AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.C. Puri, J.—In this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance
of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order dated 4.10.2007,Annexure P6, being capricious, grossly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India as well as principles of natural justice and having been issued with a malafide intention. The petitioner also clam ours
for a writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the respondents to grant approval to the petitioner for 60 seats for Diploma in Hotel
Management and catering Technology Course with effect from 200708 and in the alternative to allow the said Institute to fill up/admit 60 students
at its own level for the session 200708.
The facts as are divulged from the pleadings are that All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter to be referred to as AICTE) issued a
hand book for approval process wherein guidelines for processing of applications for grant of approval to the Institutions offering Diploma
Programmes in Engineering and Technology/Pharmacy/Hotel Management & Catering Technology/Architecture/Applied Arts & Crafts have been
laid dowm. It has been stated in the said guidelines that AICTE has been taken a conscious decision to decentralize and rationalize the system of
approval to the diploma level programmes with an aim to entrust greater responsibilities to the State Government/UT Administration in the
decision.
It has been further pleaded that the petitioner was already running a four year degree course, duly approved by the AICTE in Hotel
Management and Catering Technology with effect from the session 200708 on the land measuring 2.5 acres village Matwa Kalan,
BilaspurSadhaura Road, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. For running the aforesaid four year degree course, the petitionerTrust required
constructed area measuring 1182 sq.meters, whereas the Institution constructed more than that area. The petitionerTrust intended to start diploma
course in Hotel Management and Catering Technology as well as in the name of Ganpati Institute of Hotel Management with an initial intake of 60
seats with effect from academic session of 200708. The petitionerTrust submitted an application dated 23.11.2006 to the Director, Directorate of
Technical Education, Haryana, Chandigarh for issuing Letter of Intent at the earliest and Letter of Approval for starting diploma in Hotel
Management and Catering Technology with effect from academic session 200708. The petitioner also sent demand draft of 23.11.2006 in the sum
of Rs. 5,000/ along with all the necessary documents. The State Government constituted a Hearing Committee for consideration of the said
application. On being called, the Chief Executive Officer of the petitionerTrust appeared before the Hearing Committee on 25.1.2007. On the
recommendation of Hearing Committee and the State Level Committee, the Regional Officer of NWRO, AICTE, Chandigarh issued in the name
of Chairman/President of Ganpati Institute of Hotel Management for the academic year 200708. As required, the petitioner Trust sent all the
necessary documents and a demand draft of Rs. 25,000/ towards inspection/processing fee and FDR for Rs. 20 lacs for a period of ten years in
favour of Director, Technical Education, Haryana, Chandigarh and President/Chairman of the petitioner Trust. Thereafter Expert Committee was
constituted which visited the proposed Institute on 21.6.2007. Now, respondent No. 5, with an absolutely mala fide intention has issued letter
dated 4.10.2007, Annexure P6, in which it has been stated that on receipt of clarification form AICTE, HQ., New Delhi, proposal of the petitioner
for establishment of new diploma HMCT Institution was not found suitable as per AICTE norms for the academic session 200708. The petitioner
has challenged the said order in the instant Civil Writ Petition.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contested the claim of the petitioner and filed detailed written statement, pleading that the case was processed for
necessary clarification to the effect that as per norms, whether two institutions can be run/approved on the same piece of land and in reply thereof,
the Headquarters, AICTE, Delhi has clarified that separate piece of land was required for starting Diploma Programmes as per norms. The
proposal of the petitioner for approval to start Ganpati Institute of Hotel Management was rejected on the ground that the same land was being
used for Diploma Courses which has been shown and utilized for Degree Programme vide letter dated 4.10.2007 with liberty to file an appeal
before the Competent Authority. For the session 200708, the AICTE has issued guidelines through approval process handbook under Regulation
2.6.4(b) of the Regulations. Keeping in view the above Regulation, the AICTE has issued two separate approval process for granting approval to
Degree Level Courses as well as Diploma Level Courses. According to Chapter 11, the land for Degree Level Institution in Hotel Management &
Catering Tech. is 2.5 acres. Keeping in view the above requirement, the AICTE had accorded its approval to start Degree Courses from session
200708. The petitionerSociety also applied for starting Diploma Courses and for that purpose, it showed the same piece of land which has been
already utilized for Degree Programme although as per requirement of AICTE a separate piece of land of five acres was required for starting new
Institute to impart education in Diploma Courses. No Institution had been accorded approval for the sessions 200708 for running Diploma &
Courses on the same piece of land. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of Civil Writ Petition has been made.
