{"id":52105,"date":"2002-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002"},"modified":"2015-07-20T09:43:36","modified_gmt":"2015-07-20T04:13:36","slug":"institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002","title":{"rendered":"Institution Of Mechanical … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Institution Of Mechanical … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 250, 97 (2002) DLT 626<\/div>\n
Author: A Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
A.K. Sikri, J. <\/p>\n
 1.                     The  appellant herein known as `Institution of             Mechanical  Engineers  (India)’ has filed this  Letters             Patent Appeal under Clause (X) of the Letters Patent of             Judicature  at  Lahore as applicable to  Delhi  against             Order  dated 9-1-2002 passed by learned Single Judge of             this Court.  By the said order which has been passed in             CM.6240\/2001  in CW.3577\/2001 the learned Single  Judge             has  dismissed  the  said   application  filed  by  the             appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n
                        The  facts  leading to the filing of the  writ              petition  as  well as aforesaid CM are stated  in  some              detail  by  the  learned Single Judge in  the  impugned              order.   Therefore, it may not be necessary to  indulge              in  this  exercise all over again.  However,  still  it              would  be  appropriate  to  recapitulate  some  of  the              salient facts to understand the controversy involved in              the matter.\n<\/p>\n
 2.                       As  per  the  appellant Institute,  it  is  in            existence  for  over  85 years and is  a  renowned  and            respectable  institution which has churned out hundreds            and  thousands  of  engineers for the welfare  of  this            country.  It has over 75,000 students members and 1,000            corporate  members.   The appellant Institute  conducts            examination  for  award of certificate which is at  par            with   diploma\/degree.   It  is   mentioned  that   the            appellant  Institute  was working satisfactorily.   One            Mr.R.N.Engineer  became  President  of  the   appellant            Institute  who  held  charge till 30.8.99 when  he  was            voted  out at the Annual General Body meeting which was            held  in Delhi on 30.8.99.  After his ouster he started            conducting  a campaign against the appellant  Institute            and  this led to administrative enquiry against him  by            respondent  No.1.   However, the enquiry conducted  was            one  sided  without  giving   any  opportunity  to  the            appellant Institute.  The appellant by its letter dated            1.7.2000  presented its point of view to the respondent            No.1  and  welcomed the enquiry into its  affairs.   On            13-9-2000 respondent No.1 informed the appellant that a            High  Powered  Committee has been set up to review  the            functioning   of  the  appellant.    However,  as   the            appellant  felt that it was not granted any opportunity            to  explain  its stand, it filed CW.2739\/2001  in  this            Court  seeking  an  opportunity of hearing  before  the            respondents before reaching some conclusion.  This writ            petition  was dismissed by order dated 1.5.2001  giving            the  liberty  to the appellant to approach  the  Bombay            High Court.  It appears that the appellant did not file            any petition in the Bombay High Court.  In the meantime            on  9.5.2001, the High Level Committee held its meeting            at New Delhi and made the following recommendations:\n<\/p>\n
  “Summing   up  the   deliberations,   the                          Chairman  of  the  High  Level  Committee                          suggested that the recognition granted to                          IME(I) for their part I and II Technician                          Engineers  Examination and Section A &  B                          Associate   Membership   Examination   be                          temporarily  suspended for a period of  3                          months.\n<\/p>\n
   In the meanwhile.\n<\/p>\n
            a)  The  institute should take  immediate                          action  to  rectify  the defects  in  the                          system of examination and also remove all                          shortcomings  pointed  out by the  expert                          committee.   The  examination  should  be                          conducted   with  utmost   fairness   and                          secrecy.\n<\/p>\n
 b)  Revise the constitution, to ensure no                          person  becomes  an office bearer of  the                          Society for a period of more than 3 years                          in  one post and more than 6 years in all                          other posts.\n<\/p>\n
     c)  A fresh General Meeting be held under                          the  aegis  of  Registrar  of  Societies,                          Maharashtra.   The election should be  by                          Secret  Ballot  and a  proper  management                          structure should in place.”\n<\/p>\n
3.                     Based   on  the   aforesaid   recommendations,                notification   dated  23.5.2001  was   issued  by   the                respondent  No.1 whereby it was decided to  temporarily                suspend  the  recognition granted to  the  examinations                being conducted by the appellant Institute for a period                of  three  months and to withdraw the same in case  the                appellant  Institute failed to remove the  shortcomings                as  pointed out by the Committee within the  stipulated                time.     At   this    stage    the   appellant   filed                CWP.No.3577\/2001   in   this   Court  challenging   the                recommendations  of  the High Level Committee  and  the                proceedings  dated  9.5.2001  as well  as  notification                dated  23.5.2001.   Along  with   this  writ   petition                CM.6240\/2001  was filed for ad-interim relief.  In this                application the learned Single Judge passed order dated                30.5.2001 which is to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
