Judgment:
Anoop V. Mohta, J.
1. The Petitioner a Public Trust, registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, established in the year 1981, is running Engineering College in the name of âPadmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthanâ™s College of Engineeringâ?.
2. In the year 1983-84, the Government of Maharashtra allotted plot of land to the Petitioner admeasuring 12930 sq. mtr. (3.20 Acres) at Sion, Chunabhatti, Mumbai 400 022 and Plot of Land admeasuring 16810 sq. mtr. (4.2 Acres) for playground. The total plot area of land is 7.4 acres. In the year 1986, the Petitioner submitted the plan for construction of building on the said plot of land and the BMC approved the same. In the year 1991, the Petitioner constructed the Building and started Engineering College, with due approval of Ministry of Human Resources, in the name of âPadmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthanâ™s College of Engineeringâ?. During the year 1994 to 2013, Respondent No. 1 granted approval to the Petitioner College continuously every year.
3. On 2 April 2012, the National Board of Accreditation, the Apex body of AICTE, after conducting physical verification of infrastructure and facilities, has granted accreditation status for all the courses conducted by Petitionerâ™s College for three years i.e. from 15.03.2012 to 14.03.2015.
ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-14
4. The Petitioner was running Engineering College with five courses; (1) Computer Engineering, (2)Electronics Engineering, (3) Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, (4) Information Technology and (5)Marine Engineering and was also running (6) Diploma College, (7) Management College (Branches/College at Sr. No. 5,6 and 7 are now closed down). On 19 March 2013, Respondent No. 1 granted approval for Academic Year 2013-14. There was a complaint by Citizen Forum against the Petitioner college to Respondent No. 1 and on the basis of the said complaint, Respondent No. 1 started taking action against the Petitioner College. On 18 April 2013, Respondent No. 1 appointed Expert Committee for Inspection on the basis of complaint. On 30 April 2013, Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice on the basis of report of Expert Committee as to why their affiliation should not be withdrawn. The Petitioner filed a reply to show cause notice and also appeared before the Committee and submitted all the relevant documents. On 20 June 2013, Respondent No. 1 withdrawn the affiliation on the grounds of deficiency shown by the Expert Committee in their Report. On 28 June 2013, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 1733 of 2013 challenging the order of withdrawal dated 20 June 2013 and this Court, (Coram: Mr. S.J.Vazifdar and Mr. M.S.Sonak JJ.), has granted stay to impugned order dated 20 June 2013. The said Petition is pending for disposal.
ACADEMIC YEAR 2014-15
5. The Petitioner closed the Marine Engineering Course and Management College and running only Engineering and Diploma College. On 23 May 2014, the Petitioner applied for grant of extension of approval for academic year 2014-15 through online. The Petitioner received no Deficiency Report through online. Respondent No. 1 not granted extension of approval along with other college having no deficiency report as per the scheduled program. On 26 June 2014, Respondent No. 1 appointed Expert Visit Committee (EVC) for inspection and they submitted the report recommending not to grant EOA. On 2 July 2014, Respondent No. 1 refused to grant EOA and withdrawn the affiliation of the college on the basis of recommendation of Standing Complaint Committee. On 8 July 2014, the Petitioner challenged order dated 2 July 2014 by filing Writ Petition No. 2532 of 2014 and this Court has granted ad-interim relief in the same. On 14 July 2014, the Division Bench has granted interim relief in Writ Petition No. 2532 of 2014. The said Petition is pending for final disposal.
ACADEMIC YEAR 2015-16
6. The Petitioner applied for closure progressive of Diploma Course and Respondent No. 1 has granted permission on 8 April 2015. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 passed order on 15 May 2015 to close the Diploma College and thus the Petitioner is running only one college. The Petitioner is having 3.2 acres land for college building and 4.2 acres land for playground. The Petitioner also having sufficient infrastructure for Degree College. Respondent No. 1 has refused to grant EOA for the academic year 2015-16 on the ground, for want of Occupation Certificate, though the Standing Complaint Committee granted time to submit Occupation Certificate and the workshop is in temporary shed. The Petitioner after complete closure of Diploma, shifted workshop into building. Therefore, the said deficiency is also removed.
