John Bosco Polytechnic College vs All India Council for Technical Education

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner who is running a Polytechnic has come up with the above writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to accept the fee paid by the petitioner and process the application for approval of the institution for the academic year 2014-2015.

Heard Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. AL. Gandhimathi, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

The petitioner is a Polytechnic. It was started in the year 2000-2001. From the academic year 2000-2001, the college was granted approval year after year by the respondent. The petitioner is providing diploma courses in engineering and technology in 5 streams with a total annual permitted intake of 360 students. The courses are of duration of three years.

The last extension of approval was granted on 19.03.2013, for the academic year 2013-2014. In so far as the extension of approval for 2014-2015 is concerned, the petitioner claims to have approached the respondent at Delhi and came to know about an order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 17.04.2014 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7277 of 2014.

In the said order, the Hon''ble Supreme Court had issued a direction to the respondent to process the applications in accordance with the Handbook. The Hon''ble Supreme Court also extended the time for processing the applications upto 02.07.2014.

Based on the said order, the respondent issued a public notice on 11.05.2014 itself. The petitioner claims to have submitted an application in writing on 23.06.2014 and sent it by speed-post. Thereafter, the petitioner claims that their authorised representative attempted to tender the amount of fees in cash on 02.07.2014 at Delhi. But the respondent refused to accept cash. But by that time, the banking hours for the day was also closed and hence the petitioner could not submit the demand draft also.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(Civil) No. 694 of 2014 on the file of the Hon''ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court by an order dated 11.08.2014.

Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation dated 19.08.2014. But the petitioner did not received any reply, Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

The last date for receipt of application fixed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court was extended upto 02.07.2014. According to the learned standing counsel for the respondent, the web-portal of the respondent was kept open till February 2014 for Polytechnic and was closed thereafter. But after the Hon''ble Supreme Court passed the order on 17.04.2014, in respect of engineering colleges, web-portal was re-opened and it was kept open till 02.07.2014. In other words, the requirements as per the admission process Handbook is that any application should be submitted only through web-portal. The fact that it is so prescribed is not in doubt or dispute. Therefore, the action of the petitioner in sending the application by speed-post cannot be taken to be proper filing of the application.

In any case, the petitioner went before the Hon''ble Supreme Court with the very same prayer under Article 32 of the Constitution. But the writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 11.08.2014. It is true that the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court is a one line order of dismissal, without providing the reasons. But that will not alter the finality that has reached on the issue raised.

It is true that the principles of procedure such as Res Judicata traceable to the Civil proceedings may not be strictly applicable to the proceedings under the Constitution. But, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has consistently pointed out that the principles analogous to Res Judicata can always be imported. If the writ petition is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation or alternative remedy or such as those, a fresh writ petition may be maintainable if there is subsequent cause of action. But, when there is no subsequent cause of action, the principle of finality to litigation has to be necessarily invoked in case of this nature. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.