Case: Om Sai Punya Educational And Social Welfare Society Vs. All India Council For Technical Education

July, 2017 for that purpose. The fact that the petitioners have already made huge investments per se cannot be the basis to overlook the statutory timelines specified for grant of approval, which this Court has authoritatively held to be mandatory and not directory. Any indulgence shown to the petitioners would inevitably affect the larger public interests, as the academic course has already commenced for the current academic year from 1st August, 2017 and the last date up to which the students can be admitted against the seats available in any recognised college, is specified as 15th August, 2017.8. The petitioners would contend that the deficiencies noted in the EVC report dated 1st July, 2017 were contrary to the finding noted in its previous report dated 10th March, 2017 as also of SAC-SC report dated 19th April, 2017. The argument though attractive at the first blush deserves to be stated to be rejected. Inasmuch as, the earlier report of EVC and SAC-SC were based on the proposal and documents submitted by the petitioners. Notably, the EVC team which wanted to visit the site for inspection on 25th April, 2017 was obstructed from entering the college complex. On 15th April, 2017 the SAC-SC had already expressed apprehension about the factual position and had advised one EVC team to visit both the institutes so that the correct position could be ascertained. That became possible only after the direction given by this Court on 22nd June, 2017. The common EVC then inspected the site in the presence of the representative of the petitioner No.1- society and submitted its report dated 1st July, 2017 mentioning about the two deficiencies noticed during the said inspection namely, another institute of the petitioner No.1- society in the name of AIM was proposed to be run on the same land on which AIBS was situated and a fresh deficiency about the area of the Boys’ Common Room and Girls’ Common Room being less than the required area i.e. 75 sqm. This report must be taken as the final observation of the EVC which is based on inspection of the site. In other words, some noting made in the previous report submitted by EVC and SAC-SC would be of no avail to the petitioners.9. It is next contended that as the deficiencies have since been removed, the AICTE was obliged to grant approval for the academic year 2017-18 as was the intent behind the order passed by this Court on 22nd June, 2017. Even this submission does not commend to us. For, on a fair reading of the order dated 22nd June, 2017, we find that no direction has been issued to AICTE to grant approval for the academic year 2017-18. Rather, it has been left open to the AICTE to take a fresh decision in accordance with law uninfluenced by the earlier order of rejection. As noted earlier, the deficiencies noticed in the EVC report dated 1st July, 2017 stood removed only after the petitioners withdrew their proposal relating to AIM vide letter dated 5th July, 2017. Since approval to be accorded by the AICTE was after the cut off date of 30th April, 2017 for the academic year 2017-18, it chose to issue approval for starting AIBS institute for the academic year 2018-19. No fault can be found with the AICTE in that regard, as even the order dated 22nd June, 2017 expected the AICTE to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Suffice it to observe that the decision of this Court dated 22nd June, 2017 cannot be construed as a direction to AICTE to grant approval in breach of the statutory timelines specified in that behalf.10. It is next contended by the petitioners that there is no other institute in the entire district of Ashok Nagar, Madhya Pradesh which imparts courses pertaining to Business Studies and therefore grant of approval for starting AIBS for the academic year 2017-18 will be in public interest. This is an argument of desperation. For, the petitioners are responsible for the present situation. In the fact situation of the present case, we are not inclined to show any indulgence to the petitioners especially when the entire admission process has been substantially completed and the academic year has commenced from 1st August, 2017. Any indulgence shown to the petitioners would fall foul of the admission schedule for the academic year 2017-18.11. A priori, in law, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as claimed in the writ petition. Furthermore, from the facts which have now emerged it is noticed that the petitioners were fully aware of sharing of the same piece of land and some of the common facilities between the two institutes but did not disclose that fact in the original application (proposal). Whereas, the team of officers of EVC who had visited the site for inspection on the earlier occasion were obstructed from entering the building complex, obviously with ulterior design. Realising that the deficiency of two institutes sharing the same plot and some of the common facilities would come in the way of the petitioners, the petitioners have since been advised to withdraw the proposal in respect of AIM. That decision was taken by the petitioners on 1st July, 2017, which was communicated to AICTE only on 5th July, 2017. It is only after receipt of that communication, the AICTE proceeded on the assumption that the stated deficiency stood removed in respect of AIBS and accorded approval to the said institute on 21st July, 2017, but for the academic year 2018-19. Keeping in mind, the aforementioned factual position and in particular the conduct of the petitioners, the question of granting any relief to the petitioners much less by invoking plenary powers of this Court, in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to condone or relax the timeline regarding grant of approval and to direct the respondent authorities to treat the approval for the academic year 2017-18 as prayed by the petitioners does not arise.