1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4806 OF 2010 (Tulshiram Tukaram Atkar vs. Union of India & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JULY 13, 2011. Heard finally Shri Khamborkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mishra, learned ASGI for the respondents with their consent. Shri Khamborkar, learned counsel points out that the Diploma Course being run by the petitioner is already approved for three Academic Years i.e. for the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. If that approval is to be cancelled or withdrawn, as per provisions of Section 17 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, power vests with Respondent No. 1 – Union of India and Respondent No. 2 cannot take any decision in that respect. He contends that impugned decision dated 07.09.2010 at Annexure 5 with writ petition is by Respondent No. 2 and, therefore, without jurisdiction. He further points out that this Court has already granted ad interim stay on 30.09.2010 and hence students have continued to receive instructions and even for 2011-12, students have been admitted. 2 To a query from Court, he points out that institution has to apply for continuation of approval beyond 2012 in December 2011 and that application is then required to be evaluated further and if the approval is granted, course can be continued even for the year 2012-13 and onwards. According to the learned ASGI, there were complaints about functioning of the petitioner and those complaints were looked into and thereafter Respondent No. 2 has taken appropriate decision. According to him, looking to the nature of complaints, the action taken is in accordance with law. Even the certificate of approval dated 27.07.2009 issued to the petitioner by Respondent No. 2 shows that approval is subject to compliance with RCI standard syllabus and nomenclature are required to be followed and facilities are to be maintained as per norms prescribed by RCI (Respondent No.2) from time to time. Here, it does not appear that after the receipt of complaints, an enquiry as contemplated by Section 17 was conducted and thereafter the decision has been taken. The perusal of provisions of Section 17(2) show that the action about withdrawal of recognition is required to be initiated by Central Government after considering the representation sent to it by Respondent No. 2. The Central Government has to call for explanation of the petitioner on such recommendations of Respondent No. 2 and thereafter proceed to take 3 further action. These steps are not taken in present matter. In view of the clear provisions of Section 17, it is clear that the impugned communication is without jurisdiction. Hence, with liberty to Respondent No. 2 to make appropriate representation in accordance with law to Respondent No. 1 and with liberty to Respondent No. 1 to proceed further, if it so desires, said communication dated 07.09.2010 is quashed and set aside. Writ petition is allowed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.