IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10/08/2004
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
W.P.No.38953 of 2003
Gojan Educational Trust
190 Lake View Road
West Mambalam
Chennai 600 033.
rep. by its Trustee R.Gopalan .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.Government of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary
Higher Education
(J1 Department).
2.All India Council of Technical
Education
Indira Gandhi Sports Complex
Indraprasatha Estate
New Delhi 110 002. .. Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on
the file of the first respondent relating to letter No.248 10/J1/2003 dated
15.12.2003 and quashing the same and for a further direction directing the
respondents to process the application of the petitioner and to grant approval
to the petitioner to establish Engineering College.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun
For Respondents : Mr.P.Rathinavel
Government Advocate for R1
M/s.Vijay Narayan for R2
:ORDER
This writ petition has been brought forth seeking a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated
15.12.2003 and to direct the respondents to process the application of the
petitioner and to grant approval to the petitioner to establish an Engineering
College commencing from the Academic Year 2004-20 05.
2. From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition and the submissions made, it could be seen that the petitioner is a
public charitable trust created with the object of providing modern
educational avenues to establish, support and run educational institutions,
establish hospitals, etc. The petitioner trust had obtained the application
for grant of the letter of viability from the second respondent and submitted
a copy of the application to the Regional Office of the second respondent at
Madras and to the first respondent on 8.10.2003 for getting their No Objection
Certificate (NOC) to be submitted to the second respondent. The petitioner
completed the construction of the building, and all other infrastructural
facilities have been kept intact. The second respondent was established as a
National Expert Body to advise the Central and State Government for ensuring
coordinated development of technical education in accordance with the approved
standards. The powers and functions of the second respondent namely the
Council, were regularised by way of a statute called the “All India Council of
Technical Education (AICTE Act), 19 87 (Central Act 52 of 1987).
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Sub Regulation
(4)(e) to Regulation 8 of AICTE Regulations 1994, which runs as follows:
“It shall be necessary for the applicant to obtain “No Objection Certificate”
(NOC) from the concerned State Government/UT, without which the application
shall stand rejected. In case of proposals for establishment of new
institute, the Council shall not invite the applicant for hearing, if the NOC
of the State Government is not received in the Council on or before the
cut-off-date specified by it. It shall also be desirable for the applicants
who are called for hearing to obtain NOC from the concerned affiliating
University and produce the same before the Hearing Committee.”
4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, an
application was made to the first respondent for issuance of NOC; but, it was
kept pending for a longtime without issuing NOC. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner would submit that not even the petitioner’s application was
considered; but, the same was rejected by an order dated 1 5.12.2003, which is
being assailed before this Court.
5. This Court heard the learned Government Advocate for the first
respondent and the learned Counsel for the second respondent on those
contentions.
6. A very reading of the Regulation 8(4)(e) as extracted above, would
make it clear that for establishment of a new institution, the existing
institution has to apply to the All India Council of Technical Education for
approval in exercise of the powers under the Act. As per the said Regulation,
grant of no objection certificate is made a condition precedent.
7. It is true that the petitioner had applied to the Government for
grant of NOC. A reading of the order impugned would clearly show that the
rejection of the application for grant of No Objection Certificate was only in
consonance with the policy decision of the Government, and it has not been
individually considered whether it is a fit case for granting NOC or not. In
such circumstances, so many educational institutions came before this Court
and filed W.P.Nos.645 of 2004, etc., wherein this Court had an occasion to
consider the contentions put forth by both sides and has passed an order dated
22.4.2004 that it is not proper on the part of the G overnment to make a
wholesale rejection of the applications made; but, it has got to be
individually considered on the merits of the matter. Now, the grievance
ventilated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that
his application has not been considered individually, and hence, an order has
got to be passed in that lines. In such circumstances, following the earlier
order of this Court made in the batch of writ petitions as referred to above,
it would be suffice to issue a direction to the first respondent to consider
the application of the petitioner individually on the merits of the matter.
Accordingly, a direction is issued.
8. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the first respondent for
grant of approval to the petitioner to establish the Engineering College from
the academic year 2004-2005. Now, at this juncture, it remains to be stated
that the academic year 2004-2005 has already started, and the courses are now
functioning. Under such circumstances, no question of considering the
application of the petitioner for grant of approval for the academic year
2004-2005 would arise. Hence, it would be suffice to give a direction to the
first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for the ensuing
academic year 200 5-2006 individually, decide the matter and grant no
objection certificate as asked for, as early as possible. Accordingly, a
direction is given.
9. In the result, this writ petition is ordered accordingly. No
costs.
Index : yes
Internet: yes
To:
1.The Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Higher Education (J1 Department).
2.All India Council of Technical
Education, Indira Gandhi Sports Complex
Indraprasatha Estate, New Delhi 110 002.
nsv/