OM SAI PUNYA EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY & ANOTHERversusALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ANOTHER

                             [2017) 8 S.C.R.1028


A                  OM SAi PUNYA EDUCATIONAL AND
                 SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY & ANOTHER
                                        v.
                  ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL
                        EDUCATION AND ANOTHER
B                      (Writ Petition (C) No. 571 of 2017)
                               AUGUST 16,2017
             [DIPAK MISRA AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.)
            Education/Educational Insitutuions - All India Council for
     Technical Education (AICTE) - Grant of approval to start college -
C    Proposal of petitioner to AICTE in Feb. 2017 for starting two
     institutes namely A/BS and AIJ:f for the academic year 2017-18 -
     Deficiencies found with respect to the fact that both the institutes
     were situated on the same land and shared various other common
    facilities, which deficiency could not be condoned under the Rules
D   - However. such deficiency removed by petitioner only in July, 2017
     by withdrawing the proposal related to AIM - Accordingly, AICTE
     accorded approval to petitioner on 21" July, 2017 to start A/BS for
     the academic year 2018-19 - Plea of petitioner that it submitted the
     application for grant of approval within the specified timeline and
     it was the inaction ofAICTE which resulted in delay and thus, AICTE
E    be directed to permit the petitioner to start its college A/BS from the
     academic year 2017-18 - Held: In terms of the statutory timelines
     specified under the AICTE Act and the regulations framed
    ·thereunder for grant of approval, AICTE does not have
     any jurisdiction or auhtority to issue approval for commencement
F    of a new course beyond J(Jh April of the year immediately preceding
     the commencement of an academic year - In the instant case, the
     deficiencies noted were removed by the petitioner after it withdrew
     the proposal relating to AIM vide letter dated 5'h July, 2017 - It was
     only thereafter that AICTE could process the proposal of the
    petitioner and accordingly granted the permission on 2I" July, 2017
G    - Since, approval accorded by AICTE was after the cut off date of
     JO'h April, 2017 for the academic year 2017-18, it issued approval
    for starting A/BS institute for the academic year 2018-19 and not
     2017-18 - No fault can be found with AICTE in that regard -
     Petitioners not entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petition -
     Further. petitioners directed to pay cost of Rs.50,0001- to the
H    respondents.
                                       1028
  OM SAi PUNYA EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE                     1029
          SOCIETY & ANR. v. AICTE AND ANR.

      Dismissing the writ petition, the Court                     A
       HELD: 1.1 From the facts which have now emerged it is
 noticed that the petitioners were fully aware of sharing of the
 same piece of land and some of the common facilities between
 the two institutes but did not disclose that fact in the original
 application (proposal). Whereas, the team of officers of EVC who B
 had v~sited the site for inspection on the earlier occasion were
 obstructed from entering the building complex, obviously with
 ulterior design. Realising that the deficiency of two institutes
 sharing the same plot and some of the common facilities would
 come in the way of the petitioners, the petitioners were advised C
 to withdraw the proposal in respect of AIM. That decision was
 taken by the petitioners on 1'' July, 2017, which was
 communicated to AICTE only on 51h July, 2017. It is only after
 receipt of that communication, the AICTE proceeded on the
 assumption that the stated deficiency stood removed in respect
 of AIBS and accorded approval to the said institute on 21•1 July, D
 2017, but for the academic year 2018-19. In the backdrop of the
.aforementioned facts, it is unfathomable as to how AICTE can be
 held responsible for the delay in issuing the Letter of Approval
 in respect of AIBS for the academic year 2017-18. [Paras 7 and
 11] [1036-C-D; 1038-C-E]
                                                                   E
       · 1.2 Further, it is not open to AICTE to breach the timelines
 specified in the AICTE Act and the Regulations framed
 thereunder for processing the proposal for grant of a Letter of .
 Approval. It is well settled that the schedule specified in the
 Regulations has statutory backing. Its adherence is mandatory
 and not directory. As per the said schedule, AICTE does not F
 have any jurisdiction or authority to issue approval for
 commencement of a new course or for additional intake of
 students beyond 301h April of the year immediately preceding the
 commencement of an academic year. The admission schedule for
 academic year .2017-18 had already commenced and was G
 substantially completed. The academic year had also commenced
.and the last date for completing the admission process was August
 lS1h, 2017. The dates and timelines are provided in the
 Regulations and the same are inviolable. [Para 5) [1034-E-H]

                                                                   H
1030            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [20I 7] 8 S.C.R.


