of the petitioner i.e. Deogiri Institute of Technical Education and Deogiri Institute of Management for centralized admission process by allotting them Code Number and also allotting the students for the respective courses from the current academic year 2009-2010. 4. In Writ Petition No.4445 of 2009, the petitioner has prayed for similar relief to the extent of allotting students to the Durgamata Institute of Pharmacy at Dharmapuri, Taluka and District Parbhani for centralized admission process by allotting them Code Number and also allotting the students for the respective courses from the current academic year 2009-2010. 5. It appears that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4325 of 2009 had submitted the proposal pursuant to a Notification which was published by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 dated 14.9.2006. It also appears that the respondents had issued an advertisement in the local newspaper inviting applications for development of a new Integrated Campus with Multi-Discipline imparting Technical Education. Pursuant thereto the inspection of the premises of the 5 institute of the petitioner was carried out and certain deficiencies were noticed which came to be communicated by letter dated 15.6.2009. The deficiency that was noticed was in respect of plastering work of the workshop building which was incomplete and in progress. The respondents 1 and 2 informed the petitioner that reconsideration could be done after rectification of the deficiency which was pointed out. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a demand draft of Rs.40,000/- and informed the authorities by its communication dated 20.6.2009 that the deficiency had been rectified. Pursuant thereto, by communication dated 30.6.2009 approval came to be granted to the Engineering and the Management Courses run by the said institute. The letter of approval, hereinafter referred to as “LOA” for the sake of brevity is dated 30.6.2009. The said LOA is valid for a period of two years. In the said LOA, it is stated that the petitioner would be permitted to admit the students for the academic year 2010-11. The aforesaid condition is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 6. In Writ Petition No.4445 of 2009, the deficiency which was noticed was communicated to the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner submitted a demand draft. Pursuant thereto, by communication dated 30.6.2009, LOA came to be granted to the petitioner – institute for establishment of D.Pharmacy in the name 6 of “Durgamata Institute of Pharmacy, Dharmapuri Taluka and District Parbhani” from 2010-11. The LOA was valid for two years but the petitioner would be permitted to admit the students only from the academic year 2010-11. The aforesaid condition in the LOA is the subject matter of challenge in the petition. 7. Shri V.D.Hon, learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.269 of 2009, Jagdambha Bahuddeshiy Gramin Vikas San. vs. All India Council for Technical Edu.and others. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court held that if the LOA had been granted by 30.6.2009, the petitioner would be permitted to admit the students for the current academic year subject to the approval/affiliations granted by respective Universities/State Government and also fulfilling all other conditions. It would be useful, therefore, to reproduce the order of the Supreme Court in its entirety. “ Heard both sides. All these Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners in these Writ Petitions have applied for grant of approval to start Engineering Colleges. Admittedly, they have filed applications before 31st December, 2008 and their applications were allowed and 7 approval was granted by 30th June 2009. As per the scheduled prescribed by the A.I.C.T.E., Hand Book for Approval Process under clause 39, it was stated that “the Letter of Approval (LOA) for the following academic year shall be issued by 30th June for completed applications received by 31st December of the previous calendar year to those applicants which have fulfilled norms and standards prescribed by the Council for establishment of new institutions. LOA issued on or before 30th June shall be valid for two academic years including the following academic year for obtaining affiliation with the respective Universities and fulfilling concerned State Government requirement for admission” (Emphasis supplied). The notes appended to the “Time Schedule for processing of Applications/proposals at a Glance” issued by the AICTE show that “the Letter of Apprval shall be valid for two academic years from the date of issue and the Letter of Approval (LOA) for the current academic year shall be issued by 30th June for completed applications received by 31st December of the previous calendar year which have fulfilled norms and standards prescribed by the Council for establishment of new institutions. LOA issued on or before 30th June shall be valid for two academic years including the current academic year for obtaining affiliation with the respective 8 Universities and fulfilling concerned State Government requirement for admission.” ( Emphasis supplied ) We are told that all these petitioners got approval on or before 30th June 2009, but they were not permitted to admit students, as according to AICTE, they can avail the benefit of the approval not for the current year 2009-10 but they can admit only students for the academic years 2010-11 and 2011-12 onwards. This content raised by the AICTE does not appear to be correct going by schedule prescribed for granting such approval. All these petitioner colleges can admit students for the current academic year 2009-10 subject to the approval/affiliation granted by the respective Universities/the State Government and also fulfilling all other conditions. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.” 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents agree that the present controversy raised in these petitions stands fully covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court which we have adverted to above. In the light of that, therefore, we allow these petitions and permit the petitioners to admit students for the current academic year 2009-10 subject to the approval/affiliation granted by the 9 respective Universities/State Government and also fulfilling all other conditions. 9. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. 10. In the light of the aforesaid Judgment, the respondents to take further steps expeditiously, in accordance with law. 11. Copy of this Judgment duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/4325-4445.09wp) 10