We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
So far as the facts of the case are concerned, the same are not in dispute. The petitionerTrust intended to start diploma course in Hotel
Management and Catering Technology in the name of Ganpati Institute of Hotel Management with an initial intake of 60 seats with effect from
academic session of 200708. The petitioner submitted an application dated 23.11.2006, complete in all respects, to the Director, Directorate of
Technical Eduction, Haryana, Chandigarh for issuance of Letter of Intent and Letter of Approval for starting the said diploma. The State
Government constituted a Hearing Committee for consideration of the said application. Vide letter dated 18.1.2007, Annexure P3, the
petitionerTrust was called upon for personal hearing on 25.1.2007 along with the requisite documents. The said Hearing Committee sent
recommendation for consideration by the State Level Committee for grant of Letter of Intent. The meeting of the State Level Committee was held
under the chairmanship of Financial Commissioner and few experts were nominated by the Government of Haryana. After considering the
recommendation sent by the State Government, vide letter dated 19.3.2007, the Regional Officer of AICTE Chandigarh issued Letter of Intent for
establishing new diploma institute by the petitioner for the academic year 200708. However, that Letter of Intent was subject to approval from
AICTE Headquarter, New Delhi. However, All India Council for Technical Education, North Western Regional Office, Chandigarh vide
impugned letter dated 4.10.2007, Annexure P 6, withdraw the Letter of Intent dated 5.6.2007 by passing the following order :
Land is short as per requirement of AICTE. Management intends to share the land for degree HMCT and diploma HMCT programmes whereas
exclusive land is required for both the programmes. On the existing land, AICTE has already approved degree HMCT institute on 2.5 acre of
land, therefore, separate land for diploma institute is required as per norms of AICTE.
So far as the State of Haryana is concerned, it has stated that the Committee approved by the State has issued Letter of Intent subject to
approval of AICTE. The State has opposed the writ petition. The AICTE has opposed the writ petition on the ground that area measuring 2.5
acres is already being used for degree course and on that count diploma course cannot be allowed to run in the same Institution. This Court vide
order dated 15.2.2008 directed the petitioner to file an affidavit along with photos to show that a separate building has been erected for running of
the diploma course in Hotel Management besides the degree course. In compliance to that, photographs and the affidavit have been placed on the
file to the effect that two separate buildings are existing at the spot, although there was no intervening wall in those two buildings. The norms
regarding land requirements for the session 200405 and AICTE norms for establishment of New Technical Institution Sessions 200708, as per
Annexures R2/3 and R2/4 respectively are as under :
Annexure R2/3
Year 20042005
Sr. No.
Class of New Institutions.
Requirement of Land (in acres)
xx
Metro/State
Others
Capital
1.
xx
xx
xx
Hotel Mgt. & Catering Technology Diploma Level.
0.5
1.5
Degree Level and (Diploma + Degree Level).
0.5
2.5
3 to 6
xx
xx
Land shall not bein more than 2 pieces in Metro Cities"".
Annexure R2/4.
Year 20072008
11.4.1. Land Requirements for Establishment of New Technical Institutions.
Category
Mega Cities
Metro cities Including State Capitals.
Others
Hotel Management and Catering Tech.
1.0
1.5
2.5
AICTE Norms for Diploma Level Technical Institutions.
Category
Mega Cities
Metro cities Including State Capitals.
Others
Diploma Level Technical Institutions
1.5 Acres
2.5 Acres
5 Acres
The guidelines for processing application for grant of approval to the Institution offering Diploma Programmes in Engineering and
Technology/Pharmacy/Hotel Management and Catering Technology/Architecture/Applied Arts & Crafts etc. are reproduceed as under :
The State Government/UT Administration may issue an Advertisement for consideration/processing of the applications. It shall receive the
applications/proposals and constitute a State Level Committee to process the applications as per the above categories.
The Constitution of such committee shall be in the following manner :
Secretary of Higher Education/Technical Education of the concerned State/UT.
Chairman.
Regional Officer of AICTE/or his nominee.
Member.
Two (2) Subject Experts to be nominated by the State Govt./UT Administration from within the State/UT or outside the State/UT as
Member.
