JUDGMENT
Gita Mittal, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent No. 2 to revalidate a no objection certificate dated 28th May, 2003 for commencement of the B.Sc. (MLT) course for the academic session 2004-2005 and a direction to the Guru Gobind Singh Inderprastha University, respondent No. 3 herein, to grant affiliation to the petitioner to run a B.Sc.(MLT) programme for the same session in terms of its letter dated 27th January, 2004 and compensation. The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 2002 on 16th December, 2002, is claimed to be consisting of a group of qualified medical practitioners and educationists. Pursuant to a press release issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi in October/November 2002 with regard to issuance of no objection certificate for commencement of courses including para medical courses by new institutes for the academic session 2003-2004, the petitioner submitted three applications for commencement of an institution in the name and style of the ‘Millennium Institute of Technology and Para Medical Sciences’. By these three applications the petitioners sought appropriate approvals for commencement of a degree course in Physiotherapy, a degree course in Insurance and Finance management by an application dated 2nd January, 2003 and a degree course of Medical Laboratory Technicians (MLT) vide an application of 22nd January, 2003.
2. The petitioner’s submission is that in order to avoid administrative inconvenience the Government had directed that a joint team of the Directorate of Higher Education respondent No. 2 herein, and the concerned university- respondent No. 3 herein, would be formed and an inspection would be jointly done by them for the purposes of a no objection certificate and the affiliation of the university.
3. After a close inspection of the petitioner’s institute, and upon satisfaction with regard to all compliances by the petitioner, the Government of NCT of Delhi issued a no objection certificate dated 28th May, 2003 to the petitioner for running the course of Bachelor degree in Medical Laboratory Technology (B.Sc.(MLT)’ for short) for the academic year 2003-2004 with an intake of 40 seats. This no objection certificate was however conditional and imposed the following mandatory conditions upon the petitioner:
1. The NOC is for the academic session 2003-04 with an intake of 40 seats during which you are required to make permanent arrangement of running the institution.
2. The institute should have necessary laboratories, equipments and furniture etc., before the commencement of session.
3. The institution should also have qualified and eligible faculty before the commencement of session.
4. The institute shall have academic and infrastructure facility as per norms.
4. In addition to the above, an application for affiliation was submitted by the petitioner on 2nd June, 2003 to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner also submitted all compliances including deposit of the prescribed fee with lists of equipments, bills, teaching aids, funds available to it etc. However despite the intimation to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 Vide a communication dated 9th June, 2003, the respondent No. 3 called upon the petitioner to make a brief presentation with regard to its institute. Despite the petitioner fulfillling all requirements, its request for grant of the affiliation has not been granted by respondent No. 3 till date.
5. The petitioner has submitted that based on the no objection certificate granted by the respondent No. 2 the petitioner has incurred expenditure of several lakhs of rupees to make available the requisite equipment and facilities. It has also been submitted that the schedule for consideration of the petitioner’s application was fixed on 13th June, 2003, yet the application was not being considered.
6. In this background, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition bearing No. 8796/2003 which was disposed of by this court by an order passed on 10th March, 2004 In the meantime, the respondent No. 3 had considered the matter and passed an order which was communicated to the petitioner only on 27th January, 2004 The petitioner was informed that the proposal to conduct B.Sc.(MLT) at Millennium Institute of Technology and Para-Medical Sciences Along with the Report submitted by the Joint Assessment Committee constituted by the Directorate of High Education, NCT Govt. of Delhi were placed for the consideration by the University’s Board of Affiliation in its 23rd Meeting held on 13th June, 2003 at 3.30 p.m. vide Agenda Item No. 23rd October, 2001. After giving due consideration to the above, the presentation made by the Society and the interaction held between the Chairman and the members of the Board, it was resolved that the ?Institute may be granted provisional affiliation for the conduct of B.Sc.(MLT) programme with an intake of 60 students with effect from 2004-2005 after the Institute is able to identify proper and adequate faculty?. The Board further resolved that the Institute should also make concerted efforts to acquire land from DDA for construction of its permanent campus.
7. In view of this decision of the Board the petitioner was directed to furnish the University with the revalidated no objection certificate from the Directorate of Higher Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi-respondent No. 3 as also the supportive documents in respect of the acquisition of land from DDA for the proposed Institute for construction of its permanent campus in order to enable the university to proceed further in this matter.
