Telangana High Court
M/S. Sheena Agro Farms P Ltd. vs All India Council For Technical … on 7 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.17148, 17161, 17168 of 2017 and
8877 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
The issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically
interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together
and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ Petition No.17148 of 2017 is filed by the Sultan-Ul-Uloom
Educational Society and others, seeking following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and more particularly,
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
i) the action of the 1st Respondent in conducting title dispute adjudication
while processing approvals under the AICTE Act including by passing its
order dated 29.04.2017 in F.No.South-Central/1-6059891/2016/EOA
thereby withdrawal the approval of the 2nd Petitioner Institution order as
arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural
justice and set aside the same;
ii) direct the 1st Respondent to grant approval for the full sanctioned
intake for all the courses of the 2nd Petitioner Institution for the academic
year 2017-18;”
3. Writ Petition No.17161 of 2017 is filed by the Sultan-Ul-Uloom
Educational Society and others, seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and more particularly,
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
i) the action of the 1st Respondent in conducting title dispute adjudication
while processing approvals under the AICTE Act including by passing its
order of approval dated 29.04.2017 in F.No.South-Central/1-
3333652321/2017/NO Admission proving for zero admissions as
arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural
justice and set aside the same;
2
ii) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the order dated 29.04.2017
in F.No. AICTE/AOO/SCR2016 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and
in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same;
iii) Further direct the 1st Respondent to grant approval for the full
sanctioned intake for all the courses of the 2nd Petitioner Institution for
the academic year 2017-18…”
4. Writ Petition No.17168 of 2017 is filed by the Sultan-Ul-Uloom
Educational Society and others, seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and more particularly,
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
i) the action of the 1st Respondent in conducting title dispute adjudication
while processing approvals under the AICTE Act including by passing its
order of ‘withdrawal of approval’ dated 29.04.2017 in F.No. South-
Central/1-4414044/2016/EOA as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and
in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same;
ii) Further direct the 1st Respondent to grant approval for the full
sanctioned intake for all the courses of the 2nd Petitioner Institution for
the academic year 2017-18…”
5. Writ Petition No.8877 of 2019 is filed by M/s.Sheena Agro
Farms (P) Limited and other private companies and individuals
against the AICTE, Sultan-Ul-Uloom Society and others, seeking the
following relief:
“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus, to declare that the respondents 4 to 7 are not
entitled for extension of approval for the Academic Year 2019-20 and
subsequent years by the 1st respondent for running their respective
Educational Institutions, over the extent of petitioners property
admeasuring Ac.6-00 guntas, bearing No.8-2-249 to 269, forming part of
in Sy. No.359, Shaikpet village, situated at Road No.3, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad and consequently direct the 1st respondent to withdraw the
approval or not to extend the approval to the respondent 4 to 7
Institutions for the Academic Year 2019-20 and subsequent years, over
the above petitioners property…”
3
6. Writ Petition No.17168 of 2017 is taken up as a leading case to
decide the lis in this batch of cases.
7. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the
present writ petitions are:
8. It is stated that the petitioner is an Educational Society
(hereinafter referred as “Society”) registered under the provisions of
the Societies Registration Act, with the objective of establishing
institutions to promote educational facilities within the Muslim
community, established in the year 1980. It is further stated that
originally, the land admeasuring Ac.24.10 gts situated at Road No.3
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, belonged to Late Nawab Mir Usman Ali
Khan Bahadur, HEH Nizam-VII, Hyderabad. It is also stated that the
HEH Nizam-VII has formed a Trust known as Moazzam Jah Trust
(hereinafter referred as “Trust”) in the year 1949 for providing living
expenses and welfare of his family. It is stated that a Supplementary
Trust Deed was executed by H.E.H. the Nizam of Hyderabad on
08.01.1950. It is further stated that the said Trust purchased
property by obtaining permission from the Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, in Case No.237/2/1954-53 vide registered sale deed dated
01.05.1954 for the property bearing Municipal No.8-2-249 to 267
known as “Mount Pleasant”, totally admeasuring Ac.24.10 gts.
While-so, it is stated that the Government has acquired the said
4
property under Land Acquisition Proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.388, Ind.
& Com. Dept., dated 4-9-1976 and G.O.Rt.No.928, Ind. & Com.
