AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1054
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffiliated to their University in consultation with the State Government. 2. The relevant facts of the present case are that Petitioner No.1-Institute has been functioning under the aegis of petitioner No.2 since 2000. In 1999- 2000, petitioner No.1 was granted approval for establishment of a college. 3. On 13th March, 2000, petitioners applied to Delhi Development Authority for five acres of land for construction of a college building at a permanent site in accordance with the norms of respondent-AICTE. Though the petitioners were allotted three acres of land in Rohini by Delhi Development Authority, yet the same was subsequently cancelled in 2004- 2005. 4. In 2005, petitioners approached this Court by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) 2459/2005 seeking a direction to Delhi Development Authority to give effect to the recommendation of allotment as well as a direction to AICTE not to withhold the approval to the petitioners for running the Engineering Degree College for the Academic Year 2005-2006. 5. On 09th February, 2005, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an interim order that respondent-AICTE could not unreasonably withhold approval to the petitioner for its un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner‟s representatives a detailed hearing, respondent-AICTE vide its order dated 30th October, 2013 placed the petitioner-institute under "no extension of approval 2013-2014 status". 13. Since the order dated 30th October, 2013 has a significant bearing on the present petition, the same is reproduced hereinbelow:- "1. The Institute was approved in 1999-2000 in the name and style of "Guru Prem Sukh Memorial College of Engineering, GT Karnal Road, Delhi". 2. On receipt of Complaint against the Institute, CBI New Delhi investigated the matter and sent the Report to CVO AICTE for taking appropriate action as deemed fit in the matter. Crux of the CBI report is that since the year 1999 when approval at the first instance was given the Institute continued to operate from temporary accommodation till date. 3. CBI Report reveals that significant shortage as regards the area but marginal shortage as regards the built up area, student ratio, computer internet etc. were pointed out by various Expert Committees that visited the college (01-11-1999, 2000-2001, 25-07-2002 and 18/01/2006). As per the report of the CBI, No Admission status was granted to the institute vide let....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... OF APPROVAL 2013-14 STATUS" This has the Approval of the Competent Authority at Page 23/N of File No/.NWRO/DL/1-6654021/2013-14 dated 29/10/2013." 14. It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid order dated 30th October, 2013 has not been challenged and has attained finality. 15. Thereafter, the petitioner-institute filed an application for extension of approval for the Academic Year 2014-2015. Since the petitioner-institute had not been given extension of approval for the Academic Year 2013-2014, the application for Academic Year 2014-2015 was considered as per the procedure for restoration against punitive action as provided under Clause 11 of Chapter IV of AICTE Approval Process Handbook. The procedure prescribed under Clause 11 of Chapter IV of AICTE Approval Process Handbook is reproduced hereinbelow:- 11 Procedure for restoration against punitive actions. 11.1 Applicant makes an application for restoration on the Web Portal along with the application for extension of approval of the next academic year. 11.2 The restoration is subject to Expert visit 11.3 The expert Visit Committee shall verify all the requirements as per the approval process hand b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts created for physically challenged - (Ramp or working lift etc) - not accepted submitted. Not accepted. 11. General Insurance provided for assets against fire, burglary and other calamities - not presented No document submitted. Not accepted. 12. E- Journal subscription/international Journals - Only Delnet is available. The college did not subscribed the e-journal packages listed in Appendix 10 of the Handbook - (2013-14) No document submitted. Not accepted. 13. Boys Common Room - small in size No document submitted. Not accepted. 14. Girls Common Room - small in size No document submitted. Not accepted. 15. Cafeteria - Small in size No document submitted. Not accepted. 16. Computer center - small in size No document submitted. Not accepted. 17. Class room - UG Short by six meters each class room No document submitted. Not accepted. 18. Laboratories UG Short by above fifty per cent No document submitted. Not accepted. 19. Seminar Hall - short by three rooms. No document submitted. Not accepted. 20. The EVC also observed as follows: * Land area should be 2.5 acres. * The college is running in a Deficiencies are not rectified. rented building ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground relied upon by respondent-AICTE not to grant approval for extension of affiliation for the Academic Year 2014-2015 was that the petitioners did not own land and the college was being run from leased premises. He stated that the aforesaid ground was misconceived on facts and untenable in law as respondent- AICTE itself on 08th February 2011 had given two years to colleges to shift from temporary sites to permanent sites. He also pointed out that the Executive Committee of respondent-AICTE in its meeting held on 17th March, 2012 had extended the time for shifting to a permanent site till 31st December, 2014. 24. According to Mr. Uppal, the rest of the discrepancies pointed out by respondent-AICTE in the impugned order were minor in nature and had been rectified. Mr. Uppal contended that as there was substantial compliance with all rules and regulations of respondent-AICTE, petitioner should have been granted approval for extension of affiliation for the Academic Year 2014-2015 for its engineering course. In this connection, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Al-Karim Educational Trust & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., JT 1996 (2) S.C. 662 wherein it has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to secure land and comply with the requirements prescribed by AICTE. I therefore, feel that the AICTE cannot unreasonably withheld an approval to the petitioner (on its application) for the undergraduate engineering course, for the academic years 2005- 06 only on the ground that does not possess a permanent site....." 26. Mr. Uppal lastly stated that respondent-AICTE could not be allowed to apply different standards and norms to similarly placed institutions. He pointed out that respondent-AICTE had accorded approval for Academic Year 2014-2015 to Amity School of Engineering and Technology located at village Biswasan, Delhi, even though it was running on a temporary site and on a smaller piece of land than the petitioner-institute. Mr. Uppal stated that petitioners had come to know that the said institution had received a total score of 57.6% in the inspection conducted by the Joint Assessment Committee of Delhi Government, whereas petitioner-institute had received a score of 69.33% in the inspection report. In this connection, he relied upon the order dated 14th July, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in W.P.