“Since  the examination are to be held on                        14th  June  2001 and 25,000 students  are                        said  to be candidates the notice is made                        returnable  on  4th June 2001 before  the                        Vacation  Court.  The principal grievance                        of  the petitioner is that for an adverse                        order  of  suspension  of  three   months                        passed  on  9th May, 2001 the notice  was                        given  to the petitioner only on 8th  May                        2001   and   it  had   no   occasion   or                        opportunity  to  deal  with  the  adverse                        comments    against     the    petitioner                        Notice.\n<\/p>\n
                       Ms.   Monika  Arora   accepts  notice  on                       behalf of the respondents.                       Reply  be  filed on or before  2nd  June,                       2001 with advance copy to the counsel for                       the  respondent.   Rejoinder,   if   any,                       before  the next date of hearing.  It  is                       stated   by  Mr.Rajeev   Dutta,   learned                       Counsel appearing for the petitioner that                       the  notification dated 22nd May 2001 has                       not  yet  been gazetted.  Until the  next                       date  of  hearing the notification  dated                       22nd May 2001 shall not be gazetted”.\n<\/p>\n
 4.              Thereafter,  the  matter  came up  before  the
\n           learned  Single  Judge  from  time   to  time  and  the
\n           aforesaid  order  was  continued and on  18.9.2001  the
\n           following order was passed:\n<\/p>\n
                    “CMs.9180\/01, 6240\/01 in CW 3577\/01.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        The impugned order dated 9th of May, 2001
\n                      challenged  in the writ petition  related
\n                      to a final Report dated 20th of December,
\n                      2000 submitted by the Sub Committee based
\n                      on  the  visits of the respondent  No.1’s
\n                      officials  to  the petitioner  Institute.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      There    were     certain    suggestions,
\n                      observations  and recommendations in  the
\n                      said  report which are contained at pages
\n                      146-147 of the petition.  In the impugned
\n                      order, three directions are given at page
\n                      71  of the petition which are based  upon
\n                      the  alleged shortcomings pointed out  by
\n                      the  Expert Committee in its Report dated
\n                      20th of December, 2000.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        Mr.Dutta,  the  learned  Senior  Counsel,
\n                      appearing  fo the petitioner states  that
\n                      without  prejudice  to   its  pleas,  the
\n                      petitioner Institute will file a response
\n                      to  the  Report of the  Expert  Committee
\n                      dated  20.12.2000  within two weeks  from
\n                      today   and  will   attend  the   hearing
\n                      thereafter  before  respondent   No.1  as
\n                      suggested by Ms.Monica Arora, the learned
\n                      counsel for respondent No.1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        Response  be  filed on or before  3rd  of
\n                      October,  2001.  The hearing will be held
\n                      on 10th of October, 2001 at 2.00 P.M.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        The  hearing  of  the  case  before  this
\n                      Court,  stated for 10th of October,  2001
\n                      with  the  consent of the parties is  now
\n                      fixed  for 17th of October, 2001  instead
\n                      of  10.10.2001.   Accordingly,  the  case
\n                      need  not be listed on 10.10.2001  before
\n                      this court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Interim  orders to continue up to the next
\n                      date.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 5.               As  is  clear  from the  aforesaid  order  the
\n           appellant had to file its response to the report of the
\n           Expert  Committee  dated  20.12.2000 by  3.10.2001  and
\n           thereafter  hearing  was fixed before the Committee  on
\n           10.10.2001  at  2  PM.   The  appellant  submitted  its
\n           detailed  representation on 3.10.2001 for consideration
\n           by  the Expert Committee.  It also submitted additional
\n           representation  dated  10.10.2001.  On  10.10.2001  the
\n           representative  of  the  appellant along  with  counsel
\n           reached  the  venue  of meeting in  time.   They  were,
\n           however,  told  that  due to parliamentary  hearing  in
\n           which  concerned officer was involved hearing in  their
\n           case would be held at 3 PM or thereafter.  According to
\n           the  appellant’s version its counsel waited up to  2.25
\n           PM where after he left and gave his cell phone number to
\n           one  of the official there with request that he may  be
\n           informed  on  the cell phone as and when the  Committee
\n           wanted  to  start  the hearing.  When the  meeting  was
\n           convened by the Expert Committee, which started at 3PM,
\n           as  nobody  was  present on behalf  of  the  appellant,
\n           ex-parte  hearing  was  held.  We shall revert  to  the
\n           version  of  different parties about the  happening  on
\n           that  date.   At this stage it would be  sufficient  to
\n           notice  that  the  appellant  did   not  or  could  not
\n           represent  itself.   This resulted in passing order  of
\n           rejection  dated 5.11.2001 by the respondent No.1 which
\n           reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                        “The  compliance report submitted by  the
\n                      Institution   of   mechanical   Engineers
\n                      (India),  Mumbai dated 3-10-2001 and  the
\n                      representation   dated   10-10-2001  were
\n                      considered  by the Sub-Committee of  High
\n                      Level   Committee  for   recognition   of
\n                      education  qualifications.   It has  been
\n                      found  that the Institution has not taken
\n                      any  action to remove the shortcomings or
\n                      to   initiate    improvements    in   the
\n                      Constitution    of    the    society   of
\n                      Institution   of   Mechanical   Engineers