8. This order was placed before the court on 10th March, 2004 when the court was of the view that the requirement of the respondent No. 3 for supporting documents for acquisition of land from the DDA is a long term perspective and cannot be the reason for non grant of recognition to the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that one academic year had already been lost, the court directed a joint inspection to be carried out by the respondents No. 2 and 3 within a period of one month and, if the same was in order, the no objection certificate to be issued within a period of 15 days thereafter. So far as the respondent No. 3 was concerned, a direction was issued that the necessary decision for the affiliation would be taken within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the no objection certificate.
9. It is undisputed that the petitioner made a request to the respondents for revalidation of the no objection certificate. However by an order dated 21st April, 2004, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have taken a view that the land on which the institute has been built has been allotted for residential purposes and that the society has not been able to produce a completion certificate from the competent authority whereas the university/Government of NCT of Delhi stipulates conduct of the courses/programmes in institutional areas.
10. It has also been objected that the land on which the proposed institute is to be set up is admeasuring only about 300 sq. mts. The prescribed minimum requirement of land for establishing an institution is 0.5 acres (2000 sq.mts.). Therefore the land on which the institute for conducting the B.Sc.(MLT) Programme is located is less than the prescribed minimum. The communication dated 21st April, 2004 of the respondent No. 1 in this behalf refers to the Assessment Committee’s inspection and assessment which has evaluated the available facilities and concluded that the built up area was not sufficient to conduct the B.Sc.(MLT) three years programme for the reason that the laboratory and clinical facilities which are required cannot be developed on the same campus due to dearth of space. It has also been observed that no provision can also be made for the same reason for sports and games, indoor or outdoor, which is an essential requirement of an educational institute. For all these reasons the respondent No. 2 had taken a view that the no objection certificate for the B.Sc.(MLT) course for the year 2003-2004 issued to the petitioner could not be revalidated.
11. The petitioner made a representation dated 12th May, 2004 to the respondents assailing the view which was taken. However, the same has not found favor with the respondents. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the failure of the respondents to revalidate the no objection certificate by the respondent No. 3 in not granting the requisite affiliation inter alia seeking a mandamus to the respondent No. 2 to revalidate the NOC dated 28th May, 2003 and a mandamus to the respondent No. 3 to grant affiliation to the petitioner to run the course of B.Sc. (MLT) for the academic year 2004- 2005.
12. This writ petition has been vehemently opposed by learned Counsel for the respondents. Ms. Iram Majid learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 2 has submitted that there can be no waiver of the minimum requirement for establishment of an institute and the facilities which are required to be provided and that the order dated 21st April, 2004 has been rightly passed in the instant case. It has further been submitted that the no objection certificate which is granted by the respondent No. 2 is granted on yearly basis which is revalidated as per the applicable policy for privately managed self financing institutions for the purposes of their seeking affiliation with the Guru Gobind Singh Inderprastha University. It is contended that the petitioner was disentitled to revalidation of the certificate which has been issued to it for the reasons and grounds detailed in the letter dated 21st April, 2004
13. So far as respondent No. 3 is concerned Mr. Goel, learned Counsel has submitted that the petitioner cannot get any relief so far as affiliation is concerned till such time the respondent No. 2 gives the no objection certificate to the petitioner.
14. The petitioner has also pointed out a list of several institutes which according to it are being run in areas other than institutional areas to urge a plea of hostile discrimination. It has also been complained that despite the respondents reviewing their decisions in other cases like in the cases of the Vivekanand Institute of Professional Studies and the St. John College of Vocational Studies, the respondents have refused to review the decision taken so far as the petitioner is concerned on the erroneous ground that no review is maintainable.
15. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is noteworthy that apart from the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and other requirements which are notified by the respondents under their policies which govern grant of no objection certificates from the appropriate government and authority for commencement and running of institutes, the petitioners are also required to seek affiliation under the prescribed statutory provisions from the concerned university for running any academic course.