Dept., dated 31-8-1979, and handed over the possession to Bharat
Heavy Electricals Limited (‘BHEL’). Subsequently, at the request of
Prince Moazzam Jah, the property has been released for establishing
educational institution. It is stated that the Trust claiming to be
purchaser, negotiated with the petitioner for disposal of the property
and various amounts have been received as part sale consideration
and petitioner society was put into possession. It is further stated
that disputing the possession of the petitioner, Mir Shahmat Ali
Khan filed suit vide O.S.No.1207 of 2000 on the file of XIV Junior
Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming to be in possession
of Ac.4.20 gts of the subject property and pending adjudication of the
said suit, disputes arose between the plaintiff therein and the
petitioner society and proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C were
initiated by the Special Executive Magistrate. Assailing the validity of
proceedings dated 18.8.2003 in File No B/570/98 issued by the
Special Executive Magistrate Hyderabad, under Section 145 Cr.P.C,
the petitioner society filed W.P.No.17739 of 2003, wherein interim
orders were granted and challenging the same, S.V.Nagaraja Reddy,
claiming to be Power of Attorney of Prince Mir Shahamat Ali Khan,
filed W.A.No.1687 of 2003. Vide common judgment dated
04.11.2003, W.P.No.17739 of 2023 was dismissed and Writ Appeal
5
No.1687 of 2003 was allowed. Questioning the said orders, the
petitioner society filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.1875-1876
of 2004 on the file of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same were
dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2004.
9. It is also stated that the Society was inducted into possession
by the Trust, initially as a tenant and subsequently, as purchaser. It
is stated that having come to know about acquiring the property
under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 (for short “ULC Act”), the petitioner society requested the
Government and the Government vide Memo No.619/ID/77-42 dated
25.09.1980 decided that the “Mount Pleasant” building in Banjara
Hills covered by Land Acquisition Proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.388, Ind.
& Com. Dept., dated 4-9-1976 and G.O.Rt.No.928, Ind. & Com.
Dept., dated 31-8-1979, which was in possession of M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd, Secunderabad, be returned to Prince Moazzam
Jah Trust for making it available for starting an Engineering College
sanctioned by Government. It is stated that the property in the
custody of the Government was released in favour of the Society from
BHEL and handed over to the Society for the purpose mentioned in
the Memo dated 25.09.1980. It is further stated that the Trust after
re-securing the possession has handed over the property under lease
for setting up an Engineering College and in terms of the agreement
6
with the Trust, the society has also deposited certain amount. It is
the case of the petitioner-society that since the date of handing over
the property, they are in possession by virtue of the agreements
executed by the Trust and their successors-in-interest. Meanwhile,
the Trust also submitted a representation to the State Government
seeking exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the ULC Act, 1976. The
Government while rejecting the request of the Society in Memo
No.817/UC(II)81-17 Revenue Department dated 16.08.1994, has
initiated proceedings under the ULC Act, and the Special Officer-
cum-Competent Authority, ULC, has passed orders under Section
8(4) of the Act, in File No.E2/5878/76 dated 19.03.2008 declaring
the Moazzam Jah Trust as surplus land holder to an extent of
89,087.07 sq.metres (Acs.22.01 gts). Aggrieved by the said orders,
the Society and others filed an appeal under the provisions of the
ULC Act. It is stated that pending adjudication of the said appeal,
Government issued G.O.Ms.No.459 dated 26.03.2008 granting
exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the ULC Act, subject to
petitioner society utilizing the exempted land for running educational
institution and it should not be leased out without prior permission
of the Government. It is further case of the petitioner that thereafter,
at the request of the Trust, the petitioner society agreed to purchase
the Mount Pleasant Building and appurtenant land and paid an
amount of Rs.2,05,70,000/- under various installments and the
7
society is in uninterrupted possession as a tenant under the
agreement of sale and petitioner society has established various
institutions on the said land. It is further case of the petitioner that
out of entire extent of land, an extent of Ac.1.30 gts has been
acquired by the GHMC for road widening and remaining portion is
used by the institutions as playground and parking area.
10. While the matter stood thus, Mrs.Princess Fathima Fouzia,
claiming to be eldest daughter of Late Prince Muzzam Jah Bahadur
and granddaughter of HEH Nizam-VII, Mir Osman Ali Khan,
instituted suits vide O.S.Nos.154 of 2003 and 181 of 2003 on the file
of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking declaration and
injunction in respect of the property in Sy.No.359 of Shaikpet Village,
bearing Municipal No.8-2-249 to 269 situated at Road No.3, Banjara
Hills, Hyderabad, with abutting open land admeasuring Ac.6.00 gts.
