Jagarnath Mane Vs. All India Council for Technical Education

Jagarnath Mane vs All India Council for Technical Education

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 22, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1043880

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1043880
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 22, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jagarnath Mane

Advocate Shri. Khalid Noor Fakhruddin

Respondent

All India Council for Technical Education

Advocate Shri. Pradeep Sharma

Excerpt

.....deputy ag for respondent no.2 and 3. the petitioner has sought following relief :- “(a) that, this hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/ directions in appropriate nature in the interest of justice; (b) that, the respondent no.1 be directed to conduct fact finding enquiry against the respondent no.4; (c) that the approval & affiliation of respondent no.4 be immediately cancelled in violation of non-fulfillment of the norms.(d) that, respondent no.3 be directed to take action against respondent no.4 and get release the government land under encroachment; (e) any other writ/order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case necessary be also passed with costs to the petitioner.” in nut shell, the case of petitioner is that the respondent no.4/society is not fulfilling the norms of aicte for grant of recognition, but inspite of this 2 recognition has been granted to respondent no.4. the respondent no.4 has also encroached some government land, but inspite of lodging a complaint to the respondent no.3, no action has been taken by respondent no.3 against respondent no.4. for the aforesaid grievances, petitioner may approach to respondents no.1,2 and 3 agitating his grievance in this regard. if any such grievance is raised, the authority shall look into the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. it is,however, directed that in case respondent no.1,2and 3 gets any complaint, they shall hear the respondent no.4 also before passing any order as the respondent no.4 appears to be the affected party. it is made clear that this court has not observed on merits of the case and the authorities are free to consider the grievance raised by the petitioner in accordance with law. with the aforesaid directions/observations, this petition is finally disposed of with no orders as to cost. (krishn kumar lahoti) (subhash kakade) acting chief justice judge jk.

Full Judgment

1 WP No.12402/13 22.07.2013.

Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin, learned counsel for petitioner.

Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy AG for respondent no.2 and 3.

The petitioner has sought following relief :- “(a) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/ directions in appropriate nature in the interest of justice; (b) That, the Respondent no.1 be directed to conduct fact finding enquiry against the respondent no.4; (c) That the approval & affiliation of Respondent no.4 be immediately cancelled in violation of non-fulfillment of the norMs.(d) That, Respondent no.3 be directed to take action against Respondent no.4 and get release the Government land under encroachment; (e) Any other writ/order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case necessary be also passed with costs to the petitioner.”

In nut shell, the case of petitioner is that the respondent no.4/Society is not fulfilling the norms of AICTE for grant of recognition, but inspite of this 2 recognition has been granted to respondent no.4.

The respondent no.4 has also encroached some Government land, but inspite of lodging a complaint to the respondent no.3, no action has been taken by respondent no.3 against respondent no.4.

For the aforesaid grievances, petitioner may approach to respondents no.1,2 and 3 agitating his grievance in this regard.

If any such grievance is raised, the authority shall look into the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.

It is,however, directed that in case respondent no.1,2and 3 gets any complaint, they shall hear the respondent no.4 also before passing any order as the respondent no.4 appears to be the affected party.

It is made clear that this Court has not observed on merits of the case and the authorities are free to consider the grievance raised by the petitioner in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions/observations, this petition is finally disposed of with no orders as to cost.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Jk.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Jagarnath Mane vs All India Council for Technical Education Same Subject Education