7. On 27 February 2015, the Petitioner submitted the application for seeking Extension of Approval for the academic year 2014-15 to Respondent No. 1 and they received âNo Deficiency Reportâ?. On 27 March 2015, Respondent No. 1 appointed EVC to verify the details mentioned in the EOA application. EVC visited the college and submit the report to Respondent No. 1 showing certain deficiencies in area of the laboratories, faculties and Occupancy Certificate etc.. EVC recommended not to grant EOA. On 7 April 2014, Respondent No. 1 issued order of rejection, informing that they refused to grant EOA on any one of the 17 grounds, without hearing the Petitioner. On 13 April 2015, EVC at the time of visit, orally informed about deficiency in the area of laboratories and classrooms. The Petitioner therefore, immediately gave letter to Respondent No. 1 explaining the status of the Institution. Respondent No. 1, placed the matter for hearing before Standing Complaint Committee. On 22 April 2015, hearing took place before the Standing Complaint Committee at New Delhi. The Petitioner filed a detail reply pointing out that all the deficiencies except Occupation Certificate, have been complied with. The Petitioner gave application to the Standing Complaint Committee to give four months time to submit Occupancy Certificate, which they have granted. From the impugned order it is clear that, Standing Complaint Committee was satisfied about compliance of deficiency and also granted time to obtain Occupancy Certificate, but inspite of that the SAC recommended to put Petitioner college in â˜No Admission Categoryâ™ for the academic year 201516. The SAC has not given any specific reason as to why the Petitioner College be put into the âNo Admissionâ? category. On 26 April 2015, Respondent No. 1 placed the report of the Standing Complaint Committee for approval before the competent authority and the competent authority without hearing the Petitioner approved proposal submitted by SAC. On 30 April 2015, the Advisor-II (Approval) of Respondent No. 1, communicated the decision of the competent authority by letter dated 30 April 2014, informing the Petitioner that, they have refused to grant Extension of Approval to Petitionerâ™s College. This order was also issued by advisor II (Approval) without hearing the Petitioner. On 1 May 2015, Respondent No. 1, by email informed the Petitioner that they have rejected the intake capacity of the Petitioner College and enclosed the copy of order dated 30 April 2015, refusing to grant EOA for the academic year 2015-16. Respondent No. 1 had withdrawn the affiliation of the Petitioner college in the academic year 2013-14 and the same is continued in the year 2014-15. However, both the orders passed by Respondent No. 1 are stayed by this Court. Respondent No. 1 restored the intake of the college, it means that they have withdrawn the order of withdrawing affiliation of the entire college and only refused to grant EOA for the year 2015-16. On 1 May 2015, the Petitioner applied to Respondent No.1, requesting them to supply the copy of the Report of Standing Complaint Committee. On 2 May 2015, the Petitioner filed a Petition and challenged impugned order dated 30 April 2015.
8. On 15 May 2015, the Petitioner moved before the Vacation Court for seeking interim relief and the Vacation Court observed that âapart from the deficiency concerning occupancy certificate, which the Petitioner Institute has been allowed to comply within 4 months period, there are deficiencies even concerning the faculties. The impugned order of AICTE refers to the failure of the Petitioner to submit Selection Committee Proceeding and Paper Notification about the methodology adopted in recruiting staff. So also the impugned order refers to non furnishing bank salary statement and acquaintance register of existing staff of the petitioner.â? The Vacation Court further observed that, âsubject to Petitioner complying with the requirement of AICTE referred above and AICTE accepting such compliance, the Petitioner Institute is allowed to participate in the centralize admission process. The Petitioner shall comply with the required referred above within a week from today. AICTE shall consider the same within a period of one week after such compliance. Subject to compliance being found satisfactory the respondents are directed to upload the Petitioners name for centralize admission process and allow the Petitioner in CAP round admission procedure for academic year 2015-16â?.
