IITT College of Engineering vs The All India Council for Technical Education and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) passed by respondent No. 1, thereby declining the application of the petitioner for approval for the session 2013-14, directing the petitioner to apply under Chapter I of the Approval Process Handbook 2013-14 (''Handbook'' for short), as a new institution. Petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondent No. 1 to treat its application, already filed under Chapter II of the Handbook, as a proper application duly submitted and grant extension of approval for the session 2013-14, within the prescribed period. Shorn of the detailed background of the case, it would suffice to note basic facts, relevant for the disposal of the instant writ petition. It is a matter of record that initially, the petitioner institution was granted approval by respondents No. 1, vide order dated 22.7.1998 (Annexure P-1). Consequently, the petitioner institution was granted affiliation by Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No. 3, vide order Annexure P-2, since 1998. Respondent No. 2 also granted recognition to the petitioner institution, vide notification dated 24.7.1998 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner had been getting due approval for every year from respondent No. 1, for the last more than 12 years. On 28.3.2011, respondent No. 1 sent its team for inspection, which inspected the institute of the petitioner. Based on the inspection report, respondent No. 1 issued show cause notice dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-5). It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that copy of the inspection report was not supplied to the petitioner. However, the petitioner still filed its reply dated 6.5.2011 (Annexure P-6) to the above said show cause notice, giving each and every minute details on every issue.

Respondent No. 1 passed the order dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-12), withdrawing the approval of the petitioner institution, without supplying a copy thereof to the petitioner. A copy of the withdrawal order dated 6.6.2011 was supplied to the petitioner on 24.1.2012, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of CWP No. 8302 of 2012.

Notice of motion was issued in CWP No. 8302 of 2012, vide order dated 4.5.2012 (Annexure P-13), directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 6.6.2011. Thereafter, when the petitioner was not being provided access online, for submitting its application for approval for the session 2013-14, it again approached this Court by way of CWP No. 25178 of 2012.

During the course of hearing of CWP No. 25178 of 2012, it was stated on behalf of respondent No. 1 that access online had already been provided to the petitioner. Its application had been received and numbered, which shall be put into the zone of consideration at the appropriate time. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 23.1.2013 (Annexure P-14). It is further pleaded by the petitioner that later on, it transpired that respondent No. 1 had already passed the impugned order dated 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15), acting in an Unreasonable and arbitrary manner. Hence this writ petition.

On 26.2.2013, while issuing the notice of motion, following order was passed:--

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated 23.1.2013 (Annexure P-14) passed by this Court, to contend, inter alia, that application of the petitioner was not put into the zone of consideration, while passing the impugned order.

Notice of motion for 8.3.2013.

Process dasti only.

After hearing both the parties at some length on 8.4.2013, following order was passed by this Court:--

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 seeks short adjournment to get clear instructions as to whether the application of the petitioner-college would be considered under Chapter II of the regulations.

On his request, adjourned to 10.04.2013.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner is also not averse to right of respondent No. 1 to carry out any inspection, if so required.

A copy of this order, under the signatures of Court Secretary, attached to this Bench, be given dasti to the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, for onward transmission to the authorities concerned, for compliance thereof.

In response to the above said order dated 8.4.2013, reply was filed on behalf of respondent No. 1.

With the consent of the parties, the case was taken up for final disposal.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that action on the part of respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 was not only unreasonable and arbitrary, but the same was also contrary to the orders passed by this Court, in the earlier two writ petitions, filed on behalf of the petitioner. He further submits that in compliance of the order dated 4.5.2012 (Annexure P-13) passed by this Court in CWP No. 8302 of 2012 read with order dated 23.1.2013 passed in CWP No. 25178 of 2012 (Annexure P-14), respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 were duty bound to consider the already submitted application of the petitioner under Chapter II of the Handbook. Instead of proceeding on an impartial and constructive approach, respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 proceeded on factually incorrect, illegal and misconceived approach while passing the impugned order dated 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15), declining the application of the petitioner for approval for the session 2013-14, thereby directing the petitioner to apply under Chapter I of the Handbook as a new institution, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel next contended that no inquiry was pending against the petitioner. He submits that neither any deficiency was existing in the petitioner institution nor any such alleged deficiency has been made the basis of the impugned order dated 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15). Learned senior counsel concluded by submitting that the impugned order may be set aside by allowing the present writ petition with exemplary costs.