(C)6021/2014, Mahatma Education Society's Pil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assification of building areas norms para 12.2 and para 10 which deal with the multi use of facilities shows that the interpretation and submissions of Petitioners if accepted, there will be no deficiencies. The authorities before passing order based upon their understanding of those norms, though permitted the Petitioners to run the institutions/colleges/courses for so many years suddenly took U-turn and discarded the submission/explanation so given by the respective Petitioners without giving reasons on those issues. Those norms and standards including regulations of grant of approval for technical education itself provide for relaxation/exemptions. We fail to understand that if there were indeed some area/land deficiencies, how the letters of approval were issued to the Petitioners at the threshold. We are not here to give decisions on the respective deficiencies at this stage, but as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that those norms and standards and regulations/rules unless interpreted and/or considered by this Court and/or even by the supreme authority under AICTE Act and/or other Act, such drastic action would definitely cause injustice and hard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2000 subject to the condition that the institute would shift to a permanent site by June 2000 and other deficiencies would be removed. 30. Mr. Kumar contended that since even after many years of establishment of the institution, the petitioner did not shift its functioning to a permanent site, AICTE issued show cause notice dated 04th May, 2004 pointing out various deficiencies. But in the light of interim order dated 05th February, 2005 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.2459-60/2005 and further interim orders dated 02nd July, 2008 and 21st May, 2009, the extension of approval of the Institute was continued. He pointed out that it was only on 25th March, 2011 that this Court dismissed the said writ petition and subsequently by order dated 13th May, 2011 passed in CM No.6159/2011 noted that "......In our considered view, prayer (c) was a sequitur to the relief claimed in prayer (a) and prayer (b)." 31. Mr. Kumar contended that as the petitioner-institute had failed to shift to its permanent site even after fifteen years of its functioning and in spite of order dated 13th May, 2011 passed by this Court as well as CBI report, AICTE issued Show cause notice dated 14th June, 2013. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....malafides against any member of the hearing committee nor had impleaded them as parties to the present proceeding. Consequently, according to him, it was not open to petitioners to dispute the observation of hearing committee that no documents had been filed by petitioners. He submitted that AICTE while deciding to grant approval or not to grant approval was not functioning as a quasi-judicial authority, but only as an administrative authority and thus, rigid rules of natural justice need not be complied with. 37. So far as the contention of petitioners regarding deficiency in the case of Amity School of Engineering and Technology was concerned, he stated that assuming without admitting that petitioners‟ argument was correct, then also it could not claim parity for continuing a deficiency. 38. Mr. Kumar submitted that the Policy of the State Government dated 02nd April, 2014 did not override the condition of approval and Norms and Standards laid down by the AICTE in terms of its Regulations of 1994 and 2012 and also the policy decision of AICTE which mandated all institutions to shift to a permanent site. 39. Mr. Kumar also stated that there was no indication much le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself. 45. In Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 the Supreme Court has held as under:- "89. ..............The judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled executive functioning. The restraint has two contemporary manifestations. One is the ambit of judicial intervention; the other covers the scope of the court's ability to quash an administrative decision on its merits. These restraints bear the hallmarks of judicial control over administrative action. 90. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision-making proces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s application for extension of approval for Academic Year 2014-15, the procedure prescribed under Clause 11 of Chapter IV of AICTE Approval Process Handbook was scrupulously followed inasmuch as the Expert Visiting Committee conducted an inspection on 23rd May, 2014 and after issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 2nd June, 2014, Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee gave a hearing to two representatives of petitioner on 5th June, 2014. It was only thereafter that the impugned order dated 24th June, 2014 was passed. 50. It is pertinent to mention that the Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee comprises a retired High Court Judge, a Principal and a Professor. It does not comprise any serving officer or employee of AICTE. It is the independent Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee that has stated that neither any document nor any reply was filed by the petitioner. No allegation of bias or malice has been levelled against any member of the Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee. Consequently, this Court is unable to accept the contention of petitioner-institute that neither its reply nor its documents were taken on record. 51. Further, to say that petitioner was unaware of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iliating university. It is to be noted that the respondent- University before this Court has admitted that its inspection was purely an annual exercise to evaluate academic standards and teaching methods at the institute and not for evaluating the infrastructure and other physical parameters pertaining to the respective institutes. Thus, the University's inspection report cannot be taken into account while deciding the issue of grant of approval to petitioners. 58. The contention of petitioner regarding deficiencies in the case of Amity School of Engineering and Technology cannot be adjudicated upon in view of its non-impleadment. It is to be noted that it is AICTE's case that while Amity college was granted permission on self assessment basis, petitioner's application was rejected after the Expert Visiting Committee inspected petitioners' premises in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Clause 11 of Chapter IV of AICTE Approval Process Handbook. 59. Moreover, the equality concept in Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept and petitioners cannot claim parity for continuing a deficiency. In a catena of judgements it has been held t....