A            Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for
             Technical Education (2013) 3 SCC 385 : [2012[ 11
             SCR 1057 - relied on.
              1.3 Keeping in mind, the aforementioned factual position
       and in particular the conduct of the petitioners, the question of
·B     granting any relief to the petitioners much less by invoking plenary
       powers of this Court, in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution
       of India, to condone or relax the timeline regarding grant of
       approval and to direct the respondent authorities to treat the
       approval for the academic year 2017-18 as prayed by the
       petitioners, does not arise. Any indulgence shown to the
 C     petitioners would inevitably affect the larger public interests, as
       the academic course had already commenced for the current
       academic year from 1'' August, 2017 and the last date up to which
       the students can be admitted against the seats available in any
       recognised college, was specified as 15'h August, 2017. [Paras 7
 D     and 111 [1036-F; 1038-FI
                                Case Law Reference
             [20121 11 SCR 1057              relied on           Para 5
             CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)
·E     No. 57I of20l 7.
             Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
            Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., Ejaz Maqbool, Ms. Akriti Chaubey,
       Ms. Tanya Shree, Advs. for the Appellants.
             Anil Soni, Harish Pandey, Advs. for the Respondents.
 F
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. l. The petitioners have filed this writ
       petition under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia for issuing a writ of
       mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing respondent No.I to
 G     immediately issue a Letter ofApproval permitting petitioner No. I-society
       to start its college, namely Anant Institute of Business Studies from the
       academic year2017-20I8. The petitioner No.I-society applied in February,
       20I 7 to respondent No. I-All India Council for Technical Education (for
       short "AICTE") for its approval to establishAnant Institute of Business

 H
   OM SAI PUNYA EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE                             1031
       SOCIETY v. AICTE [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Studies (for short "AIBS"). The Scrutiny Committee of AICTE (for A
short "SC") tendered a report dated 01.03.2017. The petitioners assert
that the report did not point out any deficiency and recommended grant
of Letter ofApproval to the petitioner No. I -society.
        2. The said proposal was processed by different committees
 between March 2017 and April 2017, such as Expert Visit Committee B
 (for short "EVC") and· the Standing Appellate Committee - Scrutiny
 Committee (for short "SAC - SC"). As the petitioners entertained some
 apprehension that there would be delay in processing the application,
 petitioner No.I- society rushed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
.Bench at Gwalior by way of Writ Petition No. 2793 of2017. They prayed
·for a direction against the respondents to process the application as per C
 the procedure given in Approval Process Handbook 2017-18 and consider
 the report of SC which has clearly mentioned that the two different
 institutes of the petitioners were on different patches ofland and therefore
 to issue a Letter ofApproval without any further delay and, in any case,
 to complete the process of approval before 30'h April, 2017. The D
 respondent No.l-AICTE, however, issued a letter of rejection on 30'h
 April, 2017. As a result, the writ petition fileq by the petitioners before
 the High Court came to be dismissed on 16"' May, 2017, as having become
 infructuous. The petitioners challenged the said decision before this Court
 by way of SLP (C) No.15799 of 2017 which was disposed of on 22 11d
 June,2017, in the following terms:                                           E
                                "ORDER
       By two letters dated 30:04.2017, the first respondent rejected
       the applications submitted by the petitiof!ers for setting up an
       Institute of Management and an Institute of Business Studies.         F
       The ground on which the rejection took place was primarily
       that when the EVC team proceeded to inspect the institutions,
       it was not allowed to do so.
        When this petition came up before the court on 19.06.2017, a
       submission was made on behalf of the petitioners that having          G
       regard to the ground which weighed with the first respondent,
       the petitioners are ready and willing to submit themselves to a
       fresh inspection by an EVC team to be constituted by the first
        respondent. The hearing was adjourned to enable counsel
       for the first respondent to take instructions.
                                                                             H
1032             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 8 S.C.R.


