THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.19396 of 2009 Date: 14.09.2009 Between: Ushodaya Integrated Urban and Rural Development, Rep. By its Secretary K.Rami Reddy Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND Chairman, AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. A.CHAYA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI K.RAMAKANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI K.RATHANGAPANI REDDY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any decision on the appeal preferred by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that it proposed to start M.B.A College in the name and style of Ushodaya Institution of Management and Technology at Seetharampet Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It made an application to the respondents on 28.12.2008 for establishment of M.B.A College (Co-Education) for the academic year 2009-2010 and for the block year 2009-2011, by providing entire infrastructure and spending nearly Rs.5 Crores. It is the further case of the petitioner that it has submitted all the requirements mentioned in the letter of Intent dated 09.04.2009 issued by respondent No.2-Member Secretary, AICTE, New Delhi. After satisfying with the application made by the petitioner, the Expert Committee visited the college on 26.06.2009. Thereafter, basing on the Expert Committee’s Report, the respondents issued a letter of Deficiency on 30.06.2009 stating that the building is under construction; Computer and Library facilities have not been provided; qualified Director has not been appointed and hence the proposal has not been found suitable by the Council. It was further informed that as per the provisions in the approval process, the petitioner can avail the opportunity of reconsideration after rectification of the said deficiencies by paying requisite fee of Rs.40,000/-. Then the petitioner rectified the minor deficiencies and made an application by paying the requisite fee. Thereafter, a second visit was done by the Expert Committee on 26.07.2009, and based on the same, the third respondent-Advisor E&T, AICTE, New Delhi, issued another letter of Deficiency letter on 30.07.2009 taking untenable objections such as the instructional area relating to conference room is still under construction, no flooring and electrification has been carried out in the conference room, and it is not ready for use as on the date of visit etc., and accordingly rejected the proposal of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate committee on 11.08.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far the respondents have not passed any order on the appeal filed by it. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits that since the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before respondent No.1-the Chairman, AICTE, New Delhi, instead of this Court going into merits of the matter, the first respondent may be directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously, for which course of action, the learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, expeditiously. N.V.RAMANA, J Date: 14.09.2009 va