Director of Technical Education/State Board of the concerned State/UT.
Member Secretary.
Based on the recommendations of State Level Committee as mentioned above, the concerned Regional Officer of AICTE shall issue the letter
of intents or otherwise to the applicants. The State Level Committee shall consider the proposal as per norms and standards of AICTE for
establishment of New Technical Institution, while making recommendations.
(i) The State Govt/UT Administration shall collect the inspection fee (Rs. 25000/ for selffinancing institutions) from the applicant institution and
conduct inspection as per the calendar of activities.
(ii) The Joint Fixed deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs for selffinancing institution shall be made in the joint name of the Director of Technical Education of the
concerned State/UT Administration and Society/Trust and the original Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) shall be kept in the custody of the concerned
Director of Technical Education, which shall be returned after 10 years for encashment by the institutions with full interest.
(iii) The State Govt./UT Administration shall coordinate the visits of the Expert Committee to the institutions.
(iv) The Expert (Visiting) Committee Report shall be placed before the State Level Committee which shall deliberate on each application and
forward the recommendations to the State Govt/UT Administration which, in turn, will forward the same to the Regional Office of All India Council
for Technical Education.
(v) Based on the recommendations of the State Level Committee, the Regional Officer of All India Council for Technical Education shall issue the
letter of Approval or otherwise to the Secreataries of the State with copies to all concerned.
(vi) The proposals received under various other categories are to be evaluated by the State Level Committee, following a well laid down
procedures in consultation with Regional Office of AICTE.
The Letter of Intent has been issued. The petitioner has deposited Rs. 25,000/ as inspection fee. The petitioner has also prepared FDR of Rs.
20 lacs in the joint name of Director Technical Education and the Trust as per clause (ii) as mentioned above. The State Level Committee has
inspected the Institution and has given a favourable report in favour of the petitioner. As per clause (v) mentioned above, on the recommendations
of the State Level Committee, the Regional Officer of All India Council for Technical Education shall issue the Letter of Approval. So, from the
bare reading of the said guidelines, it is clear that the word ""shall"" has been used for the issuance of Letter of Approval by the AICTE on the
recommendations of the State Level Committee. The only ground for not issuing the approval letter is that exclusive land is required for degree and
diploma courses separately. However from the perusal of Annexure R2/3, it is evident that the previous requirement for Degree Level and Diploma
Level was 2.5 acres of land. The Letter of Intent was issued on 5.6.2007. It is not disputed that norms, Annexure R2/4, for the session 200708
were issued on 6.6.2007. So, at the time when the Letter of Intent was issued, the requirement of land was 2.5 acres for diploma and degree level
courses. It is not disputed that the said requirement of land as per Annexure R2/3 is complete. The petitioner had raised a huge building for
diploma course. The factum of having separate building has not been disputed, during the course of arguments. However, the only objection by the
counsel for AICTE is that the buildings for both the courses are in the same premises. The Institution must have spent huge amount for constructing
the said building.
So far as reliance of counsel for the respondents on the authorities reported as State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. etc. v. Adhiyaman Educational &
Research Institute & Ors. etc, JT 1995(3) SC 136 and Mata Sudarshan Tilak Raj Dhawan Educational Trust, Panchkula v. State of Haryana,
2002(2) SCT 673 is concerned, these authorities are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in both these authorities, it has been held
that the State Government has no power to withdraw the permission granted by AICTE. There is no such dispute in the present case. The dispute,
in the present case, is whether the stand of AICTE that the petitionerInstitution has no separate land is tenable on the facts of the present case. As
discussed above, since the petitioner fulfils the requirement of requisite land as per Annexure R2/3, prevalent at the time of making application by
the petitioner, as such the revised norms of land in Annexure R2/4 cannot be enforced upon the petitioner Trust, moreso when the petitioner Trust
has fulfilled all other requirements and have spent huge amount on the construction of building. During the course of arguments , it was brought to
our notice that intake of degree course is only 60 students and the proposed intake of diploma course is also 60. Two separate buildings are
existing at the spot. So, in these circumstances, the writ petition stands accepted and order dated 4.10.2007, Annexure P6 stands quashed. The
contesting respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of approval to the diploma course without insisting on the requirement of
land as per Annexure R2/4 within one month from today.