IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 18th August, 2011
W.P.(C) No.5218/2011
Global Educational & Social Trust ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Yashpal Rangi, Advocates
Vs.
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
& Ors ......Respondent
Through: Mr.Mukul Talwar, Advocate
for the respondent-University.
Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for the
respondent-AICTE.
Mr.Manjit Singh, Advocate for the
respondent-State of Haryana.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.Oral:
W.P. (C) No. 5218/2011 Page 1 of 12
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the decision of the
respondent No.1 University not to grant affiliation to the
petitioner institute.
2. Background
of facts that has led to the filing of the present
petition is that the petitioner institute which is situated in
Faridabad applied for approval to AICTE for starting an MBA
course, which after inspection granted the said approval on
29.6.2010. That the petitioner on 16.7.2010 applied to the
respondent University for affiliation for session 2010-2011 which
was rejected on the ground of non-furnishing of the No-objection
certificate by the State of Haryana. Feeling aggrieved with the
said act of the University, the petitioner filed a writ petition WPC
5331/2010 whereby vide order dated 10.8.2010, the court
directed the university to scrutinize and consider the request of
the petitioner expeditiously. However, the respondent university
approached the court for clarification of its order dated
10.8.2010 and the court vide order dated 18.8.2010 directed the
University to deal with the application of the petitioner in
accordance with its rules and regulations. However the
W.P. (C) No. 5218/2011 Page 2 of 12
University again vide order dated 20.8.2010 rejected the
application of the petitioner for non furnishing of the NOC by the
State Government and the petitioner again approached the court
vide WPC 5831/2010 where vide order dated 31.8.2010 the
interim relief of conducting an inspection and granting
provisional admission for the session 2010-11 was declined.
Consequently the petitioner challenged the said order in LPA
655/2010 wherein vide order dated 15.9.2010 both AICTE and
the University were to conduct a joint inspection of the
petitioner Institute. That as per the joint inspection report, no
deficiency was found and thus the Hon’ble Division Bench vide
order dated 6.1.2011 directed the petitioner to apply for fresh
approval to AICTE for the session 2011-2012 and then to the
respondent university for affiliation. That the AICTE granted the
approval to the petitioner Institute but the respondent university
refused to grant affiliation on the ground of non furnishing of
NOC by the State of Haryana. Feeling aggrieved with the same,
the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Thus evidently from the facts as set out above, the main
grievance raised by the petitioner is that despite approval of the
W.P. (C) No. 5218/2011 Page 3 of 12
petitioner institute by the AICTE, it has not been granted
affiliation by the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University/respondent No. 1 on account of non-issuance of NOC
by the State of Haryana, which as per the petitioner is not
statutorily required.
4. Mr.Manjit Singh, counsel representing the State of
Haryana very fairly submits that no policy decision has been
taken by the State Government of Haryana till date regarding
issuance of no objection certificate in favour of those
institutes/colleges which are located in the State of Haryana and
seek affiliation with the University outside the State of Haryana.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties at considerable
length.
6. In the present case, vide order dated 03.08.2011, this
Court gave direction to the respondent-State of Haryana to file a
short affidavit taking a categorical stand keeping in view the
observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the order
dated 06.01.2011. It is pertinent to mention here that the said
directions of the Hon’ble Division Bench were given in LPA No.
655/2010, which was filed by the present petitioner challenging
W.P. (C) No. 5218/2011 Page 4 of 12
the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 31 st August,
2010 whereby the learned Single Judge had refused to grant
interim stay in favour of the petitioner seeking interim directions
to direct the respondent University to inspect the institute of the
petitioner to satisfy itself as to whether the petitioner had
complied with requirements for affiliation or not. During the
pendency of the said LPA, the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order
dated 22nd September, 2010 passed the following order:-
“This Court on 15th September, 2010 had constituted two
committees of the respondent No.1-University as well as
the AICTE and directed the committees to visit the
appellant-institution along with three counsel, namely, Mr.
Amitesh Kumar, Mr. Mukul Talwar and Mr. Rajiv Bansal. Be
it noted, Mr. Bansal had not accompanied the team.
When the matter was taken up today, Mr. Talwar submitted
a report on behalf of the respondent-university and Mr.
Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, submitted a report
on behalf of AICTE. If we allow ourselves to say so, that
was not the intention of the order which was passed on
earlier occasion. We are really at a loss as to why there is
so much of cavil between the AICTE and the University on a
factual position. However, let the reports be exchanged and
a meeting be held by the AICTE authorities with the
University authorities and a decision be taken whether the
appellant-institution meets the requisite criteria as per the
norms/guidelines framed by the AICTE. Matter be listed on
1st October, 2010.””
7. Pursuant to the said directions given by the Hon’ble
Division Bench, two committees constituted by the University as
W.P. (C) No. 5218/2011 Page 5 of 12
well as AICTE carried out the necessary inspection and the said
joint inspection of both the committees found that there was no
deficiency in the petitioner institute. Para 5 of the said order
dated 6.1.2011 in LPA No. 655/2010 so records and the same is
reproduced as under:-
“5. Thereafter, as evincible, various orders were passed
and eventually on 25th November, 2010 this Court
recorded that an inspection as directed had not taken
place and granted some more time to complete the said
exercise. When the matter was called today, we have
been apprised that a joint inspection has been taken up
by the AICTE and the respondent-University and the
inspection committee of both the statutory authorities
have found that there is no deficiency in the institution in
praesenti.”