On 19 May 2015, as per the order of the Vacation Court, the Petitioner submitted all the documents regarding recruitment of faculty before Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 passed the order for complete closure of Diploma College of the Petitioner on 15 May 2015, which received by the Petitioner on 19 May 2015. The Petitioner has not filed any appeal challenging the order passed by Respondent No. 1 refusing to grant EOA before Standing Appellate Committee, however they only submitted the documents before Respondent No. 1 as per the directions of the vacation Court. Respondent No. 1 however, fixed the hearing before Standing Appellate Committee on 29 May 2015. On 29 May 2015, there was a hearing before Standing Appellate Committee, at New Delhi and the Standing Appellate Committee, satisfied about the compliance of the deficiency in faculty. However, new grounds were added by the Standing Appellate Committee stating that there is a deficiency in maintaining Cadre Ratio, and therefore, refused to grant EOA. This is clearly in violation of the order passed by Vacation Court, as the scope of the enquiry was limited to only faculties. On 9 June 2015, the Advisor Approval of Respondent No. 1, passed the order on the basis of Report of Standing Appellate Committee, refusing to grant EOA though the Petitioner complied with the deficiency of faculty. There is a deficiency only in Cadre Ratio and area of classroom to the extent of only 5%. The Standing Complaint Committee has granted time to submit Occupancy Certificate. The detail chart of deficiencies pointed out by EVC, Standing Complaint Committee and Standing Appellate Committee is annexed to the additional affidavit filed on 3 July 2015. The Petitioner is challenging Impugned orders passed by Respondent No. 1 dated 30 April 2015 and 9 June 2015, by way of present Petition.
9. The Petitioner, therefore, filed the present Petition and prayed as under:
âa) That this Honâ™ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ and/or direction under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling for record and proceeding of the impugned order dated 30.04.2015 and report of the Standing Appellate Committee dated 29.05.2015 and the impugned order dated 09.06.2015 refusing to grant EOA to the Petitionerâ™s College namely Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthanâ™s College of Engineering for the year 2015-2016 and after looking into legality and propriety of the impugned order, the same be quashed and set aside and direct the Respondent no.1 to grant EOA for the year 2015-2016 and thereafter.
b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the execution and/or implementation of the impugned order dated 30.04.2015 and report of the Standing Appellate Committee dated 29.05.2015 and the impugned order dated 09.06.2015 passed by Respondent No. 1 refusing to grant extension of approval to Petitionerâ™s college namely âPadmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthanâ™s College of Engineeringâ? for the year 2015-16 which is at EXHIBIT. âRâ? be stayed.
c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to:
(i) grant extension to approval to the Petitionerâ™s College i.e. Padambhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthanâ™s College of Engineering for the year 2015-2016 as per their application.
(ii) uphold the Petitionerâ™s college name i.e. âPadmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthanâ™s College of Engineeringâ?, Vasantdada Patil Educational Complex, Eastern Express Highway, Near Everard Nagar, Sion Chunabhatti, Mumbai â“ 400 022 for the Centralise admission process (CAP) and be allowed to participate in CAP round for academic year 2015-16 for the Engineering Courses conducted by them.â?
10. Both the parties have referred and relied on the Supreme Court and High Court Judgments, as noted noted in Writ Petition No. 4586 of 2015.
11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pointed out, referring to the comparative chart of deficiencies for the year 2015-16 with the deficiencies in the year 2014-15. Deficiencies in the year 2014-15 were not the major deficiencies of this year, except deficiencies of 5% in the area of classrooms. Occupation Certificate deficiency, in concern now the Standing Complaint Committee in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court (vacation Judge) granted time to submit the Occupation Certificate. The time is not yet expired therefore, that deficiency is also not deficiency for this year. The cadre ratio deficiency was the deficiency of the last year and this year also. It is pointed out that in view of chapter VI of norms and requirement, Rule No.1.8, cadre ratio shall be maintained. The detailed explanation about faculty and the ratio has been provided in the affidavit in rejoinder of the Petitioner, which reads thus:â
13. The Petitioner Institute submits that there is no requirement of the cadre ratio. The AICTE's Hand Book for the year 2015-2016 in clause 5 of chp. IV provides for the faculty Student ratio. The AICTE's Hand Book stipulates that ordinarily the cadre ratio be maintained. Without prejudice to the said arguments the Petitioner Institute has with its consistent efforts been able to appoint the required faculty. As regards the cadre ratio the Petitioner Institute submits that continuous and sincere efforts are being made to ensure that the same is ordinarily maintained by appointing faculty as per the AICTE norms and approval process hand book.â?