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. Notably, the petitioners have not claimed any relief with reference to the aforementioned communication. The relief in the writ petition, however, is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondentto immediately issue a Letter of Approval and permit the petitionerto start its college AIBS from the academic yearit is not open to AICTE to breach the timelines specified in the AICTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder for processing the proposal for grant of a Letter of Approval. It is well settled that the schedule specified in the Regulations has statutory backing. Its adherence is mandatory and not directory. As per the said schedule, AICTE does not have anyjurisdiction or authority to issue approval for commencement of a new course or for additional intake of students beyond 30th April of the year immediately preceding the commencement of an academic year. In the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust Vs. All India Council for Technical Education, (2013) 3 SCC 385 ) it has been made amply clear that even the order granting recognition by the Appellate Committee of AICTE should not fall foul of the admission schedule. The admission schedule for academic yearhas already commenced and been substantially completed. The academic year has also commenced and the last date for completing the admission process is August 15th, 2017. The dates and timelines are provided in the Regulations and reiterated by this Court in the aforementioned decision. The same are inviolable.In the backdrop of the aforementioned facts, it is unfathomable as to how respondentcan be held responsible for the delay in issuing the Letter of Approval in respect of AIBS for the academic yearIt is obvious that the petitioners having realised that because of inspection by one EVC, their claim of no deficiency at all will be exposed were advised to withdraw the proposal in respect of another institute (AIM) which shared the same plot of land and common facilities. This deficiency was then removed by the petitioners only in July, 2017, by sending communication dated 5th July, 2017 for that purpose. The fact that the petitioners have already made huge investments per se cannot be the basis to overlook the statutory timelines specified for grant of approval, which this Court has authoritatively held to be mandatory and not directory. Any indulgence shown to the petitioners would inevitably affect the larger public interests, as the academic course has already commenced for the current academic year from 1st August, 2017 and the last date up to which the students can be admitted against the seats available in any recognised college, is specified as 15th August,argument though attractive at the first blush deserves to be stated to be rejected. Inasmuch as, the earlier report of EVC andwere based on the proposal and documents submitted by the petitioners. Notably, the EVC team which wanted to visit the site for inspection on 25th April, 2017 was obstructed from entering the college complex. On 15th April, 2017 thehad already expressed apprehension about the factual position and had advised one EVC team to visit both the institutes so that the correct position could be ascertained. That became possible only after the direction given by this Court on 22nd June, 2017. The common EVC then inspected the site in the presence of the representative of the petitioner No.1society and submitted its report dated 1st July, 2017 mentioning about the two deficiencies noticed during the said inspection namely, another institute of the petitioner No.1society in the name of AIM was proposed to be run on the same land on which AIBS was situated and a fresh deficiency about the area of theCommon Room andCommon Room being less than the required area i.e. 75 sqm. This report must be taken as the final observation of the EVC which is based on inspection of the site. In other words, some noting made in the previous report submitted by EVC andwould be of no avail to thethis submission does not commend to us. For, on a fair reading of the order dated 22nd June, 2017, we find that no direction has been issued to AICTE to grant approval for the academic yearRather, it has been left open to the AICTE to take a fresh decision in accordance with law uninfluenced by the earlier order of rejection. As noted earlier, the deficiencies noticed in the EVC report dated 1st July, 2017 stood removed only after the petitioners withdrew their proposal relating to AIM vide letter dated 5th July, 2017. Since approval to be accorded by the AICTE was after the cut off date of 30th April, 2017 for the academic yearit chose to issue approval for starting AIBS institute for the academic yearNo fault can be found with the AICTE in that regard, as even the order dated 22nd June, 2017 expected the AICTE to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Suffice it to observe that the decision of this Court dated 22nd June, 2017 cannot be construed as a direction to AICTE to grant approval in breach of the statutory timelines specified in thatA priori, in law, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as claimed in the writ petition. Furthermore, from the facts which have now emerged it is noticed that the petitioners were fully aware of sharing of the same piece of land and some of the common facilities between the two institutes but did not disclose that fact in the original application (proposal). Whereas, the team of officers of EVC who had visited the site for inspection on the earlier occasion were obstructed from entering the building complex, obviously with ulterior design. Realising that the deficiency of two institutes sharing the same plot and some of the common facilities would come in the way of the petitioners, the petitioners have since been advised to withdraw the proposal in respect of AIM. That decision was taken by the petitioners on 1st July, 2017, which was communicated to AICTE only on 5th July, 2017. It is only after receipt of that communication, the AICTE proceeded on the assumption that the stated deficiency stood removed in respect of AIBS and accorded approval to the said institute on 21st July, 2017, but for the academic yearKeeping in mind, the aforementioned factual position and in particular the conduct of the petitioners, the question of granting any relief to the petitioners much less by invoking plenary powers of this Court, in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to condone or relax the timeline regarding grant of approval and to direct the respondent authorities to treat the approval for the academic yearas prayed by the petitioners does not arise.