\n                      (India), Mumbai”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 6.                    Thereafter,  the  matter came up  for  hearing
\n           before the learned Single Judge from time to time.  The
\n           appellant  Institute  made a grievance that  no  proper
\n           opportunity  was  given by the respondent  No.1  before
\n           rejecting  the representation of the appellant by order
\n           dated  5.11.2001.  Various affidavits were filed by the
\n           appellants and the respondents.  Ultimately the learned
\n           Single  Judge passed the impugned order dated  9.1.2002
\n           vacating the interim order granted on 30.5.2001.\n<\/p>\n
 7.                   At  this  stage it may be mentioned  that  the
\n           respondent  No.3  known  as   “FORUM  FOR  FAIRNESS  IN
\n           EDUCATION” had moved an application for intervention in
\n           the  writ  petition which was allowed  and,  therefore,
\n           this  Forum was also heard.  The Forum is opposing  the
\n           writ  petition filed by the petitioner as well as grant
\n           of any interim order.\n<\/p>\n
 8. LPA.49\/2002 is also filed challenging the same
\n           order  dated 9.1.2002 passed by learned Single Judge by
\n           some  students.  Their submission is that they are bona
\n           fide  students  and the impugned order would  adversely
\n           affect their career.\n<\/p>\n
 9. It  may  be  mentioned  at  the  outset   that
\n           Mr.G.L.Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
\n           appellant  Institute  made a submission to  the  effect
\n           that  the main grievance of the appellant was non-grant
\n           of  sufficient and proper opportunity by the respondent
\n           No.1  even  after  agreed  order  dated  18.9.2001  was
\n           passed.   This,  according  to  him,  has  resulted  in
\n           violation  of  principles  of   natural  justice.   His
\n           submission  was  that the learned Single Judge did  not
\n           appreciate  or  looked into the matter from this  angle
\n           and  vacated the interim order granted on 30.5.2001  by
\n           impugned  order  on irrelevant grounds.   He  submitted
\n           that  the  impugned order would show that  the  learned
\n           Single Judge was influenced by following considerations
\n           in passing the order:\n<\/p>\n
                   A.   On 10.10.2001 when the hearing was  fixed
\n           by  the  Committee,  even if it did not start at  2  PM
\n           there  was  no  reason for the  representative  of  the
\n           appellant  Institute and his counsel to leave the place
\n           at  2.25 PM and they ought to have waited at least till
\n           3PM  when they were told that hearing would be  started
\n           at 3PM or thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
                     B.  The conduct of the appellant Institute was
\n           not  totally above Board as the appellant Institute had
\n           filed   a  suit  for   declaration   claiming   reliefs
\n           overlapping  with  those claimed in the  writ  petition
\n           without  disclosing in the said suit about the pendency
\n           of the writ petition in this court.\n<\/p>\n
                     C.   The three suggestions given by the Expert
\n           Committee  and  the Govt.  in the impugned  order  were
\n           ameliorative in nature which suggest serious deficiency
\n           in the academic conduct of the appellant Institute and,
\n           therefore,  it was necessary for the appellant to  take
\n           these steps.\n<\/p>\n
 10.                    The   learned  counsel   submitted  that   the
\n           aforesaid  reasons  for  vacating the  earlier  interim
\n           order were not cogent or based upon records.  Referring
\n           to  first  ground, his submission was that the  learned
\n           Single   Judge  although  accepted   the  plea  of  the
\n           appellant  Institute that its counsel Mr.A.V.Bajaj  who
\n           had  represented the appellant Institute on  10.10.2001
\n           was  not  well  and  also   accepted  that  it  is  the
\n           respondents  who  were  remiss by  not  conducting  the
\n           hearing  at  the time ordered by the Court but  at  the
\n           same time put the blame on the appellant from departing
\n           the venue of hearing at 2.25 PM.\n<\/p>\n
 11.                    Adverting  to the second ground the submission
\n           of learned counsel was that the suit which was filed by
\n           the  appellant  Institute was primarily  against  AICTE
\n           challenging the jurisdiction of AICTE to interfere with
\n           the  affairs of the appellant Institute and, therefore,
\n           that was altogether a different matter and there was no
\n           necessity  to mention the pendency of the writ petition
\n           in  that suit.  In any case, it was submitted, if there
\n           was some concealment of facts made in the suit filed by
\n           the  appellant Institute that could have adverse affect
\n           on  the grant of interim injunction in the suit and  it
\n           had   no  bearing  on  the   outcome  of  the   interim
\n           application  filed in the writ petition as there was no
\n           such concealment insofar as writ petition is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
 12.                    With  regard to third ground the submission of
\n           learned  senior  counsel  was that so  far  as  alleged
\n           deficiencies  pointed out by respondents are  concerned
\n           they  are  clearly misconceived and the  appellant  had
\n           challenged  the same in the writ petition.  In fact  it
\n           was  the  grievance of the appellant Institute that  it
\n           was  not  given  proper opportunity  and  the  material
\n           produced  by it were not considered by the  respondents
\n           which  led  to the passing of the impugned  order  and,
\n           therefore,  alleged  deficiency  should not  have  been
\n           taken  into  consideration while passing  the  impugned
\n           order.   His  further  submission was  that  since  the
\n           appellant was not given proper opportunity, the learned
\n           Single  Judge should have directed the respondent  No.1
\n           to  give this opportunity and in the meantime  continue
\n           the interim order dated 30.5.2001.\n<\/p>\n
 13.                    Before  dealing with the aforesaid submissions
\n           of  the appellant, it would be appropriate to reproduce
\n           the  relevant portion of the impugned order whereby  on
\n           the  three grounds mentioned above, the application for