 A             During the course of the hearing learned counsel appearing
             on behalf of the first respondent states, on instructions. that
             an EVC Team shall be constituted expeditiously and a fresh
             inspection shall be carried out within a period of two weeks
             from today. This, it has been submitted, is subject to two
             conditions; firstly, that the petitioners shall pay the usual
 B
             charges and expenses for the inspection; and secondly, that
             one EVC team shall inspect both the Institutions. Both these
             conditions are acceptable to the petitioners.
             We accordingly take on record the statement which has been
             made on behalf of the first respondent and direct that in
 c           consequence the earlier rejection of the proposal submitted
             by the petitioners shall not come in the way of the EVC team
             while carrying out a fresh inspection, as agreed. Thereupon,
             the first respondent 3 shall take a fresh decision in accordance
             with law expeditiously uninfluenced by the earlier order of
 D           rejection. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the fresh decision,
             they will be at liberty to pursue the remedies available in law.
              The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of
              Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of"

 E            3. The petitioner No. I-society thereafter decided to withdraw the
       application for grant of approval for its other institute Anant Institute of
       Management (for short "AIM") vide Application ID No. l-3395565031,
       as it was not possible for them to get affiliation from the Jiwaji University,
       Gwalior for the academic year 2017-18. This decision was communicated
       to AICTE vide Jetter dated 5th July, 2017.
 F
          4. In the meantime, in deference to the observation made by this
   Court in its order dated 22•1d June, 2017, EVC conducted a fresh inspection
   in respect ofAIBS and submitted its report on l" July, 2017 pointing out
   the deficiencies. The petitioners then rushed to this Court by way of
   present writ petition filed on 22•1d July, 2017, but before that the proposal
 G for grant of Letter ofApproval to the petitioners' institution was referred
   to SAC-SC, which finally submitted its recommendations and observations
   to AICTE. The respondent No.1-AJCTE, vide Jetter dated 21" July, 2017
   informed its decision to the Principal/Chairman of the petitioner No.1-
   society. The said communication reads thus:
 H
   OM SAI PUNYA EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE                          1033
       SOCIETY v. AICTE [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

                 "ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL Education A
                                 (A Statutory Body of the Govt. of India)
             Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India
                           Nelson Mandela Marg, New Delhi- Jl0067
                                       Phone: OJJ-2613I576, 77, 78, 80
                                            Website: www.aicte-india.org
   F.No. AICTEIABICR/PID 1-3404613481                 Date: 21.07.2017 B
   To,
           The Principal/Chairman,
           Om Sai Punya Educational and Social Welfare Society,
           404, Suparsvnath Apartment, A-8, Silicon City,
           Madhya Pradesh - 452012                                        C
   Sir,
           This has reference to Hon'ble·Supreme Court order dated
   22.06.2017 regarding conduct of a fresh Inspection in respect of
   Anant Institute of Business Studies, MP. (AID l-340461348I) and
   2. Anant Institute of Management, MP. (AID 1-3395565031). The D
   EVC was conducted on OI.07.2017 to both institutes. The EVC has
   reported deficiencies in respect of both Institutes. The matter was
   placed before the SAC on I3.07.2017 for recommendation. The
· ·representative of the Institute presented the case before the SAC.
           The recommendation and observation of SAC in respect of
   Anant Institute of Business Studies, (AID 1-3404613481) are as E
   under:
        s.    Deficiencies noted            Observation ofSAC dated
        No.   bvEVC                         13.07.2017
              Other Institution (AICTE      Documents for closure
              approved/ not under           are submitted & accepted.    F
              AICTE ambit) are being
              run/proposed to be run in
              the same patch of land of
              land shown for the present
              Institution. - Proposed to
              run in the new Anant                                       G
      ·- 1.   Institute ofManmzement.
              AmenitieY Area:               Architects certificate &
              Boys Common Room              Affidavit are submitted &
              Girls Common Room         .   Acx:eoted

                                                                         H
1034            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 8 S.C.R.


