At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HULUVADI G. RAMESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
For the Appellant: G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel for M/s. N. Saraswati, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for M/s. AL. Gandhimathi, R3, L.P. Shanmugasundaram, R4 & R5, R.Vijayakumar, Addl. G.P.
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 08.06.2016 made in W.P.No.18356 of 2016 on the file of this Court.
Writ Petition No.34061 of 2016 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent in File No.LR.No.297/CAI/AU/2016, dated 10.8.2016 and quash the same and direct the third respondent to grant affiliation to Sri Muthukumaran Institute of Technology, Mangadu, Chennai - 600 009 without insisting on Extension of Approval from the first respondent and register all the students admitted in the petitioner Institute and permit them to take examination for the academic year 2016 - 17 within the time fixed by this Court.
Writ Petition No.34062 of 2016 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in File No.SRO/1-697567321/AB dated 01.8.2016 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to grant extension of Extension of Approval to Sri Muthukumaran Institute of Technology, Chikkarayapuram, near Mangadu, Chennai - 600 069 for the academic year 2016 - 17 within the time limit to be fixed by this Court and regularize the students admitted pursuant to the Hon'ble Courts order dated 20.6.2016 in CMP.Nos.9412 and 9413 of 2016 in W.A.No.716 of 2016.)
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, ACJ.
1. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.06.2016 in w.P.No.18356 of 2016, the unsuccessful petitioner has preferred W.A.No.716 of 2016.
2. In furtherance of the direction issued by this Court dated 20.6.2016 in C.M.P.Nos.9412 and 9413 of 2016 in W.A.No.716 of 2016 pending disposal of the writ appeal, the students have pursued their course and appeared for the examination. Even then, the AICTE has not taken any decision on the merits of the case and rejected the case of the appellant-institution on technical grounds only.
3. In the order dated 20.6.2016 made in the aforesaid CMPs, this Court observed that it is for the AICTE to accord approval for the academic year 2016 -2017 and to inspect the documents, which are sought to be produced by the appellant-institution regarding the sale deed, in lieu of leases for 99 years. It was also observed that the AICTE to examine the document and if need be to inspect the College further for due compliance by the appellant-institution of the seven deficiencies pointed out by AICTE.
4. After passing of the aforesaid interim order by this Court, the first respondent, vide impugned order dated 01.8.2016, passed an order of status quo i.e. no admission for the academic year 2016 - 2017 in respect of the appellant-institution. W.P.No.34062 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order of the first respondent dated 01.8.2016 and to direct the first respondent to grant Extension of Approval to the petitioner for the academic year 2016 - 2017 within the time and regularize the students admitted pursuant to the order dated 20.6.2016 made in C.M.P.Nos.9412 and 9413 of 2016 in W.A.No.716 of 2016.5. The Anna University has passed the impugned order on 10.8.2016 that approval from AICTE is a pre-requisite for the University every year to grant affiliation as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Statutes for Affiliation, published in Gazette of Tamil Nadu (2004). W.P.No.34061 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order of the third respondent dated 10.8.2016 and to direct the third respondent to grant affiliation to Sri Muthukumaran Institute of Technology without insisting on Extension of Approval from the first respondent and to register all the students admitted in the Institute and permit them to take examination for the academic year 2016 - 2017.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant-institution submits that all the requirements of AICTE have been complied with and instead of considering the case of the appellant-institution, the AICTE on a technical ground rejected the case of the appellant, which appears to be totally unacceptable.
7. In so far as the consideration of the candidates for admission is concerned, it is submitted that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, almost all the deficiencies pointed out by the AICTE have been complied with. After the interim orders, about 50 students have been admitted to the College and the respondents ought to have given approval to the appellant-institution for the year 2016-2017 and the appellant-institution cannot be placed under ‘no admission’ category. The approach of the AICTE in postponing the approval for one reason or the other appears to be totally unwarranted. The appellant-institution is in existence for more than 10 to 15 years and also admitted the students for the courses and on technical grounds only the AICTE is postponing the approval. The appellant-institution should not be penalised for the delay caused by AICTE and the AICTE cannot take advantage of its own wrong and punish the appellant-institution.
8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and especially taking note of the fact the appellant has rectified the deficiencies pointed out by the resp
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ondent authorities and their case has not been considered on merits despite specific direction issued in C.M.P.Nos.9412 & 9413 of 2016, we direct the AICTE to re-consider the case of the appellant on merits for accord approval to the admission of the students, if not already accorded. The respondent authorities are also directed to publish the results. 9. With the above said observation and direction, the writ appeal and the writ petitions are disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.