1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 32 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1588 OF 2009 Mahatma Education Society .. Petitioners Vs Chairman A.I.C.T.E .. Respondents And Mr. R.A. Yadav & Ors .. Contemnors Mr. Chetan Kapadia i/b Mr. C.J.Abhyankar for the Petitioners Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr Adv with Ms. S Chandrashekhar and Ms. Beena Menor for Respondent No. 1 and Contemnor No. 2 CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J DATE : 28th APRIL, 2009. P.C.: 1. The breach that is alleged is of an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 22nd September, 2008 in a petition instituted under Article 226 by the Petitioner to these proceedings ( Mahatma Education Society V All India Council for Technical Education and others WP 1588 of 2008, Coram : Mr. Justice P.B. Mujumdar & Mr. Justice A.A. Sayed). The petition was heard yesterday when the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st Respondent sought leave for an adjournment in order to seek instructions on whether certain modalities could be worked out for resolving the dispute without, in any manner affecting the position of the A.I.C.T.E in regard to the enforceability of its statutory regulations. Rma CONPW3109280409.sxw 2 2. Today, upon seeking instructions of the 1st Respondent, the learned senior counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners have informed the Court that the grievance of the Petitioners would be satisfactorily met without affecting the larger interest of the A.I.C.T.E in compliance of its regulations by an order being passed in the following terms, by consent : i. On behalf of the Petitioners, an affidavit of Shri. Pragnesh Shah as an authorized representative dated 28th April 2009 is taken on record. The Petitioner has stated that a Lease agreement dated 16th October 2006 and Deed of Confirmation dated 29th July, 2008 have been entered into between the Petitioner and Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited ( the 4th Respondent ). The Petitioner has undertaken in Para 3 of the affidavit that it will not commit a breach of any of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement dated 16th October 2006 and of the Deed of Confirmation dated 29th July 2008 and will abide by and comply with all the terms and conditions thereof in all respects. Furthermore, it has been undertaken that the Petitioner will not commit any act in violation of the provisions of the lease agreement and will abide by the same. The statement contained in the affidavit is accepted and the undertaking tendered to the Court is recorded and accepted. Rma CONPW3109280409.sxw 3 ii. The 4th Respondent – Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited has by its letter dated 18th September, 2008 ( a copy of which is annexed to the compilation of documents tendered before the Court) informed the Petitioner as follows : “In this connection, we inform you that the Lease Agreement dated 16th October 2006 and a Deed of Confirmation dated 29th July 2008 will continue for a period of 30 years and you will be permitted to carry on with Education programs such as starting Engineering, Management and other professional courses for a period of 30 years provided that all terms and conditions are fulfilled as per the Lease Agreement dated 16th October,2006 and Confirmation of Lease Deed dated 29th July, 2008 and there is no breach of any of the said terms and conditions. This letter is issued to confirm the Lease Agreement and also as an assurance to produce before the Hon'ble High Court / AICTE / Government of Maharashtra in respect of the terms of Lease for grant of permission for Engineering, Management courses and other educational programs in HOCL Educational Campus, Rasayani.” The 4th Respondent has by its letter permitted the Petitioner to produce the letter as an assurance before this Court. The terms of assurance are accordingly taken on record. iii. The 1st Respondent has agreed that in view of the undertakings of the Petitioner and the assurance of the 4th Respondent, the 1st Respondent Rma CONPW3109280409.sxw 4 shall now proceed to process the application of the Petitioner for the grant of a letter of approval in accordance with law and that the condition set out in Clause 4.3.3(ii) of the statutory regulations has been duly complied with in view of the undertakings and assurance as recorded above. In order to obviate any doubt, clause 4.3.3(ii) of the regulations is to the following effect: “Land document (s) in original showing ownership in the name of Trust/Society in the form of Registered Sale Deed/Irrevocable Gift Deed (Registered)/Irrevocable Government Lease (in original) (for a minimum period of 30 years) by the concerned authority of Government. In case, the land documents are in vernacular language,Notarized English translation of the documents shall be produced” 3. The Petitioner undertakes, on the request of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st Respondent that within a period of one week from today, the society shall also pass a resolution in terms of the affidavit dated 28th April, 2009 and undertakings in those terms shall be filed before this Court by the society. The statement is accepted. On the request of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st Respondent, it is clarified that the aforesaid arrangement between the parties has been arrived at in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The order passed in the Contempt proceeding shall not affect in any manner the validity of the statutory regulations. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Rma CONPW3109280409.sxw 5 1st Respondent states before the Court that AICTE has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court aggrieved by the observations contained in the order passed by a Division Bench on 22th September, 2008 in so far as it was held that AICTE was not justified in insisting upon an irrevocable lease agreement. Parties are agreed that though the dispute is resolved in view of the compliance by the Petitioner with the conditions prescribed by AICTE, AICTE would be at liberty to pursue its grievance in this regard to the interpretation of the regulation. 4. The 1st Respondent has stated through the learned senior counsel that subject to compliance by the Petitioner with all the requirements, a final decision on the grant of a letter of approval shall be communicated not later than 15th June, 2009 5. In view of the fact that the grievance of the Petitioner has now been met in terms of the agreed understanding between the parties, it is not expedient in the interest of justice for the Court to pursue the exercise of the Contempt jurisdiction. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J) Rma CONPW3109280409.sxw 6 Rma CONPW3109280409.sxw