1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5893 OF 2010 1. Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Laltaki Road, Ahmednagar Through its Secretary Shri Genuji s/o Dagdoji Khandeshe, Age : 77 years, Occ. Business, R/o Agarkar Mala, Station Road, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar 2. Maruti s/o Namdeo Rohokale, Age : 51 years, Occ. Service, Administrative Officer, Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj, R/o Yashoda Nagar, Pipeline Road, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Regional Officer, Western Regional Office All India Council for Technical Education Second Floor, Industrial Building, Churchgate, Mumbai ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr Vivek Dhage, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 22nd July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V. HARDAS , J ] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the appellate committee of the AICTE , dated 19.6.20910 declining to recommend the petitioners - institution for approval for starting an Engineering College at Ahmednagar. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 i.e. Regional Office of the AICTE appellate committee to appoint an expert committee for conducting verification of the claim of the petitioner. 3. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this petition may be stated thus :- 3 The petitioner claims to be an educational trust duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and the Societies Registration Act. For the academic year 2010-2011 the petitioners had submitted on-line application enclosing the necessary details in respect of starting of an Engineering College at Ahmednagar. The petitioners thereafter had appointed the scrutiny committee meeting and according to the petitioners all the deficiencies which were pointed out came to be removed. The petitioners were again summoned on 24.4.2010 for attending the meeting for reconsideration of the scrutiny committee report. The petitioners duly attended the said meeting and provided the compact disc showing the facilities available at the new institute. The case of the petitioners came to be recommended by the AICTE for part B. The statistical data was verified regarding Library books, staff, journals, equipments, etc. and the petitioners submitted the documents in compliance of part B document. Thereafter the committee visited and found that there were certain deficiencies, namely the computers had not been installed and work in respect of the class-rooms, etc. was in progress. The petitioners accordingly filed an appeal under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and pointed out to the appellate authority that the petitioners had complied with all the deficiencies. The petitioners also enclosed photographs of the class-rooms showing that the construction of 4 the class-rooms was completed and the computers had been installed. Despite this, the appellate authority, relying upon the report of the inspection team observed that since the work was in progress and installation of the computers and printers, declined to grant the necessary permission. 4. The petitioners by this petition before us have contended that the provisions of clause 12 dealing with the exercise of the appellate power empowers the appellate committee to depute an expert committee for conduct of the verification of the claim made by the applicant society/trust. It is the contention of the petitioners that after the visit of the inspection team, the petitioners had removed all the deficiencies and the class-room work had been completed and the computers and the printers had been installed and, therefore, the appellate authority ought to have appointed an expert committee to verify if the deficiencies had been removed. Learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has urged before us that since the deficiencies had been removed after the inspection committee had submitted its report, the appellate authority was not bound under clause 12 to recommend the expert committee for verifying the claims made by the petitioners. 5 5. According to us since the petitioner had claimed before the appellate authority that it had removed all the deficiencies and had also annexed the photographs showing that the deficiencies had been removed and thereafter shortcomings which were pointed out by the inspection committee had been overcome, it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to have appointed an expert committee to verify the claim made by the petitioners. It is true that rejection at this stage would not come in the way of the petitioners in submitting an application afresh for the next academic year, but the fact remains that the petitioners would be only permitted to submit the application for the next academic year. The petitioner certainly would stand prejudiced as huge amount has been invested by the petitioner in creating the infrastructural facilities at the institute. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us the appellate committee ought to have deputed an expert committee for conducting the verification of the fact as to whether the deficiencies had been removed by the petitioners. 6. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the earlier order and remit the matter back to the appellate committee for a decision afresh, in accordance with law, after the report of the expert committee is received by the appellate committee. The appellate committee 6 to appoint the expert committee within two weeks from today and the expert committee to submit its report within two weeks and the appellate committee thereafter to decide the appeal within two weeks. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp5893.10