16. However apart from these permissions, the other statutes which govern specific areas are also required to be complied with. So far as user of premises is concerned the same has to abide by the prescription of the land and area in question as prescribed under the statutory master plan notified by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 8 of the DDA Act, 1957. Any violation or misuse of a premises for a purpose other than the prescribed user is prohibited and results in penal consequences and criminal prosecution.
17. In addition thereto, Building Bye Laws have been framed in exercise of statutory power which provide specific parameters with regard to the manner in which different buildings are to be constructed. Different parameters are provided for different use buildings. Therefore the parameters prescribed under the building bye laws which would govern construction of a residential building are different from those which govern construction of an institutional building or a college or institution as in the instant case. The Building Bye-Laws also contain a requirement of a person informing the authority of the purpose for which the building is proposed to be raised at the time of seeking sanction of the building plans. It is trite that buildings can be used only for the purposes for which the buildings have been sanctioned.
18. There is no dispute that the premises where the petitioner has proposed to commence its institution are located in a residential area. This would mean that the only permissible use of the premises which have been constructed by the petitioner would be for the purposes of residential occupation. It is also not disputed that the construction which has been raised by the petitioner on the plot in question is for residential purposes. Such sanction of the building plan would also bind the petitioner who is legally not permitted to use the premises for any purpose other than the purpose for which the building plans have been sanctioned.
19. The counter affidavit which has been filed by the respondent No. 1 has also indicated that the minimum area which has been prescribed for setting up an institution is 0.5 acres that is 2000 sq.mtr. The petitioner has argued that the said area is prescribed for a student intake of sixty students. Reliance has also been placed on a policy dated 16th January, 2004 which has stipulated that a programme wise actual requirement of the built up area for running a B.Sc.(MLT) three year programme with an intake of 60 students is required to be a minimum of 1840 sq. mts. The submission is that the petitioner was granted a no objection certificate for the 2003 session only for an intake of 40 students. It is submitted that the per student space requirement for the B.Sc.(MLT) course is only 8 sq. mtrs. According to the petitioner, he is, therefore, required to have available an area of only 320 sq. mts. The submission is that this policy dated 16th of January, 2004 would not apply to consideration of an application made on 9th of January, 2004 Additionally, it has been urged that the petitioner was never put to notice of the enhancement of the requirement of the built up area under the new policies. If this was disclosed, the petitioner would have taken on rent the first, second and third floor of the same building situated at D-227 Vivek Vihar, Delhi-110095 as also the basement of the adjacent building D-236 Vivek Vihar, Delhi for the reason that these premises also belong to directors of the petitioner society.
20. In view of the aforenoticed law relating to user of the premises, in my view these submissions are only misconceived. Residential premises can be utilised for a purpose permissible by law alone. Law also permits only a limited user of the basement. The petitioner has also put forth a proposal to run an institution in premises which are truncated inasmuch as the same would form part of two separate residential premises.
21. There is no answer to the objection of the respondent that the petitioner is not in a position to provide adequate laboratory or playground facilities which are essential for running an institution. Certainly it cannot be contended or held that these requirements are not essential for running an institution. The respondent No. 3 has pointed out that the requirement of the no objection certificate by a state government for an institution seeking professional affiliation has been provided in Clause 3(ii)(b) of statute 24 dated 16th February, 2000 notified by the respondent No. 3 in exercise of the powers under Section 26(2) of the Guru Gobind Singh Vishvidyalaya Act, 1998. The procedure for considering proposals for provisional affiliation of colleges has been notified by the respondent No. 3 in exercise of powers under Section 27(2) of the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha Vishvidyalaya Act, 1998 by way of notification No. F18(88)/92/CB/Edn dated 1st November, 1999. My attention has been drawn to building bye law No. 25.1 which provides that no basement or cellar room shall be designed, constructed, altered, converted or used for the purposes of study of instruction. It appears that the Government of Delhi notified a policy dated 16th January, 2004 for the year 2004-2005 whereby applications were invited till 30th January, 2004 for the session 2004-2005. The application of the petitioner for revalidation would be required to be considered as per this policy.
22. I find that the no objection certificate which was given to the petitioner on 28th May, 2003 was conditional upon the petitioner fulfillling certain requirements. The petitioner has been able to place only the Form D granted under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 without the required completion certificate which would have enabled occupation of the property wherein the institute is to run. Admittedly the area of the available premises is only 300 sq. mts. The petitioner has urged fulfillment of the requirements of the respondents based on a 100% coverage of the plot. This is legally not permissible.