 A            Recommendation:
             'The SAC recommends LOA for starting Anant Institute of
       Business Studies from the Academic year 2018-19.
             The above recommendation of SAC has been approved by the
       Competent Authority in the Council. You are hereby intimated to
 8     comply with the recommendation of SAC for starting Anant Institute
       of Business Studies from the Academic year 2018-I9.
                                                                 Sdl-
                                                              Advisor
                                                          (Approval Bureau)"
 c           5. Notably, the petitioners have not claimed any relief with
      reference to the aforementioned communication. The relief in the writ
      petition, however, is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to
      respondent No. l-AICTE, to immediately issue a Letter ofApproval and
      permit the petitioner No. I-society to start its college AIBS from the
 D academic year 2017-18. Absence of challenge to the communication
      dated 21" July, 2017 even if overlooked, the moot question is whether in
      the fact situation of the present case the petitioners can succeed in getting
      the relief as claimed in the writ petition. Indubitably, it is not open to
      AICTE to breach the timelines specified in the AICTE kct and the
      Regulations framed thereunder for processing the proposal for grant of
 i:;; a Letter of Approval. It is well settled that the schedule specified in the
      Regulations has statutory backing. Its adherence is mandatory and not
      directory. As per the said schedule,AICTE does not have any jurisdiction
      or authority to issue approval for commencement of a new course or for
      additional intake of students beyond 30'h April of the year immediately
  F preceding the commencement of an academic year. In the case of
      Parshvanath Charitable Tr11st Vs. All India Co11ncil for Technical
      Ed11cation•, it has been made amply clear that even the order granting
      recognition by the Appellate Committee ofAICTE should not fall foul of
      the admission schedule. The admission schedule for academic year 2017-
       18 has already commenced and been substantially completed. The
 G academic year has also commenced and the last date for completing the
      admission process is August 15'\ 2017. The dates and timelines are
      provided in the Regulations and reiterated by this Court in the
      aforementioned decision. The same are inviolable.
       (2013) 3 sec 385
       1

 H
  OM SAi PUNYA EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE                               1035
      SOCIETY v. AICTE [A.M. KHANWlLKAR, J.]