Per contra, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1, 4 and 5 submits that in view of the reply filed by way of affidavit dated 9.4.2013, which may be treated as reply on behalf of respondent No. 1, 4 and 5 as well, the petitioner was under legal obligation to apply as a fresh institution, in view of Clause 1.2 of Chapter IV read with Clause 5 of the Chapter I of the Handbook. He further submits that once the order dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-12) had been passed, the petitioner was no more entitled for applying under Chapter II, claiming it to be an existing institution, irrespective of the fact that the petitioner institution was running for the last more than 12 years. Learned senior counsel next contended that in view of the provisions contained in the Handbook, referred to in the reply, respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 have committed no error of law while passing the impugned orders. He also relies upon the order dated 9.4.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No. 9844 of 2012 (Jind Institute of Engineering and Technology v. State of Haryana and another). Finally, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

The short issue that falls for consideration of this Court is, as to whether in the fact situation of the present case, respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 were under legal obligation to consider the application of the petitioner seeking approval, under Chapter II of the Handbook, particularly in view of the earlier orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. The order dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No. 1 was challenged before this Court by way of CWP No. 8302 of 2012. It is an admitted fact between the parties that this CWP No. 8302 of 2012 is now pending for regular hearing before this Court, wherein the following order was passed on 4.5.2012:--

Learned senior counsel inter alia contends that the deficiency report dated 17.1.2012 (P-32) is in favour of the petitioner-institution. The petitioner has been running its institution since 1998. The approval accorded to the petitioner college was sought to be withdrawn vide letter dated 6.6.2011 (P-33) which according to the petitioner was served on the institution for the first time on 24.1.2012 and a response was made on the next day.

Notice of motion returnable on 24.5.2012.

Process dasti as well.

No coercive action be taken against the petitioner under colour of Annexure P-33 meanwhile.

Despite the above said order having been passed by this Court, when respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 were not providing access online to the petitioner, for submitting its application for the approval for the year 2013-14, petitioner again approached this Court by way of CWP No. 25178 of 2012, with the following prayer:--

Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to provide Access online to the petitioner Institute and for acceptance of its application for approval for the year 2013-14; AND

Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to include the name of the petitioner institution in the list of Affiliated Institutions in the Counselling schedule for admissions to the forthcoming session 2013-14.

Pursuant to the notice of motion having been issued by this Court, no reply was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 and the writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 23.1.2013, by passing the following order:--

Learned Senior counsel for respondent No. 1, at the very outset, states that the petitioner has already been provided access on line. He further submits that application of the petitioner has been received and numbered, which shall be put into zone of consideration at the appropriate time, as per the relevant norms for consideration.

Faced with this situation, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner fairly states that since the prayer of the petitioner for providing access on line for submission of the application has been redressed, he does not intend to press this petition any further at this stage and seeks the permission of the court to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition at appropriate time, if necessity arises.

In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. However, respondent No. 1 is directed to ensure that the final decision on approval of the applications for the year 2013-14 is taken at the earliest possible time, so as to enable all concerned to seek redressal of their grievances, if any.

When the above said orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court are read together, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, no room for doubt is left that respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 have, as a matter of fact, proceeded on a misconceived and illegal approach while passing the impugned order dated 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15).

So far the order dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-12) withdrawing the approval of the petitioner is concerned, this Court made it clear vide order dated 4.5.2012 (Annexure P-13), that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner under the colour of order dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-12). In compliance of the order dated 4.5.2012, it was least expected from respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 that they would not become vindictive against the petitioner.

However, respondents No. 1, 4 and 5, by then-action, forced the petitioner to approach this Court again, by way of CWP No. 25178 of 2012, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide access online to the petitioner institution and for accepting its application for approval for the session 2013-14. This action on the part of the respondents was unwarranted. However, on 23.1.2013, learned senior counsel fairly stated on behalf of respondent No. 1 that not only the petitioner had already been provided access online, but its application has also been received, numbered and shall be put into the zone of consideration. The petitioner rightly felt satisfied and did not press the above said writ petition any further.

