1 WP 10513.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10513 OF 2011 Maharashtra Shaishanik and Arogya Vidyanagari, Thane and Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. V.M. Thorat with Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat for the Petitioners. Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent 3. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & A.A. SAYED, JJ. 23 DECEMBER 2011. P.C. :- The Petition challenges a letter of rejection dated 7 September 2011 communicated by the All India Council for Technical Education to the Petitioners to the proposal for the establishment of a new technical institution for the academic year 2011-12. The letter of rejection notes that the application filed by the Petitioner was scrutinized by a Scrutiny Committee and a list of deficiencies was posted on the web portal of AICTE for rectification. Moreover, on the 2 WP 10513.11.sxw basis of the observations of the Scrutiny Committee, an Expert Committee visited the institution and the report of the Expert Committee was again placed on the web portal of AICTE. The Executive Committee did not recommend the case for approval. The Petitioner filed an Appeal. However, it has been stated in the impugned communication dated 7 September 2011 that the institute was absent on the date of hearing of the Appeal (15.07.2011). An affidavit has now been filed on 23 December 2011 by the Regional Officer of the AICTE at Mumbai stating that as a matter of fact, the Petitioner was present before the Appellate Committee on 15 July 2011 but the Petitioner did not produce supportive documentary evidence and hence, the Appeal was rejected. What has been stated in the affidavit does not match what is stated in the letter dated 7 September 2011. The rejection proceeds on the basis that the Petitioner did not remain present before the Appellate Committee which is now shown to be factually incorrect as admitted in the affidavit-in-reply. 2. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned communication dated 7 September 2011 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue as to whether the 3 WP 10513.11.sxw Petitioner has duly complied with all the requirements of the AICTE since we are of the view that a fresh examination by the Appellate Committee would be necessitated. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned communication dated 7 September 2011, we direct the Appellate Committee to re- consider the Appeal filed by the Petitioner in accordance with law. The Petitioner would be at liberty to file supportive documentary evidence within a period of two weeks from today. It would be open to the Appellate Committee to issue recommendations for a visit by the Expert Visiting Committee. 3. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A.A. Sayed, J.)