8. The Hon’ble Division Bench in the said order gave further
directions, mainly to the AICTE and the respondent University to
take a decision on the application of the petitioner seeking grant
of recognition/approval to their institute for starting the MBA
course and in the penultimate para, the Division Bench also
observed that when there is concurrence by the AICTE and the
University, the State Government in the case of the present
nature has no role to refuse the NOC. Paras 6,7 and 8 of the said
order are also reproduced as under:-
W.P. (C) No. 5218/2011 Page 6 of 12
“6. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that if the
appellant files an application for grant of
recognition/approval to the course before the AICTE,
the same shall be placed before the Board, which shall
take a decision within three weeks from the date of
submission of the application for the academic session
2011-12. Regard being had to the joint committee
inspection, after the AICTE takes a decision, the same
shall be communicated to the respondent-University,
which shall follow the same in letter and spirit.
7. Needless to say that the respondent-University shall
act promptly after getting the communication from the
AICTE. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor
General representing the respondent-University has
fairly stated that the University always acts
expeditiously and would not cause any delay or
hindrance. Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional
Advocate General for the State of Haryana has stated
that the State shall abide by the law. Needless to say
that when there is concurrence by the AICTE and
University, the State Government in a case of the
present nature has no role to refuse the NOC.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of. As
nothing remains to be adjudicated in the Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 5831/2010, the same also is deemed to have
been disposed of. No order as to costs.”
9. In the light of the said observations made by the Hon’ble
Division Bench, the State of Haryana was directed by this court
to take a categorical stand in its affidavit to explain the reasons
for not issuing NOC, once the Hon’ble Division Bench clearly
took a view that it has no role to refuse NOC in the background
of there being concurrence between AICTE and the University to
W.P. (C) No. 5218/2011 Page 7 of 12
grant approval to the institute of the petitioner for running the
said MBA course. The State of Haryana in their reply filed by
them has practically reiterated their stand as was taken by them
in the W.P. (C) No. 3065/2003 and this would show that the
State of Haryana has not brought any legislation/regulations on
the subject nor any policy decision has been taken by the State
of Haryana in this regard. This Court while deciding the interim
application of the petitioner in the earlier writ petition No.
5331/2010 also took note of the stand taken by the Additional
Advocate General representing the State of Haryana informing
the Court that there is no policy regarding issuance of NOC as
required under Statute 24 of the respondent University and
decision on such matters for the grant of NOC is taken by the
State on case to case basis. Para 2 of the order dated 31 st
August, 2010 is reproduced as under:-
“The Addl. Advocate General for the State of
Haryana has today informed that the Educational
Institutions located in the State of Haryana, if seek
affiliation with a University, also in the State of Haryana,
no NOC is required. It is further clarified that there is no
policy regarding issuing NOC as required under the
Ordinance of the respondent no. 1 Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University (not situated in State of Haryana)W.P. (C) No. 5218/2011 Page 8 of 12
and if an application for NOC is moved, decision thereon
is taken by the State on a case to case basis.”
10. In the affidavit filed by the State of Haryana in the present
case also, no stand has been taken as to why the NOC was not
granted in favour of the petitioner in the light of the said
observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench. It would be
thus quite manifest that the State of Haryana as on this date has
no policy for grant of NOC to deal with such institutes located
within the territory of the State, which are seeking affiliation
with the Universities of the other State.
11. It is not in dispute between the parties that the AICTE has
already granted approval in favour of the petitioner-institute and
the respondent-University has also agreed to grant affiliation to
the petitioner in principle. It is only on account of non-grant of
NOC by the State of Haryana that the affiliation by the
University so far has not been granted in favour of the
petitioner. The defence raised by Mr.Mukul Talwar, learned
counsel representing the University is that under Statute 24, it is
only after the NOC is issued by the concerned State
W.P. (C) No. 5218/2011 Page 9 of 12
Government, that the affiliation sought by the petitioner-institute
can be granted.
12. It is thus quite apparent that it is only on account of
non-grant of NOC by the State of Haryana in favour of the
petitioner that the University has not granted affiliation to the
petitioner-institute. The stand taken by the State of Haryana in
its affidavit is that a conscious decision has been taken by the
State Government not to give NOC to any of those
institutes/colleges which are located in the State of Haryana but
are seeking affiliation with the University outside the State of
Haryana. This contention raised by counsel for the State of
Haryana has been dealt much in detail in the judgment of the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in the case of Charanjiv
Charitable Trust vs. All India Council for Technical
Education & Anr. WP(C) No.3065/2003 decided on 1.9.2003,
where also the State of Haryana raised a similar objection and
the Hon’ble Division Bench in the said judgment had clearly
observed that NOC could not be refused by the State of Haryana
on the ground that such an institute did not seek affiliation with
Maharshi Dayanand University, a university situated in the State
W.P. (C) No. 5218/2011 Page 10 of 12
of Haryana. The Division Bench further observed that the State
of Haryana cannot refuse grant of NOC merely because the
University is not situated in the State of Haryana. Mr.Rakesh
Tiku, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has
also pointed out that the said order passed by the Hon’ble
Division Bench was challenged by the State of Haryana before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP No.376/2004 and the same
was dismissed vide order dated 25.4.2005.
13. In the background of the above position and taking into
consideration the peculiar facts of the present case, more
particularly in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble
Division Bench in the order dated 6.1.2011 and in the order
dated 1.9.2003 and also on account of the fact that the State
Government did not raise any kind of objection to the AICTE
after the receipt of an application from the petitioner institute,
this Court deems fit and appropriate to direct the State of
Haryana to issue NOC in favour of the petitioner institute for
starting the MBA course for the academic session 2011-12
within a period of 10 days from the date of this order.
W.P. (C) No. 5218/2011 Page 11 of 12
14. With the above direction the present petition is
disposed of. The legal questions raised by the counsel for the
parties shall, however, remain open to be decided in an
appropriate case. This order shall, however, not be treated as
precedent in the other matters because of peculiarity of its fact-
situation.
AUGUST 18, 2011 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
W.P. (C) No. 5218/2011 Page 12 of 12