AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All the above-mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical.
The writ petitions are preferred against the impugned orders vide which the penalty has been imposed on the petitioners on account of certain
deficiencies as requisite for grant of permanent No Objection Certificate. Some of the writ petitions have been preferred against the impugned order
directing the petitioners to increase the area of land upto 5,000 square meters for District Headquarters and 8,000 square meters for any other areas.
One of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners for setting aside the requirement of penalty before issuance of No Objection
Certificate is that the action of the respondents is discriminatory because the respondent-authorities have already granted permanent No Objection
Certificates to the other colleges who do not fulfill the conditions and are having lessor land and lack other infrastructures and suffers from various
deficiencies as well. It is further elaborated in the application dated 8.8.2018 duly supported by the affidavit. Para 3 of the application raising the
ground of discrimination is reproduced below:
“It is humbly submitted that the respondents authorities have already permitted the other colleges having lessor land of its own, building, the
academic staff does not have approval from the university, the staff is not getting P.F. Deduction etc. and other infrastructure and who are not
fulfilling all the specifications as per guidelines and these colleges have already been granted permanent no objection certificate also, the name of
some colleges are mentioned here for evident i.e. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Co-education College, Rawtsar District Hanumangarh and Maharaja agersen
college Bhadra District Hanumangarh, and also Nohar degree college Nohar, District Hanumangarh etc. therefore, action taken by the respondents
authorities is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the mandate of constitution.â€
If it is so, the respondent authorities are required to review the imposition of penalty qua the petitioners.
With respect to the impugned order directing the respondents to increase their specification of the land, it is not disputed that it is mandatory for the
petitioners to have the land as per the guidelines/notification of the year in which the said institution came into existence and the year when the
temporary No Objection Certificate was granted but expecting the petitioners-institution to increase the size of their land as per the subsequent
notification or guideline is both arbitrary and impossible to comply. It is evident that while imposing the penalty, these factors have not been
considered.
Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside with a direction to the respondents to conduct fresh inspection in accordance with law and pass fresh
orders after taking into consideration the similar treatment if so granted to other institutions in similar situation as mentioned in para 3 of the application
as reproduced above as well as after taking into consideration the above observations qua the demand of increasing the size of the land in question
from these petitioners who have already complied with the requisite condition as per the condition/guideline in notification applicable at the time when
the institution was established. The entire exercise be carried out within a period of three months. It goes without saying that the petitioners will be at
liberty to challenge the adverse order, if any, passed against them.
The writ petitions stand disposed of as observed above.