          6. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners had A
 submitted their application for grant of approval within the specified
 timeline and also completed all the necessary formalities. As a matter of
 fact, it was the inaction of the AICTE which resulted in delay and the
 petitioners cannot be held responsible for that and moreso, after having
 made huge investment upto rupees four crores for establishing the college. B
 This plea has been countered by respondent No. I by filing the affidavit
 ofAssistant Director to oppose this writ petition, dated 9th August, 2017 .
.It is asserted by the respondents that in terms of the statutory obligation
 cast on the respondent No.I, the proposal submitted by the petitioner
 No. I-society for starting two new institutes namely AlBS and AIM for
 the academic year 2017-I 8 was processed in right earnest. Further, it is C
 only on 5th July, 2017 the petitioners withdrew their proposal in respect
  of AIM, whereafter the deficiency of sharing the same land and other
  infrastructure between the two institutes stood removed. Only then it
  became possible to issue a Letter of Approval to AIBS and was so
  issued on 2I't July, 2017, for the academic year 2018-19. It is asserted D
  by the respondents that the SAC-SC on 15 111 April, 2017 had found
  something amiss and noted that AIBS has a common building plan and
  land, for which a fresh scrutiny of the proposal was essential by a single
  committee. As a result, fresh scrutiny was undertaken by a common
  EVC for both institutes. As directed, on 25th April, 20I 7 EVC went for
  inspection of the institutes. The team of EVC, however, was not allowed E
  to enter the approach road of the institutes for reasons best known to
  the petitioners. This fact was intimated to petitioner No. I-society by the
 ·AICTE vide letter dated 30th April, 2017. Finally, after the direction given
  by this Court on 2211d June, 20I 7, EVC proceeded to take inspection in
  the presence of the representative of petitioner No.I-society and F
   inspection was conducted on I" July, 2017. As apprehended earlier by
  the authorities, it was noticed that both the institutes were situated on
   the same patch ofland and shared various other common facilities. This
   deficiency could not be condoned under the Rules. Presumably, realising
   this position, the petitioners were advised to withdraw the proposal relating
   to AIM and gave in writing in that behalf to AICTE only on 5th July, G
   20I 7. It is only thereafter the respondent No.I could process the proposal
    of the petitioners to start AlBS, which was so accorded on 21st July,
   2017 for the academic year 2018-19. The respondents have relied on
   the exposition in Para 46.6 of the decision in Parshva11ath Charitable
    Tr11st (supra), which reads thus:-
                                                                             H
1036           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 8 S.C.R.


 A           "46. 6. If the appellate authority decides the matter prior to
            301h April of the year concerned and grants approval to a
            college, then alone such institution will be permitted to be
            included in the list of colleges to which admissions are to be
            made and not otherwise. In other words, even if the appellate
            authority grants approval after 30'h April, it will not be
 B
            operative for the current academic year. All colleges which
            have been granted approval/affiliation by IO'" or 30'1' April,
            as the case may be, shall alone be included in the brochure/
            advertisement/website for the purpose of admission and none
            thereafter. "
 c
           7. In the backdrop of the aforementioned facts, it is unfathomable
    as to how respondent No.1-AICTE can be held responsible for the delay
    in issuing the Letter of Approval in respect of AIBS for the academic
    year 2017-18. It is obvious that the petitioners having realised that because
    of inspection by one EVC, their claim of no deficiency at all will be
  D exposed were advised to withdraw the proposal in respect of another
    institute (AIM) which shared the same plot ofland and common facilities.
    This deficiency was then removed by the petitioners only in July, 2017,
    by sending communication dated 5m July, 2017 for that purpose. The
    fact that the petitioners have already made huge investments per se
  E cannot be the basis to overlook the statutory timelines specified for grant
    of approval, which this Court has authoritatively held to be mandatory
    and not directory. Any indulgence shown to the petitioners would inevitably
    affect the larger public interests, as the academic course has already
    commenced for the current academic year from 1" August, 2017 and
    the last date up to which the students can be admitted against the seats
· F available in any recognised college, is specified as 1S'h August, 2017.

          8. The petitioners would contend that the deficiencies noted in the
   EVC report dated 1" July, 2017 were contrary to the finding noted in its
   previous report dated lO'h March, 2017 as also of SAC-SC report dated
 G 19th April, 2017. The argument though attractive at the first blush deserves
   to be stated to be rejected. Inasmuch as, the earlier report of EVC and
   SAC-SC were based on the proposal and documents submitted by the
   petitioners. Notably, the EVC team which wanted to visit the site for
   inspection on 25'h April, 2017 was obstructed from entering the college
   complex. On l 5'h April, 2017 the SAC-SC had already expressed
 H
        OM SAI PUNYA EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE                               1037
            SOCIETY v. AICTE [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

      apprehension about the factual position and had advised one EVC team A
      to visit both the institutes so that the correct position could be ascertained.
      That became possible only after the direction given by this Court on 22nd
      June, 2017. The common EVC then inspected the site in the presence of
      the representative of the petitioner No. I- society and submitted its report
      dated 1" July, 2017 mentioning about the two deficiencies noticed during B
      the said inspection namely, another institute of the petitioner No. I- society
      in the name of AIM was proposed to be run on the same land on which
      AIBS was situated and a fresh deficiency about the area of the Boys'
      Common Room and Girls' Common Room being less than the required
      area i.e. 75 sqm. This report must be taken as the final observation of
      the EVC which is based on inspection of the site. In other words, some C
      noting made in the previous report submitted by EVC and SAC-SC would
      be of no avail to the petitioners.