\n           interim  relief  of the appellant was  dismissed.   The
\n           relevant  discussion  is  contained in paras 15  to  17
\n           which read as under:\n<\/p>\n
                        “Para15:     The     conduct    of    the
\n                      petitioner-Institute,  however,    leaves
\n                      much   to  be   desired.   The  following
\n                      instance  of  the petitioner’s  conducted
\n                      need  to be noticed and in my view  would
\n                      have  a vital bearing on the  continuance
\n                      of  the interim order.  The fact that the
\n                      petitioner-Institute  chose  to walk  out
\n                      from  the  hearing specifically fixed  by
\n                      this  Court  at a particular time on  the
\n                      plea  that the concerned officers did not
\n                      sit   at   the     stipulated   time   is
\n                      significant.   The  learned  counsel  for
\n                      respondent  No.1-UOI sought to rebut this
\n                      plea  by submitting that the hearing  was
\n                      delayed  due to a Parliamentary Committee
\n                      hearing  in  which the concerned  officer
\n                      was involved but the petitioner was given
\n                      adequate  notice  of the postponement  of
\n                      the   meeting.    In    particular    the
\n                      hand-written notation made by the counsel
\n                      for  the petitioner, Sh.A.V.Bajaj, on the
\n                      typed  representation  prepared   by  the
\n                      petitioner  dated 10th October, 2001,  is
\n                      significant.  It notes that at 2.20PM the
\n                      counsel  for the petitioner was told that
\n                      the   hearing   was    at   3.00PM.    Or
\n                      thereafter.  The petitioner’s counsel has
\n                      given  reasons  for his  early  departure
\n                      from  the hearing and the departure  from
\n                      Delhi  by  a late night flight.   Various
\n                      grounds  including grounds of  ill-health
\n                      of   the  counsel,   appearing  for   the
\n                      petitioner  in the hearing, fixed on 10th
\n                      of  October, 2001 at 2.00 PM pursuant  to
\n                      this   court’s   order   dated  18th   of
\n                      September,  2001.  Without going into the
\n                      veracity  of the affidavit of the counsel
\n                      for  the petitioner, prima facie it  does
\n                      appear  that the petitioner was not  over
\n                      anxious  to go on with the hearing  fixed
\n                      by this court on 10th of October, 2001 at
\n                      2.00  PM so as to grant the petitioner an
\n                      opportunity  to being heard which was the
\n                      principal   plea  in   the  present  suit
\n                      petition.   While  I do not for a  moment
\n                      doubt   the  medical   condition  of  the
\n                      counsel  of  the  petitioner as  per  his
\n                      affidavit.   There  is   no  satisfactory
\n                      explanation  of  the   departure  of  the
\n                      petitioner  and  his   counsel  from  the
\n                      hearing  at  2.25 PM.  While  the  Senior
\n                      counsel  for  the petitioner has  pointed
\n                      out  with  some vehemence that it is  the
\n                      respondents   who  were   remiss  by  not
\n                      conducting  the  hearing at  the  precise
\n                      time  ordered by this court and this plea
\n                      is   not  entirely   lacking  in   merit,
\n                      nevertheless  the   petitioner’s  conduct
\n                      does  show  that even the petitioner  was
\n                      not  anxious in the least to go with  the
\n                      hearing.   The departure from the site of
\n                      hearing at 2.25 PM by leaving a cellphone
\n                      number is not sufficient demonstration of
\n                      the  bonafides of the petitioner.   While
\n                      the   respondents  may   not  have   been
\n                      entirely  right  in  not  commencing  the
\n                      hearing at the precise time prescribed by
\n                      this  court  but   since  the  petitioner
\n                      enjoyed an interim order in its favor it
\n                      ought  to have at least waited till  3.00
\n                      PM.   The  time when the hearing  was  to
\n                      take  place  as per the  postponement  by
\n                      respondent No.1 before departing from the
\n                      place  of  hearing.  Presumably this  was
\n                      because   an  interim   order  had   been
\n                      operating in favor of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                        16.    The   other     ground   why   the
\n                      petitioner’s  conduct has been said to be
\n                      not  totally  above  board   as  per  the
\n                      respondents  contentions is the fact that
\n                      while  this writ petition was pending  in
\n                      this court the petitioner chose to file a
\n                      suit  for  declaration  claiming  reliefs
\n                      overlapping  with  those claimed  in  the
\n                      writ  petition  without   disclosing  the
\n                      pendency  of writ petition in this court.<\/p>\n
                      An  explanation is sought to be given for
\n                      this  omission but at this stage I am not
\n                      going  into  the   correctness  of  these
\n                      pleas.     In    so      far    as    the
\n                      intervenors-students’     pleas       are
\n                      concerned,  the  mere  fate  of  students
\n                      cannot  justify  the  continuance  of  an
\n                      interim  order which impedes the academic
\n                      functioning    of     the    institution.\n<\/p>\n
                      Furthermore   the    students    of   the
\n                      petitioner   institute  are   part   time
\n                      students  are  mostly employed  gainfully
\n                      and  no serious prejudice would be caused