Role of the State Government and the DTE and the DTE Report:
12. The DTE has no role to play in the procedure so prescribed, when the Petitioner and/or such institution seeks extension of approval. The DTE officers only facilitate the Centralize Admission Process and is bound to include the AICTE in the CAP round now, as per the Maharashtra Ordinance No. VII of 2015 [The Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Ordinance, 2015], dated 12 May 2015. Therefore, the role of the State and the DTE, is restricted. The handbook so read nowhere provides such role of DTE, except the initial stages so recorded in the schedule by the Supreme Court in Parshvanath.
13. The submission of the Petitioner that the impugned order violates the basic principle of natural justice and the documents, reports, recommendation not furnished to the Petitioner's institution and no hearing given to the Petitioner institution, at the relevant time, though subsequently it was given in view of the Judgment/order passed by this Court (Vacation Judge). The hearing not given, at the appropriate time and stage before passing the order on 30 April 2015 still remains, are also decided. The person, who heard the Petitioner, did not decide, which specifically not observed the last year order and judgment and the same is again reinforced and maintained. There is force in the submission that the time lines, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Parshvanath (supra) have not been followed by the AICTE. The Petitioner institution's right of Appeal was denied due to the delay on the part of the AICTE, in passing order on 30 April 2015 at the relevant time, though now granted after filing of the Writ Petition on 5 May 2015. The submission on the point of discrimination and decision based upon the pre-determined mind and bias attitude are also dealt with in favour of the Petitioner. The permission is not granted and/or denied to such institution. In the background, the case of prejudice and injustice is definitely made out. The AICTE-Respondents again followed and proceeded on the earlier complaint made in the year 2014. The Public Interest Litigation, as well as, the Criminal Appeals against the AICTE are also pending referring to the various issues and mismanagement and challenging the whole affairs of the AICTE. The selection of the Petitioner along with other 11 and taking action against them, inspite of the earlier Judgments/orders passed by this Court and by overlooking the same and even by not challenging the same, taken such unsustainable action based on the consideration other than law. âNo admission categoryâ? for the year 2015-16, definitely caused injustice and hardship, therefore, affects not only to the institution, but the students of the area also.
14. In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs and taking overall view of the matter for the reasons in detail already recorded in connected Writ Petition i.e. Saraswati Education Society's, Saraswati College of Engineering Vs. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Writ Petition No. 4586 of 2015, decided on 14 August 2015, we are inclined to allow the Petition and pass the following order:
ORDER
a) Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
b) Interim order passed by this Court on 23 June 2015, is confirmed.
c) The Respondents are directed to consider the representation/case of the Petitioners, specifically on the issue of cadre and faculty ratio and related aspects by giving opportunity of hearing to Petitioner and pass the reasoned order, at the earliest.
d) The Respondent-University is directed that in order to avoid the delay in appointments of teaching faculty in the institution like the Petitioners, the proposals received for approval of draft advertisement, roaster, nomination of the subject experts, nomination of nominee of the Vice Chancellor and approval of the candidates selected through duly constituted Selection Committee, such proposals be decided in expeditious and time bound manner so as to avoid deficiencies in respect of the same being shown by AICTE in the proposals of such institution for extension of approval.
e) The Petitioner is directed to take necessary steps to remove the deficiencies, even if any, as early as possible.
f) Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
g) Rule made absolute accordingly.
h) There shall be no order as to costs.