IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 23369 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGER, (G.VIJAYA RAGHAVAN), ASIAN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, PALLIPPURAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 316. BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.MATHEW.K.SIMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, CHANDRALOK BUILDING, 7TH FLOOR, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110 001,(REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY). 2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, (SOUTH WESTERN REGION), P.K.BLOCK, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, CHANDRALOK BUILDING, JANAPATH, NEW DELHI-110 001. ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY,SC, AICTE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SU W.P.C.NO.23369/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 20.5.2005. P2. COPY OF THE REPORT OF EXPERT VISITING COMMITTEE ON 3.5.2011. P3. COPY OF THE APPENDIX 6 OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS HAND BOOK. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. P5. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.7.2011 FROM THE APPEALLATE COMMITTEE BY FAX FROM DELHI ON 18.8.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1: COPY OF THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 16/6/2011. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 23369 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner proposes to start a course by name Post Graduate Diploma in Management. For that purpose they made an application to the AICTE for approval and an expert team was appointed for inspection and Ext.P2 is the inspection report. Going by the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent the three defects noticed by the inspection team, which read as under: “-Stock register for laboratory equipment, language laboratory are not ready -Details of other education institution run by the same society or management or by any of the management to which the Chairman of the applicant Society is a member not presented. -House/restaurant, workshop/s, W.P.(C) No. 23369 OF 2011 :2 : drawing hall/studio/material museum Kitchen are not ready.” 2. According to the petitioner even at the appellate stage the approval was declined on the very same reason. It is challenging the rejection of approval this writ petition is filed. 3. In so far as the first defect noticed by the inspection team is concerned the case of the petitioner is that going by Ext.P3, which is an extract of the Approval Process Hand Book of the first respondent, language lab is a facility offered in the Computer System and therefore there is no question of providing any laboratory equipment or a separate language lab as sought tobe made out. 4. As far as the second defect is concerned the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner does not have any other institution and therefore the petitioner was not required to furnish details of other W.P.(C) No. 23369 OF 2011 :3 : institutions in which the Chairman of the petitioner is a member. It is also contended that the 3rd defect noticed is irrelevant so far as the petitioner is concerned for the reason that the said requirement is to be satisfied only by institutions imparting catering and hotel management courses. 5. However a reading of the statement filed on behalf of the respondent shows that the absence of stock register of laboratory equipments and non availability of language lab was the main deficiency noticed by the expert committee as well as by the appellate committee. In fact in Ext.R1, the report of the appellate committee it is seen stated thus: “Language lab – deficiencies observed by EVC. Details shown are insufficient.” 6. Although it is the case of the petitioner that the W.P.(C) No. 23369 OF 2011 :4 : language lab is only a facility offered in the computer system, that contention of the petitioner does not appear to be correct. I say so for the reason that in Ext.P3, which is an extract of the Approval Process Hand Book, it is stated thus: “Language Laboratory The Language Laboratory is used for language tutorials. These are attended by students who voluntarily opt for Remedial English classes. Lessons and exercises are recorded on a weekly basis so that the students are exposed to a variety of listening and speaking drills. This especially benefits students who are deficient in English and also aims at confidence-building for interviews and competitive examinations. The Language Laboratory sessions also include word games, quizzes, extemporary speaking, debates, skits etc. W.P.(C) No. 23369 OF 2011 :5 : These sessions are complemented by online learning sessions which take place in the Multi Purpose Computer Lab.” (emphasis supplied) 7. Therefore, the online learning can only supplement the sessions learning for which language laboratory is indispensable. 8. Be that as it may, it is contended by the petitioner that in any case a lab has since been provided by them. Now that it is the contention of the petitioner that language lab has been provided, I leave it open to the petitioner to take up the matter with the first respondent and seek a fresh inspection. With that liberty to the petitioner this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-