\n                      to  them  by the vacation of the  interim
\n                      order.  In fact if the functioning of the
\n                      petitioner  institute  improves, it  will
\n                      only benefit the students.\n<\/p>\n
                        17.   In any case, I am of the view  that
\n                      even  on merits the impugned order giving
\n                      three  ameliorative suggestions as  noted
\n                      earlier.   In  the light of the facts  of
\n                      the  case  which   suggests  prima  facie
\n                      serious  deficiencies  in   the  academic
\n                      conduct  of  the petitioner  institution,
\n                      are  such types, interdiction of which is
\n                      not  required at the interim stage in the
\n                      present   writ  petition.     The   steps
\n                      indicated   merely   suggest    (a)   the
\n                      improvement   of   the   system  of   the
\n                      examination  as recommended by the Expert
\n                      Committee   (b)  the   revision  of   the
\n                      constitution  to  prevent   monopoly   of
\n                      office  bearers  and (c) the  holding  of
\n                      fresh  Annual  General Meeting.  I am  of
\n                      the view that the impugned directions are
\n                      not such so as to require an interim stay
\n                      by   this  court   and  accordingly,  the
\n                      interim  order  dated 30th of  May,  2001
\n                      stands  vacated with effect from 16th  of
\n                      January, 2002.”\n<\/p>\n
 14.                     It  may be mentioned that we are dealing  with
\n           the validity of the impugned order, which is an interim
\n           order   in  this  appeal.    Therefore,  we  would
\n           address  ourselves keeping in view the limited scope
\n           of  this  appeal viz. whether the learned Single
\n           Judge was right in dismissing the application for
\n           interim stay.\n<\/p>\n
 15.                   The first question that needs to be determined
\n           as  to whether the appellant Institute was given proper
\n           opportunity  on 10.10.2001.  It is significant to  note
\n           here  that  on  18.9.2001 an order,  almost  on  agreed
\n           terms,  was  passed  whereby and  whereunder  appellant
\n           Institute  was granted another opportunity to represent
\n           its  case  before  the Expert Committee.  In  fact  the
\n           order  clearly indicates that it was the suggestion  of
\n           the  learned counsel for the respondent No.1 which  was
\n           accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant which
\n           led  to  passing of that order.  In compliance of  this
\n           order  the  appellant  Institute   had  submitted   its
\n           response  to the report of the Committee.  It was to be
\n           given  oral  hearing for which date of  10.10.2001  was
\n           fixed  and time and venue was also fixed.  Hearing  was
\n           to start at 2PM as per the order.  It is not in dispute
\n           that  the  appellant’s  official   along  with  counsel
\n           reached  the  venue of hearing before 2PM.  It is  also
\n           not  disputed that hearing did not start at 2PM and the
\n           appellant was told that the same would start at “3PM or
\n           thereafter”.   It  is  not  necessary to  go  into  the
\n           reasons  as  to  why the hearing did not start  at  2PM
\n           although  the allegations of the appellant is that  the
\n           reason  given,  namely,  pre-occupation of one  of  the
\n           officers  in  the parliamentary committee  hearing  was
\n           false.  Fact remains that no definite time was given to
\n           the  appellant  as to when the hearing would start  and
\n           they  were told that the hearing would start at “3PM or
\n           thereafter”.   There  is  also  a  dispute  about   the
\n           circumstances under which the appellant and his counsel
\n           left at 2.25 PM The appellant has filed as many as five
\n           affidavits seeking to explain its position on the basis
\n           of  which  it  was argued by the respondents  that  the
\n           version given by the appellant is clearly false and the
\n           appellant  has  tried  to  improve  upon  its  version.
\n           However,  it  is also not necessary to go in all  these
\n           allegations.   Inasmuch  as  one  of  the  grounds  for
\n           leaving  early  was that Mr.A.V.Bajaj, counsel for  the
\n           appellant  was not feeling well and the learned  Single
\n           Judge has accepted the medical condition of the counsel
\n           of  the  appellant  as per his affidavit.  It  is  also
\n           accepted  by learned Single Judge that the  respondents
\n           were  remiss  by  not  conducting the  hearing  at  the
\n           precise  time  ordered by the court by  observing  that
\n           this  plea is not entirely lacking in merit.   However,
\n           the learned Single Judge has doubted the conduct of the
\n           appellant in leaving the venue of hearing at 2.25 PM on
\n           the  basis  of which it is inferred that the  appellant
\n           was  not  anxious in the least to go with the  hearing.
\n           At  the  same time it is also accepted by  the  learned
\n           Single Judge that while leaving the venue of hearing at
\n           2.25PM  the  appellant had given his cell phone  number
\n           but  it  is not treated as sufficient demonstration  of
\n           the  bona  fides of the appellant, observing  that  the
\n           appellant ought to have at least waited till 3PM.\n<\/p>\n
 16.                    The impugned order of the learned Single Judge
\n           would  itself  amply demonstrate that  the  explanation
\n           offered  by  the  appellant  to leave  at  2.25  PM  is
\n           virtually accepted.  It is also accepted that it is the
\n           respondents  who  should have conducted the hearing  at
\n           the  time ordered by the court, namely, at 2 PM.  It is
\n           also  accepted  that no definite time was mentioned  by
\n           the  respondents  as to when hearing would  start.   In
\n           such  a  situation when the respondent No.1 is also  at
\n           fault,  taking such a strict view by the learned Single
\n           Judge  simply  because  appellant  left  the  venue  of
\n           hearing  at  2.25 PM may not be appropriate.  It  could
\n           have  been  better  had  appellant waited  up  to  3PM.