Thereafter, while disposing of CWP No. 25178 of 2012, respondent No. 1 was directed to ensure the early decision on the application of the petitioner for approval for the year 2013-14, vide order dated 23.1.2013, reproduced here-in-above. Neither it is understandable nor it appeals to reason as to why the impugned order dated 21.1.2013, if it had already been passed by respondent No. 1, was not brought to the notice of this Court by respondent No. 1 at the time of passing of the order dated 23.1.2013, particularly when respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 were fully aware about the pendency of CWP No. 25178 of 2012, which has been repeatedly mentioned in the impugned order Annexure P-15, as well.

In this view of the matter, it seems that respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 have not acted bonafide. Even in the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1, a factually incorrect averment has been made, which reads as under:--

This office has also intimated to the Hon''ble Court in its reply to your CMs under CWP No. 25178 of 2012 in which it was reiterated to apply under Chapter I of the Approval process, so that your application could not processes accordingly.

A bare perusal of the record of CWP No. 25178 of 2012 shows that neither any reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 was filed to the writ petition, nor any reply was filed to any of the civil miscellaneous applications. Thus, the above said assertion is not only factually incorrect but also against the record of this Court. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 have acted in an arbitrary manner while passing the impugned order and the same cannot be sustained.

Further, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 could not substantiate his arguments, as to how these respondents have ensured the due compliance of the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. In fact, there was hardly any scope left for respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 to support their impugned order, which is, on the face of it, patently illegal being contrary to the above said orders passed by this Court.

Furthermore, the specific averments taken by the petitioner highlighting the undesirable style of working of respondents No. 1, 4 and 5, have gone undisputed on record, because no parawise written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 4 and 5. So far as interim order dated 9.4.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No. 9844 of 2012 is concerned, the same is of no help to respondents No. 1, 4 and 5. In that case, CBI inquiry was pending against the institute, which makes the whole difference.

It is the settled proposition of law that rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice, which are meant for advancing the cause of justice. In the given fact situation of the present case, it is unhesitatingly held that respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 had been treating the petitioner in an arbitrary manner, proceeding only on technical, biased and negative approach without appreciating the true import of the above said orders passed by this Court. Once it has been stated before this Court, on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 23.1.2013, that application of the petitioner has been received, numbered and will be put into zone of consideration, the respondents were duty bound, being under legal obligation, to consider the said application of the petitioner for approval for the year 2013-14, without advising/asking the petitioner to apply afresh. In view of the given fact situation of the case, it is held that the petitioner cannot be said to be a non existing institution, as it had been running for the last more than 12 years.

It is also pertinent to note here that non supply of the inspection report dated 28.3.2011 which has been specifically pointed out by the petitioner in its reply dated 6.5.2011 (Annexure P-6), at point B thereof, non providing of access online to the petitioner in time as well as non supply of the order dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-12) to the petitioner till 24.1.2012, as recorded by this Court in the order dated 4.5.2012 and also non supply of the impugned order dated 21.1.2013, to the petitioner as well as to this Court on 23.1.2013, at the time of passing of the impugned order, Annexure P-14, also shows that respondent authorities were not acting bonafide and in accordance with law.

The petitioner is being forced to approach this Court repeatedly, at the hands of respondents No. 1, 4 and 5, without there being any reason, much less justified reasons thereof. If the contention raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 is accepted, then the petitioner was not even entitled for applying before completion of two academic sessions, from the date of withdrawal i.e. 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-12), in view of the provision contained in Clause 1.2 of Chapter IV of the Handbook. However, respondent No. 1, while passing the impugned order Annexure P-15 has not said so. On the other hand, respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 have submitted that the petitioner may apply under Chapter I, without adhering to the provisions of Clause 1.2 of the Chapter IV of the Handbook. Thus, respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 had been raising self contradictory plea and arguments at different points of time, as per their suitability.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15), is hereby ordered to be set aside. Consequently, respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner.

Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.