Technical institution approval depends on mandatory compliance, and courts will not alter binding admission schedules without illegality.

Approval for a technical institution shifting to a new site remains subject to prior AICTE approval, the required no-objection certificates, and an occupancy certificate; a move without those prerequisites, especially without clear title or a registered lease, does not create deemed approval for the new premises. The approval and admission timetable under the technical education framework is mandatory and binding, so courts will not interfere with expert regulatory decisions or alter the prescribed schedule absent illegality or arbitrariness. On these principles, the withdrawal of approval was upheld and the refusal to issue contrary directions was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the withdrawal of approval by the AICTE from the engineering college was liable to be interfered with despite the college having shifted to a new site without prior approval, without the requisite no-objection certificates, and without an occupancy certificate; (ii) whether the Court should issue directions contrary to the statutorily prescribed approval and admission schedule governing technical education.

Issue (i): whether the withdrawal of approval by the AICTE from the engineering college was liable to be interfered with despite the college having shifted to a new site without prior approval, without the requisite no-objection certificates, and without an occupancy certificate.

Analysis: The approval framework under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the AICTE approval handbook required prior compliance with the prescribed norms before any change of site could be acted upon. The college shifted to the new premises without obtaining prior AICTE approval, without the no-objection certificate of the State Government and affiliating university, and without an occupancy certificate. The college also lacked a clear title or registered lease in its favour. The expert committee had noticed material deficiencies, and the later approvals did not amount to deemed approval for the new site because they expressly confined operation to the approved location.

Conclusion: The withdrawal of approval was valid and was not liable to be interfered with; the finding was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the Court should issue directions contrary to the statutorily prescribed approval and admission schedule governing technical education.

Analysis: The approval process and admission timetable were treated as mandatory and binding, not directory. The Court held that expert regulatory bodies must act within the prescribed schedule and that courts should not substitute their view in academic matters unless the action is arbitrary or contrary to law. The schedule for granting approval and for completing admissions was declared binding so that technical education standards, transparency, and certainty in admissions are preserved.

Conclusion: No direction could be issued contrary to the prescribed schedule; the directions issued were consistent with the regulatory framework and operated against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, the AICTE action and the High Court's refusal to interfere were sustained, and the students were to be reallocated to recognised institutions in accordance with the directions issued.

Ratio Decidendi: A technical institution cannot claim approval or continued recognition after shifting to a new site in breach of mandatory regulatory requirements, and courts will not interfere with expert academic decisions or alter a binding approval and admission schedule absent illegality or arbitrariness.

---