\n           However,  keeping in view the medical condition of  the
\n           counsel for the appellant coupled with the fact that no
\n           definite time as to when hearing was to start was given
\n           by  the Expert Committee and that the appellant had  in
\n           any  case  left  its cell phone number  to  enable  the
\n           respondents to inform the appellant about the scheduled
\n           time  of hearing, would indicate that the appellant was
\n           not  to be blamed entirely and, therefore, it could not
\n           be  concluded that the appellant was not anxious in the
\n           least  to  go  ahead with the hearing.  After  all  the
\n           appellant’s  representative and its counsel had come to
\n           Delhi  from  Bombay and reached the venue at  appointed
\n           time.    Therefore,  we  feel   that  when  the  Expert
\n           Committee  was to start the hearing, the least that was
\n           expected  was  to  inform the appellant on  cell  phone
\n           number  given by the appellant.  In view of this  lapse
\n           on  the  part  of  the respondents  as  well  as  other
\n           circumstances  favoring  in  favor of  the  appellant
\n           Institute  pointed  out by the learned Single Judge  in
\n           the  impugned order itself, we are of the opinion  that
\n           the  appellant are not dealt with fairly in the conduct
\n           of proceedings on 10.10.2001.\n<\/p>\n
 17.                    When  the  respondents  had   agreed  to  give
\n           hearing  to  the  appellant,  it should  have  been  an
\n           effective  opportunity.  May be both the parties are to
\n           be blamed.  However, still we fell that ends of justice
\n           demand that the appellants be given another opportunity
\n           by the Expert Committee.\n<\/p>\n
 18.                     There  is yet another reason to arrive at this
\n           conclusion.    The   Committee    which   had   earlier
\n           deliberated,  consisted  of  14 members.   However,  on
\n           10.10.2001  it  is  the sub-committee  which  allegedly
\n           conducted the proceedings.  Therefore, even the hearing
\n           is  not  by the Expert Committee with all its  members.
\n           The  intention behind passing order dated 18.9.2001 was
\n           to  accord  the hearing to the appellant by the  Expert
\n           Committee and not its sub-committee.\n<\/p>\n
 19.                    For  the  aforesaid  reasons, we  are  of  the
\n           opinion  that  the appellants should be  given  another
\n           hearing.   Order  dated 5.11.2001 passed by  respondent
\n           No.1 is accordingly set-aside.  The Committee would fix
\n           date and venue, as expeditiously as possible and in any
\n           case within 15 days from the date and after hearing the
\n           matter, respondent No.1 would pass appropriate orders.\n<\/p>\n
 20.                     This  brings us to the next question,  namely,
\n           what  should be interim arrangement.  Even if we  agree
\n           with  the appellant Institute that they deserve another
\n           opportunity, it would not necessarily follow that order
\n           dated  30.5.2001  needs  to be restored  or,  for  that
\n           matter,  earlier  order dated 23.5.2001 passed  by  the
\n           respondent  No.1  needs  to  be stayed.   In  order  to
\n           succeed  in getting such a stay order the appellant has
\n           to  make  out  a  case for grant of such  an  order  on
\n           merits.   Interim  order  dated  30.5.2001  was  passed
\n           keeping  in view the fact that examinations were  going
\n           to  be  held on 14.6.2001.  However, at that stage  the
\n           merits of the matter for grant of interim order had not
\n           gone into.  This exercise for the first time is done in
\n           the  impugned  order dated 9.1.2001.  Third  ground  on
\n           which  stay  application  is dismissed by  the  learned
\n           Single Judge deals with this aspect.  It is observed by
\n           learned  Single Judge that even on merits the appellant
\n           was  not entitled to stay taking into consideration the
\n           three  ameliorative suggestions given by the High Level
\n           Committee  which  made   recommendations  on  9.5.2001.
\n           These  are already referred to in the opening paras  of
\n           this  judgment.   It  is further  observed  by  learned
\n           Single Judge that the steps indicated merely suggest:\n<\/p>\n
                      1.    improvement  of  the   system   of   the
\n           examination as recommended by the Expert Committee.\n<\/p>\n
                     2.   the  revision  of   the  constitution  of
\n           appellant  Institute  to  prevent  monopoly  of  office
\n           bearer.\n<\/p>\n
                     3.   holding of fresh annual general meeting.\n<\/p>\n
 21.                     Insofar   as  this  aspect  of  the  case   is
\n           concerned,  we  are one with the opinion  expressed  by
\n           learned Single Judge.  We are of the considered opinion
\n           that  no  interim stay need be granted.  We say so  for
\n           various reasons.  These are:\n<\/p>\n
                     (i)  The  alleged   irregularities  which  are
\n           pointed  out by the Committee cannot be lightly brushed
\n           aside.   No  doubt the Expert Committee would now  take
\n           final   view   after  hearing   the   appellant   which
\n           opportunity  was given by order dated 18.9.2001 without
\n           prejudice  to the contention of the parties.   However,
\n           while  taking prima facie view of the matter, this fact
\n           cannot  be  lost  sight  of that  respondent  No.1  had
\n           constituted  High Level Committee which had visited the
\n           appellant  Institute and based on their visit and study
\n           and after conducting the deliberations into the affairs
\n           of  the appellant Institute, report dated 9.5.2001  was
\n           submitted.  The order dated 23.5.2001 is passed whereby
\n           the  recognition is suspended by respondent No.1 for  a
\n           period of three months.\n<\/p>\n
                     (ii)  It  may also be noted at this stage,  as
\n           vehemently  contended by Mr.P.V.Kapoor, learned  senior
\n           counsel  appearing  for the Forum that the  High  Level
\n           Committee  was constituted by respondent No.1  pursuant
\n           to  directions given by the Bombay High Court in a writ
\n           petition  which  was a petition filed by way of  Public
\n           Interest Litigation.\n<\/p>\n
                     (iii)  If the stay of the impugned order dated
\n           23.5.2001 is given the effect of that would be to allow
\n           the  students  to  take  exams and  if  ultimately  the
\n           impugned  order  passed  by   the  respondent  No.1  is
\n           sustained  and  the  writ petition  is  dismissed,  the
\n           students  who  are  now permitted to take  exams  would
\n           claim  equities and such a situation would give rise to
\n           multiplicity  of litigation.  The Apex Court had  dealt
\n           with  this kind of situation number of times and it has
\n           been  emphasised  that interim\/interlocutory orders  of
\n           this   nature   permitting  the    students   to   take
\n           examinations     when      the       recognition     is
\n           suspended\/withdrawn  should  not be passed.   One  such
\n           case  is  Baba  Mungipa Medical  College  and  Research    Centre Students Guardian Forums & Anr.  Vs.  Government          of  Tripura & Ors.  .  We
\n           may  also  refer  to  the  case  of  K.John  Koshy  Vs.
