HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P,No.4057of2006 Pgffioner : M.P. Christian Coltege of Eng. & Technology Through: Fr. Dr. Abraham Oommen S/o Shri Oommen Abraham, 52 years Executive Vice Chairman 18, Kailash Nagar, Industrial Estate Bhilai Distt. Durg. Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. State of ChhatBsgarh through: The Secretary Higher & Technical Education Oeptt. Mautralya Raipur The Regional Director Cenfrat Regional Officer A.I.C.T.E. Tagore Hostel No.2, Shamla Hilts Bhopal. The Director. Directorate of Tech. Education Byron Bazar Raipur. Chhatfisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical Unh/ersity through: The Registrar North Park Avenue, Sector 8 Bhilai Distt. Durg. OWr'rt Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Justice Satish K. Aanihotri Pr^ent : K"1.-' Shri S.K. Thomas and Shri Prafull QnSTat, Advocate for fte petitioner. Shri P.K. Verma, Additional Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate Torthe State/ respondents. ORDER (Passed on 13th July, 2007) Leamed counsel for the petttfoner submits that the petitioner/ .educational institution is run by Christian Minority community under St. Thomas Malankara Orthodox Syien Church Mission Bhilai, Durg. The petitioner/engineering college has got recognition from respondent No.2 and afRliated to Chhattisgarh Swami Vivikanand Technical University, -^ i^ Durg. 2. Admittedly^ the petitioner college Is unaided college. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submits that the State Govemmentjs^ c^"' interfering with admission of students by imposition of seat sharing quota.contrary to the decision of the Hon'bte Seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Couit in P.A. Inamdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 6SCC 537. Leamed counset for the petitioner relies on para 125 and 127 of the decision, which read as under: "125. As per our understanding, neither in the judgment of Paf FoundaSon nor in the Constitution Bench decision in Kerala Educatton Bff/which was approved by Pai Foundation is there anything which would allow the State to regulate or control admissions in ttie unaided professional education institutions so as to compel them to give us a share of the available seats to the candidates chosen by the State, as if it was filling the seats available to be filled up at 'rts discretion in such private jnstitutions. This would amount to nationalization of seats which has been specffically disapproved in Pai Foundat'on. Such imposition of quota of State seate or enforcing reser/ation policy of the State on „> available seats in unaided professional instttutions are acts constituting serious encroachment on the right and autonomy of private professional education institutions. Such appropriation of seats can also not he held to be a regulatory measure in the interest of the minority within the meaning of Articte 30F((1) or a reasonable restriction wfthin the meaning f' of Article 1? (6) of the Constitution. Merely because the resources <rf the State in provlding professional education are limited, private educationat institutions, which intend to provide better professional education, cannotbe forced by the State to make admissions available on the basis of reservation policy to less meritorious candidates. Unaided institutions, as they are not deriving any aid from State funds, can have their own admissions if fair, transparent, non-exploitative and based on merit 127. Nowhere in Pai RiimdaHwi either in the majority or in the minority opinioo, have we found any justification for imposition seat-sharing quota by the State on unaided private professional educational in^itutions and reservatton policy of the State or State quota seats or management seats " 3. Shri P.K. Verma, Additional Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate submits that the petition is vague as it does not specify as to when and by which order the State Govemment has attempted to impose seat sharing quota, which is contraryto the above decision of the Supreme Court (Supra). .^ 4. Be Uiat as it may, leamed Additional Advocate General submits that the State is bound to comply with the directions passed in the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in case of P.A. Inamdar and others (Supra). ./ •* 5. tf there is any contrary action, particularty in regard to the r' impositionof seat sharing quota on the petitloner institution, which is admittedly a private professional educational institute, the same deserves to be quashed. 6. In view of the categorical statement made by the tearned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents, leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing survives in this matter. Thus, the petition is accordingly disposed of. 7. Certified copy as per mles, today. Indu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge