AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—Petitioner has challenged orders dated 31.12.2012 and 16.3.2013, whereby respondent No. 2 has declined extension of approval to the petitioner for the academic year 2012-13. The case set up by the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 granted approval to the petitioner for New Institutions for the Integrated Academic Session for the year 2011-12 on 27.7.2011 for a period of 2 years from the date of issuance of letter for getting affiliation with the respective University and fulfilling State Government requirements for admission. The petitioner admitted approximately 52 students for the academic year 2011-12 in different technical courses. The extension of approval for the academic year 2012-13 was granted by respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 10.5.2012. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner admitted 91 students in various technical courses.
The dispute started when the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 27.7.2012 in which it was averred that a complaint against the petitioner regarding structural safety of the building and other issues was received in April, 2011. The petitioner submitted clarification on 25.5.2011. Thereafter, a visit was conducted on 26.5.2011 and the report was placed before the Appellate Committee on 15.6.2011 which recommended for re-visit, which was conducted on 9.7.2011. The petitioner submitted a certificate issued by Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, B&R, Ferozepur bearing No. 677 dated 24.5.2011 with regard to structural safety of the building. Whereas council has noted that the said certificate was valid for the year 2011-12 and the petitioner has failed to submit structural safety certificate for the year 2012-13 onwards and thus, it had not complied with the requirements laid down under Clause 11.10 of Approval Process Handbook regarding safety aspects.
The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 4.8.2012 along with building safety certificate for the year 2012-13 obtained from the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, B&R Branch, Ferozepur bearing Memo No. 327/ML dated 2.5.2012. Respondent No. 2 put up the case of the petitioner before the Appellate Committee. The petitioner was informed that it had submitted another structural safety certificate for the year 2012-13 with some overwriting in the order. Respondent No. 2 had written to the concerned authority for confirming the authenticity of certificate and despite two reminders no reply has been received. In this regard, petitioner has placed on record certificate dated 20.12.2012 (Annexure P-8), which is purported to have been issued by the Superintending Engineer, Punjab, Public Works Department Construction Circle, Ferozepur to Chief Engineer (South), Punjab, Public Works Department (B&R) Branch, Chandigarh, verifying the letter No. 327 dated 2.5.2012 having been duly issued by the department. The Chief Engineer (South), Punjab, Public Works Department (B&R) Branch, Chandigarh, in turn vide his memo No. 4981 dated 21.12.2012 informed respondent No. 2 that letter No. 327 dated 2.5.2012 is authenticated. However, respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 31.12.2012 declined extension of approval for the year 2012-13 observing as under:--
Whereas the Council noted that said Certificate was valid for the year 2011-12 and its validity got expired and the institute has failed to submit a structural safety certificate for the year 2012-13 onwards. The institute has not complied with the requirement stated under Clause 11.10 of the Approval Process Handbook regarding safety aspects. The institute later, submitted a safety certificate vide No. 327/ML dated 2.5.2012 issued by the Executive Engineer, Provl. Division PWD B&R Br. Ferozepur (Punjab) forwarded to AICTE for the year 2012-13 where overwriting in the year seen in the certificate. For the purpose of verification of the letter, the AICTE vide letter of even No. dated 1.10.2012 and on 17.10.2012 wrote to the Chief Engineer in confidence for confirming the authenticity of the certificate. Despite reminder, no reply was received. Whereas, there is no provision of year to year submission of building safety certificate. Building safety being a serious matter posing serious danger to those studying/working in the institute.
The petitioner applied for review of the order. On the one hand respondent No. 2 is alleging that there is no provision in the Approval Process Handbook of year to year structural safety certificate and on the other hand the approval has been declined on the ground that the structural safety certificate issued by the competent authority has not been verified by it so far, whereas on 21.12.2012, the Chief Engineer (South), Punjab, Public Works Department (B&R) Branch, Chandigarh has informed respondent No. 2 about the genuineness of the certificate dated 2.5.2012. Respondent No. 2 vide its impugned order dated 16.3.2013 declined the prayer of the petitioner observing that "the petitioner has not complied with the requirement stated under Clause 11.10 of Approval Process Handbook regarding safety aspects". There were overwriting in the certificate for the year 2012-13 issued by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, B&R, Ferozepur, but its authenticity has not been confirmed despite reminders.
Notice was issued in this case on 4.4.2013 and operation of the impugned orders dated 31.12.2012 and 16.3.2013 was stayed on 26.4.2013. Respondent No. 2 & 3 appears to have not filed parawise reply. In any case, there is no reply to para No. 9 of the writ petition in which the petitioner has categorically stated that the authenticity of the certificate dated 2.5.2012 has been verified by the department about which there is no reply given by the respondents of its receipt though it is alleged that letter dated 21.12.2012 was posted to respondent No. 2. The stand taken in the reply is that the building structural safety certificate was valid for the year 2011-12 and after its expiry the petitioner has failed to submit the structural safety certificate for the year 2012-13 onwards which is required in terms of Clause 11.10 of the Approval Process Handbook and that respondent No. 2 did not receive the confirmation of authenticity of certificate dated 2.5.2012 despite reminders dated 1.10.2012 and 17.10.2012.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an application bearing CM No. 8461 of 2013 for placing on record some information and for issuance of appropriate directions for including the name of the petitioner in the list of approved institutes for the academic year 2013-14. However, the said application was not pressed and the same was dismissed on 28.5.2013.