\n           Tarakeshwar Prasad Shaw (Dr.),  as also
\n           case  of C.B.S.E & Anr.  Vs.  P.Sunil Kumar & Ors.   JT
\n           1998  (4) SC 105 and case of Central Board of Secondary
\n           Education  Vs.  Nikhil Gulati and another .   Reference  in this connection can also be made  to
\n           two  more  judgments  relied   upon  by  Mr.P.V.Kapoor,
\n           learned  counsel  for  the Forum.  The  first  case  is
\n           Dental  Council  of  India Vs.  Harpreet Kaur  Bal  and
\n           others  1995  Supp (1) SCC 304 wherein the  Apex  Court
\n           inter alia observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
                        “There  are  many pronouncements of  this
\n                      Court  cautioning  against   exercise  of
\n                      jurisdiction   characterised    more   by
\n                      benevolence   than  on    settled   legal
\n                      principles.   A  relief must be  such  as
\n                      could  be  considered permissible in  law
\n                      and  worked  out  by the  application  of
\n                      legally   recognised   principles.    The
\n                      decision  must  have legitimacy of  legal
\n                      reasoning   and  should   not  incur  the
\n                      criticism  of  lacking   objectivity   of
\n                      purpose    and    rational    and   legal
\n                      justification.    Where  an   educational
\n                      institution   embarks     upon   granting
\n                      admissions    without     the   requisite
\n                      affiliation  and  recognition   and   the
\n                      students  join the institution with their
\n                      eyes   wide  open  as  to  the  lack   of
\n                      legitimacy  in the admission, it would be
\n                      preposterous  to direct the University to
\n                      hold examinations for the benefit of such
\n                      students.  We cannot sufficiently deplore
\n                      this  attitude  and approach.   The  High
\n                      Court has, by its order, simply bolstered
\n                      the   hopes  and   aspirations  of  these
\n                      students  without any means of gratifying
\n                      these  expectations in a manner known  to
\n                      law.   We have, therefore, no  hesitation
\n                      in  setting aside the order under  appeal
\n                      as totally unjustified”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 The  second case is Chander Chinar Bada Akhara
\n           Udasin Society and others Vs.  State of J.  and K.  and
\n           others,  etc.     expressing  the  same
\n           sentiments.  These cases afford answer to the arguments
\n           put forth by Mr.Ravinder Sethi,Sr.Advocate on behalf of
\n           students.\n<\/p>\n
                     (iv)  Having  regard to the orders  passed  by
\n           Gujarat  High  Court  in  a petition  relating  to  the
\n           appellant  Institute,  to which detailed  reference  is
\n           made hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n
 22.                    Before parting we may also note another aspect
\n           of the matter.  AICTE is respondent No.2 in the present
\n           petition.  Mr.Ravi Gupta, learned counsel appearing for
\n           the  AICTE  submitted that after the enactment  of  All
\n           India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) Act by the
\n           Parliament,  recognition  of such an Institute  can  be
\n           only  by AICTE and when the appellant Institute is  not
\n           recognised  by  the  AICTE,  it  cannot  continue   its
\n           affairs.   In this connection, learned counsel referred
\n           to  various  provisions of the AICTE Act and  also  the
\n           judgments  of  Supreme Court in the cases of  State  of
\n           Tamil  Nadu  &  another Vs.   Adhiyaman  Educational  &
\n           Research Institute and others, etc.,   and  Jaya   Gokul  Educational  Trust  Vs.
\n           Commissioner   &   Secretary  to   Government,   Higher
\n           Education  Department,  Kerala  and  another  .\n<\/p>\n
 23.                    In  State of Tamil Nadu & Another Vs.Adhiyaman
\n           Educational  &  Research  Institute  and  Others,  etc.
\n           (Supra),  it was held that the provisions of the  AICTE
\n           Act  including  its preamble make it  abundantly  clear
\n           that  the  Council was established for coordinated  and
\n           integrated  development  of   the  technical  education
\n           system  at  all  levels throughout the country  and  is
\n           enjoined  to  promote qualitative improvement  of  such
\n           education  in relation to planned quantitative  growth.
\n           The  Council  is also required to regulate  and  ensure
\n           proper  maintenance  of  norms  and  standards  in  the
\n           technical  education  system.  It is also  required  to
\n           provide  guidelines  for admission of students and  has
\n           power  to  with-hold  or   discontinue  grants  and  to
\n           derecognise  the institutions where norms and standards
\n           laid down by it and directions given by it from time to
\n           time  are  not  followed.  It was held by  the  Supreme
\n           Court   that   the   Council    has   on   its   Board,
\n           representatives  not only of the States but also of the
\n           State  Universities  who  have a say in the  matter  of
\n           laying  down  the  norms  and standards  which  may  be
\n           prescribed  by the Council for such education from time
\n           to   time.   The  Council   has  further  the  regional
\n           committees  and  the constitution and functions of  the
\n           committees  are to be prescribed by the regulations  of
\n           the  Council.   It  was further held that  the  subject
\n           covered  by this statute is fairly within the scope  of
\n           Entry  66  of List I and Entry 25 of List  III.   These
\n           regulations  Along with  other regulations made  by  the
\n           Council  and  the  rules  to be  made  by  the  Central
\n           Government   under   the  Act   are  laid  before   the
\n           Parliament.   Hence,  on the subjects covered  by  this
\n           statute,  the State could not make a law under Entry 11
\n           of  List II prior to Forty-Second Amendment nor can  it
\n           make  a  law  under  Entry 25 of  List  III  after  the
\n           Forty-Second  Amendment.  It was held by the Court that
\n           if  there was any such existing law immediately  before
\n           the commencement of the Constitution within the meaning
\n           of  Article  372  of the Constitution,  as  the  Madras University  Act, 1923, on the enactment of the  present
\n           Central  Act,  the  provisions  of   the  said  law  if
\n           repugnant  to  the provisions of the Central Act  would
\n           stand  impliedly repealed to the extent of  repugnance.