23. One of the conditions included in the no objection certificate is the availability of necessary laboratories and infrastructure facilities. As per Clause 6 thereof, the society is required to abide by all the rules in force in Delhi.
24. It has been vehemently urged that the respondents cannot deny the no objection certificate and the affiliation to the petitioner inasmuch as several other institutions are being run in non-institutional areas. It has been pointed out by the respondents that the institutions are not being run in residential accommodation. In any case no mandamus can be issued to the respondents which would have the effect of violation of any statutory provisions. The direction or permission to run an institute in a residential house is in conflict with the prescribed statutory prohibitions under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and the Building Bye laws framed there under.
25. The petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment dated 8th September, 2004 rendered in W.P.(C) No. 13940-42/2004 Strength India Education Society and Ors. v. Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. A perusal of the judgment would show that there was no issue with regard to prescribed or permitted user of the building wherein the institution was to be located in that case. For this reason, the same would have no application to the instant case.
26. Even assuming that any institution had been permitted to run in a premises which was built for a purpose other than that to which it was proposed to be put, the same would be of no benefit to the petitioner. It is well settled that the petitioner cannot base a claim on an illegality. Violation of the specific statutory mandate in any instance would confer no rights for a similar dispensation in favor of the petitioner.
27. For the same reason, the reliance of the petitioner on the pronouncement reported at 2001 VII AD (S.C.) 363 Anjuman-E-Islam v. The State of Karnataka and Anr. is misconceived and cannot be granted.
28. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on an order dated 10th August, 2004 passed in W.P. (C) No. 11438-39/2004 This order also was not passed in a case wherein there was any objection with the running of the institute in a building which is not intended for running an institution. Consequently the same would also have no application in the instant case.
29. The principles laid down in Vellore Educational Trust v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. also would not apply in the present case as the issues raised herein were not raised in the matter before the Apex Court.
30. So far as the pronouncement reported at , Gandhi Memorial Teachers Training College and Anr. v. the Kameshwara Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishvavidalaya and Ors. is concerned, the same has been cited in support of the plea of estoppel based on the grant of the no objection certificate for the previous academic year. The principles laid down in this pronouncement would not apply to the instant case for two reasons. Firstly, the requirement of obtaining the affiliation and the no objection certificate are on a yearly basis. An institution which has been granted the same for a particular year has to satisfy the requirement for every year. Secondly it has been found that the petitioner proposes to commence its educational institution in a residential premises which is clearly impermissible in view of the statutory provisions noticed hereinabove. For this reason, no binding on the plea of estoppel in favor of the petitioner can be held against the respondents.
31. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the observations in the order dated 10th March, 2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 8796/2003 to the effect that the petitioner cannot be required to acquire land which is a long term perspective and cannot be a reason for non-grant of recognition to the petitioner. There can be no dispute with this principle. No legal provision has been pointed out which mandates that the petitioner has to acquire the land on which the institution is situated from the DDA or any other authority. The institution can be raised on land obtained from any person or authority. However the aspect with regard to permissible user of the premises was not before the court at the time of hearing the earlier writ petition. The parties would be required to comply with the mandate of the DDA Act, 1957 and the provision of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and the building bye laws framed therein.
32. I find that the petitioner has made a claim for grant of compensation for the expenditure which has been incurred in providing the facilities. It has been contended that the petitioner was persuaded to incur this expenditure in view of the requirements of the no objection certificate dated 22nd May, 2003 given by the respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner was required to create the infrastructure. While a plea of ignorance of law is certainly not available inasmuch as the petitioner would have been aware of the permissible user of its premises, such a prayer requires consideration of evidence which the petitioner would have to lead with regard to the expenditure which it has incurred and to establish the same in accordance with law. Certainly the present proceedings are not the appropriate remedy for adjudication of such a claim. It is therefore made clear that there is no adjudication on this prayer of the petitioner and it shall be open for the petitioner to seek the same by way of any appropriate remedy, if so advised.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion and the position subsisting in law it has to be held that the petitioner is disentitled to any relief in the present writ petition. The same is consequently dismissed.