Similarly, respondent No. 2 also filed an application namely, CM No. 8488 of 2013 for placing on record counter affidavit which was allowed and CM No. 8710 of 2013 for vacation of the interim stay dated 26.4.2013 which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 28.5.2013.
On 23.7.2013, the petitioner prayed for time to file replication and the case was adjourned to 21.8.2013. The petitioner filed replication by way of CM No. 11404 of 2013 but at the same time petitioner moved an application bearing CM No. 11453 of 2013 for seeking appropriate direction to respondent No. 2 for grant of formal approval for the academic year 2013-14. The said application was filed on the ground that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court dated 13.12.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No. 9048 of 2012 titled as "Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others v. All India Council for Technical Education and others" the petitioner could offer admission till 15.8.2013 but without the formal approval by respondent No. 2, the admissions are not possible and if hearing of the case is not preponed from 21.8.2013, the petitioner would suffer loss. Consequently, on 7.8.2013, on the joint request of counsel for the parties, the case was adjourned for 13.8.2013 and arguments were heard on 14.8.2013.
Basically, the issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the validity of the orders dated 31.12.2012 and 16.3.2013 by which extension of approval for the academic year 2012-13 has been declined to the petitioner on the ground that the building has been found to be structurally unsafe and the petitioner has not submitted the certificate of its safety for the academic year 2012-13 which is the requirement of Clause 11.10 of the Handbook of Approval and also that the certificate of safety for the year 2012-13 submitted by the petitioner on 2.5.2013 had overwriting for which respondent No. 2 sought confirmation which has not been supplied by the concerned department despite reminders.
Before I proceed further, it would be relevant to refer to Clause 11.10 of Approval Process Handbook, which reads as under:--
Appendix 11.10:--
Conceptual Master Plan for Main Campus Development.
This Chapter is expected to cover the details of the Master Plan for Campus Development starting from the selection of site to the proposed land use pattern and the phase-wise construction of various facilities/utilities to the level of landscaping. Institutional aspects of development is expected to be taken up in consonance with the master plan keeping in view various aspects of convenience, safety and utility of the facilities.
A - The site,
B - Proposed Land use Pattern,
C - Design Concept,
D - Building and Facilities in the Campus,
E - External Services,
F - Construction Systems and Materials,
G - Landscape Proposal.
A bare perusal of the aforesaid Clause does not talk of full structurally safety certificate which has also been admitted by respondent No. 2 being not the requirement. However, in view of the complaint about the structural safety, the objection has been raised. As a matter of fact, the main objection of respondent No. 2 is that though the petitioner had submitted the certificate about the building safety certificate for the year 2012-13 on 2.5.2012 but it had some overwriting of the order which has not been verified from the department concerned.
After going through the record, I have found that the earlier building safety certificate was issued by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, B&R, Ferozepur vide its Memo No. 677 dated 24.5.2011, which has been found to be validly issued for the year 2011-12. The building safety certificate for the year 2012-13 bearing Memo No. 327/ML dated 2.5.2012 issued by the Executive Engineering, Provl. Division, PWD B&R, Br, Ferozepur and in respect thereof, the petitioner had submitted letter dated 20.12.2012 bearing Memo No. 1671/CE written by Superintending Engineer, Punjab, Public Works Department, Construction Circle, Ferozepur to Chief Engineer (South), Punjab, Public Works Department (B&R) Branch, Chandigarh about the authenticity of Memo No. 327 dated 2.5.2012 and letter No. 4981 dated 21.12.2012 written by Chief Engineer (South), Punjab, Public Works Department (B&R) Branch, Chandigarh to the Advisor (Approval), AICTE, New Delhi with reference to their reminders dated 1.10.2012 and 17.10.2012 informing that that the Memo No. 327 dated 2.5.2012 was authenticated.
Thus, the objections which have been taken by respondent No. 2 in para No. 8 of its impugned order dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure P-11) is totally misplaced for declining extension of approval for the year 2012-13. Even otherwise, once, the building is structurally safe in the year 2010 and the building safety certificate has been accepted for the academic year 2011-12, it is really surprising that how the building has become unsafe only in one year. Nothing has been disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2 as to how the building is structurally unsafe. Thus, the impugned order is apparently without any reason which could justify the denial of extension of approval to the petitioner.
In these circumstances, the writ petition is found to be meritorious and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 31.12.2012 and 16.3.2013 are thus quashed. However, no relief can be given to the petitioner on the application bearing CM No. 11453 of 2013 about which the petitioner may agitate separately, if so advised, in accordance with law.