(1) WP-8092.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8092 OF 2011 Kisan Dnyanoday Mandal Gudhe's Dr. Uttamrao Mahajan Institute of Engineering and Technology PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate h/f Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for U.O.I. Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for respondent no.4 ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, J. DATED : 15TH DECEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The facts giving rise to the present Petition are as under: . The petitioner on an earlier occasion had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition no.5311 of 2011, with a grievance that though the petitioner had applied to the All India Council for Technical Education (A.I.C.T.E.) for approval for (2) WP-8092.2011 commencing/establishing a new College of Engineering and Technology, the students were not allocated to the petitioner institution. In the said proceedings, certain directions were issued by this Court, directing the State Government to include the list of certain Colleges including the petitioner for Centralized Admission Procedure to be published for the academic year 2011-2012. In the said Petition, a Division Bench of this Court (consisting of Bhosale and Deshmukh, JJ.) in unequivocal terms, has recorded as under:- "There is no dispute that the AICTE has granted approval to the petitioner as per the decision taken at the meeting held on 12th July, 2011 and the decision was put on the website of the AICTE on 14th July 2011." Perusal of the communication dated 01.09.2011 addressed by the A.I.C.T.E. to the Government of Maharashtra would also reveal that the A.I.C.T.E. had granted extension of approval to the petitioner- institution. . However, within a span of one month, vide communication dated 26.09.2011, the approval for (3) WP-8092.2011 establishment of the Engineering College of the petitioner is rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the present Petition. 3. Shri Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rules laid down in the Approval Procedure Handbook for the Academic Year 2011-2012 (for short "the said rules") itself require that the principles of natural justice are to be followed before a decision is taken by the Council. Apart from it, he further submits that the approval was granted in favour of the petitioner, which was recorded in the order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation and as such the approval could not have been rejected by the impugned order. 4. Shri Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General, on the contrary submits that the earlier approval was granted by clerical mistake and therefore when lacunas were noticed in revisit, the approval is rightly rejected and as such no interference is warranted. The learned Assistant Solicitor General further submits that the approval was granted to the petitioner-institution due to (4) WP-8092.2011 clerical mistake, which was noticed by the Council in its meeting dated 01.08.2011. 5. For appreciating the rival controversy, it would be relevant to refer to the rules framed by the A.I.C.T.E., which is under the title "Approval Procedure Handbook 2011-2012". Clause 11(3) of the said rules reads thus:- "i) The Council shall communicate the institution, its views in regard to the inspection and after ascertaining to the opinion of the institution or university, the action to be taken as a result of such inspection. "ii) As per Clause 11 (4), all communication to a institution or a university shall be made to the executive authority and the executive authority of the institution shall report to the council, the action, if any, which is proposed to be taken for the purpose of implementation of any such recommendation as is referred in Sub-Section (3) of Clause 11." It can thus be clearly seen from the perusal of these rules that the Council is required to communicate its views in regard to the institution and only after ascertaining the opinion of the institution or university, it can take an action, as a result of the (5) WP-8092.2011 inspection held. Indisputably, after the so-called revisit was conducted by the A.I.C.T.E. after the approval was granted to the petitioner on 01.09.2011, neither the petitioner nor the university has been communicated about any lacunas found in the revisit and the impugned order has been passed directly. By now, it is a settled principle of law that when a law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at all. Reliance in this respect could be placed in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "Dhananjay Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka 2001 (4) S.C.C. 9". 6. Apart from that, it is also a settled principle of law that when an order inviting adverse civil consequences is being passed against the party, the same is required to be passed after following the principles of natural justice. It is equally settled that even though the principles of natural justice are not provided in a statutory provision, the Courts are required to read them in the said provision, unless explicitly or by necessary implication their application is excluded. In the present case, rules (6) WP-8092.2011 itself specifically provide for the principles of natural justice to be followed. In any case, after the approval was granted in favour of the petitioner, if the same was to be taken away, it could not have been done without following the principles of natural justice. 7. The responsible body like the A.I.C.T.E. cannot be expected to grant approvals on clerical mistakes. Apart from it being adversely affecting the institutions, which are required to invest crores of rupees, it also adversely affects the careers of the students, who are taking education in such institutions. We are amazed at such a casual approach in firstly granting the approval and secondly, rejecting the same without following the principles of natural justice. 8. It is further to be noted that if according to the A.I.C.T.E., the approval was granted on clerical mistake, then nothing had precluded A.I.C.T.E. from pointing out the same before the Court, when the order was passed on 20.07.2011. It is to be noted that the said order has been passed (7) WP-8092.2011 after hearing the counsel for the A.I.C.T.E. 9. On the contrary, the Court has passed the order dated 20.07.2011, on the premise that the A.I.C.T.E. has already granted approval to the petitioner as per the decision taken in its meeting dated 12.07.2011 and published on its website on 14.07.2011. It can thus be seen that it is not even the case of the A.I.C.T.E. before this Court in an earlier round of litigation that the approval was granted on clerical mistake. 10. In that view of the matter, we have no option but to allow the Petition. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] arp/