              9. It is next contended that as the deficiencies have since been
      removed, the AICTE was obliged to grant approval for the academic
      year 2017-18 as was the intent behind the order passed by this Court on D
      22nd June, 2017. Even this submission does not commend to us. For, on
      a fair reading of the order dated 22nd June, 2017, we find that no direction
      has been issued toAICTE to grant approval forthe academic year2017-
       l 8. Rather, it has been left open to theAICTE to take a fresh decision in
      accordance with law uninfluenced by the earlier order ofrejection. As E
      noted earlier, the deficiencies noticed in the EVC report dated 1''July,
      2017 stood removed only after the petitioners withdrew their proposal
      relating to AIM vide letter dated Sth July, 2017. Since approval to be
      accorded by the AICTE was after the cut off date of30th April, 2017 for
      the academic year 2017-18, it chose to issue approval for startingAIBS
      institute for the academic year 2018-19. No fault can be found with the F
-·•   AICTE in that regard, as even the order dated 22nd June, 2017 expected
      the AICTE to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Suffice it to
      observe that the decision of this Court dated 22nd June, 2017 cannot be
      construetl" as a direction to AICTE to grant approval in breach of the
      statutory time lines specified in that behalf.                               G

             10. It is next contended by the petitioners that there is no other
      institute in the entire district of Ashok Nagar, Madhya Pradesh which
      imparts courses pertaining to Business Studies and therefore grant of
      approval for starting AIBS for the academic year 2017-18 will be in
                                                                                   H
1038             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 8 S.C.R.


 A public interest. This is an argument of desperation. For, the petitioners
   are responsible for the present situation. In the fact situation of the present
   case, we are not inclined to show any indulgence to the petitioners
   especially when the entire admission process has been substantially
   completed and the academic year has commenced from I" August, 2017.
   Any indulgence shown to the petitioners would fall foul of the admission
 B
   schedule for the academic year 2017-18.

           11. A priori, in law, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as
   claimed in the writ petition. Furthermore, from the facts which have
   now emerged it is noticed that the petitioners were folly aware of sharing
 c of the same piece of land and some of the common facilities between
   the two institutes but did not disclose that fact in the original application
   (proposal). Whereas, the team of officers ofEVC who had visited the
   site for inspection on the earlier occasion were obstructed from entering
   the building complex, obviously with ulterior design. Realising that the
   deficiency of two institutes sharing the same plot and some of the common
 D facilities would come in the way of the petitioners, the petitioners have
   since been advised to withdraw the proposal in respect of AIM. That
   decision was taken by the petitioners on 1'1 July, 2017, which was
   communicated toAICTE only on Sth July, 2017. It is only after receipt of
   that communication, the AICTE proceeded on the assumption that the
 E stated -deficiency stood removed in respect of AIBS and accorded
   approval to the said institute on 21'1 July, 2017, but for the academic
   year 2018-19. Keeping in mind, the aforementioned factual position and
   in particular the conduct of the petitioners, the question of granting any
   relief to the petitioners much less by invoking plenary powers of this
   Court, in exercise ofArticle 142 of the Constitution oflndia, to condone
 F or relax the timeline regarding grant of approval and to direct the
   respondent authorities to treat the approval for the academic year 20 I 7-
   18 as prayed by the petitioners does not arise.

         12. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed
 G with costs quantified at Rupees Fifty Thousand to be paid to the
   respondents within four weeks from today.



       Divya Pandey                                           Writ Petition dismissed.