\n           It  was  further  held  that under Section  10  of  the
\n           Central  Act  (AICTE  Act) it is the Council  which  is
\n           entrusted with the power, particularly, to allocate and
\n           disburse   grants,  to   evolve  suitable   performance
\n           appraisal  systems  incorporating norms and  mechanisms
\n           for   maintaining  accountability  of   the   technical
\n           institutions,  laying  down  norms  and  standards  for
\n           courses,    curricula,     staff      pattern,    staff
\n           qualifications,  assessment  and  examinations,  fixing
\n           norms and guidelines for charging tuition fee and other
\n           fees,  granting  approval  for starting  new  technical
\n           institutions  or introducing new courses or programmes,
\n           to  lay  down norms for granting autonomy to  technical
\n           institutions,  providing  guidelines for  admission  of
\n           students,  inspecting  or causing to inspect  colleges,
\n           for  withholding or discontinuing of grants in  respect
\n           of courses and programmes, etc. <\/p>\n
 24.                    He  also  referred to the writ petition  being
\n           Special Civil Application No.3883 of 2001 filed in High
\n           Court  of  Gujarat and order dated 9.10.2001 passed  in
\n           the  said writ petition wherein the Gujarat High  Court
\n           passed  the following observations in the writ petition
\n           relating to appellant Institute:\n<\/p>\n
                     “Further,  it  is not disputed  that  the
\n                      courses conducted by the said Institution
\n                      are not approved by the All India Council
\n                      for  Technical  Education,   a  statutory
\n                      body.   I am, therefore, of the view that
\n                      pending  this  petition,  the  respondent
\n                      No.3-Institution  shall not be  permitted
\n                      to  admit  students to its courses or  to
\n                      give   them  examination  or  award   the
\n                      degree\/diploma;   as  the  case  may  be,
\n                      until  such  courses are brought  at  par
\n                      with  that of the other institutions  and
\n                      the   courses  conducted  by   the   said
\n                      Institution, the examination given to the
\n                      students  and  the  manner in  which  the
\n                      project reports and the answer papers are
\n                      examined  are  approved by the All  India
\n                      Council for Technical Education.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        In above view of the matter, pending this
\n                      petition, the respondents No.3, 4 & 5 are
\n                      directed  not to advertise its courses in
\n                      the State of Gujarat nor they shall admit
\n                      any  student  who has  passed  qualifying
\n                      examination  from the State of Gujarat to
\n                      their   courses;   either   directly   or
\n                      through   any  agency,   nor  they  shall
\n                      conduct   any  examination   within   the
\n                      territories  of the State of Gujarat.  It
\n                      is  clarified  that the said  respondents
\n                      No.s  3,4 & 5 shall be at liberty to move
\n                      this  court  for  vacation of  the  above
\n                      injunction   after   its    courses   and
\n                      examinations  are  approved  by  the  All
\n                      India Council for Technical Education.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
25.                      No  doubt  this  order is applicable  for  the
\n           State  of  Gujarat, but it is persuasive enough for  us
\n           not to grant any indulgence by way of interim relief to
\n           the appellant Institute when respondent No.1 has itself
\n           taken steps to pass impugned order to similiar effect.\n<\/p>\n
 26.                    However,  we may observe that a suit has  been
\n           filed  by  the  appellant   Institute  challenging  the
\n           jurisdiction  of AICTE which is pending on the Original
\n           Side  of this Court and the appellant Institute as well
\n           as AICTE would be free to argue their respective points
\n           of  view in those proceedings.  As pointed out earlier,
\n           keeping  in  view the limited scope of  these  appeals,
\n           matter is considered taking prima facie view only.\n<\/p>\n
 27.                   In  view of the foregoing discussion,  subject
\n           to  direction relating to giving another opportunity to
\n           the appellant, these appeals are dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Institution Of Mechanical … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 250, 97 (2002) DLT 626 Author: A Sikri Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The appellant herein known as `Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India)’ has filed this Letters […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nInstitution Of Mechanical ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Institution Of Mechanical ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-20T04:13:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Institution Of Mechanical … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-20T04:13:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002\"},\"wordCount\":6049,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002\",\"name\":\"Institution Of Mechanical ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-20T04:13:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Institution Of Mechanical … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Institution Of Mechanical ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Institution Of Mechanical ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-20T04:13:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Institution Of Mechanical … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-20T04:13:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002"},"wordCount":6049,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002","name":"Institution Of Mechanical ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-20T04:13:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/institution-of-mechanical-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-january-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Institution Of Mechanical … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52105","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52105\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}