In the said suit, the Trust along with other purchasers were made as
defendants. The property claimed thereunder is the property forming
part of Ac.24.10 gts which was originally acquired by the
Government and subsequently handed over vide Memo dated
25.09.1980 to the Trust and thereafter, the said property was given
on lease in favour of the petitioner society. The said suits, after
contest were dismissed vide common judgment and decree dated
21.07.2003. The petitioner society as third party to the litigation has
8
filed City Civil Court Appeal No.21 of 2004 on the file of this Court
assailing Para 15.8 of the judgment and condition No.8 of the decree
alone passed in O.S.Nos.154 and 181 of 2003 and the same was
allowed vide judgment dated 18.06.2007 and the impugned findings
of the learned Trial Court given in Para 15.8 and condition No.8 of
the decree drawn inconformity therewith were set aside allowing the
petitioner society to prosecute its suit vide O.S.No.297 of 2004
instituted seeking declaration of right against the owners and the
said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.05.2014.
11. In the meanwhile, M/s. Seena Agro Farms (Pvt) Limited and
others represented by its authorized signatory, S.V.Nagaraja Reddy,
filed suit vide O.S.No.496 of 2015 on the file of Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad, stating that they have purchased various
extents of property through registered sale deeds, and the suit
schedule property therein constitute a single block admeasuring
Ac.6-00gts and said block forms part of Sy.No.359 of Shaikpet
Village with MCH No.8-2-249 to 269 and situated at Road No.3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. In the said suit, interim injunction was
granted vide I.A.No.2576 of 2015, restraining the society from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property or parking any vehicles in plaint schedule property
pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
9
society filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.364, 365, 430 and 438 of
2016 on the file of this Court. After contest, the said appeals were
allowed with costs vide order dated 29.12.2016 and interim
injunction granted in I.A.No.2576 of 2015 in O.S.No.496 of 2015 was
set aside. Questioning the said orders, the petitioners in
W.P.No.8877 of 2019 have filed S.L.P.No.7777 of 2017 on the file of
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was disposed of vide order
dated 24.04.2017 observing that there are various disputed facts and
mixed questions of law and facts involved in the case and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court directed the trial Court to decide the suit as
expeditiously as possible within a period of one year and the parties
to the said appeal were directed to maintain status quo with regard to
alienation or creation of any charge. It was further observed that the
observations made by the trial Court and the High Court shall not
come in the way of the trial Court to decide the matter finally.
12. While-so, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.496 of 2015 filed
W.P.No.19291 of 2016 on the file of this Court questioning the
G.O.Ms.No.459 dated 26.03.2008 issued by the respondent No.1
granting exemption to the petitioner society under Section 20(1)(a) of
the ULC Act, 1976. This Court vide interim order dated 21.06.2016
passed in WP MP No.23672 of 2016 in WP No.19291 of 2016
suspended the said exemption orders in respect of the land claimed
10
by the petitioners in W.P.No.19291 of 2016 i.e, plaintiffs in
O.S.No.496 of 2015 and the said Writ Petition is pending for
adjudication. It is stated that pending adjudication of said W.P, the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.496 of 2015 (petitioners in W.P.No.19291 of
2016) filed a complaint on the file of AICTE stating that part of the
land in occupation of the petitioner society belongs to the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.496 of 2015 and the petitioner society falsely representing
that they are owners of the property has obtained permission from
AICTE and therefore, requested to take appropriate action. Acting on
the said complaint, AICTE has issued notice to the petitioner society
vide proceedings in reference No.CVO/AICTE/2010/SCRO/16
(SUUS)79(ii)/1412 directing the petitioner-society to appear before
the One-Man Committee for enquiring into the said complaint. It is
stated that the petitioner society has submitted a detailed reply
dated 15.03.2016 to the Committee constituted by the AICTE, stating
the facts relating to title and possession of the subject property.
Pending adjudication of the said complaint, the alleged successors,
Ameena Merzia and Ooliya Kulsum claiming that they are the
successors/beneficiaries of the Trust and the society is not having
any right over the properties and the colleges established, requested
the AICTE, to take necessary action. It is further stated that the
petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to the said complaint before
the Committee constituted by the AICTE on 29.11.2016. Since the
11
complicated issues are involved to decide the title and lawful
possession and as the AICTE is not expertised to decide those issues,
a Two-Man Justice Committee headed by Justice N.L.Tibrewal
(Retired Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court) and Sri G.
Shankar, Architect, was constituted for rendering opinion on the
claims of inter se parties. The Committee, after hearing the petitioner
as well as all the contesting parties submitted its report dated
25.04.2017 stating that the petitioner society has not fulfilled the
requirements of the AICTE regulations for granting permission/
extension of permission, after the enactment of All India Council for
Technical Education Act, 1987 (“AICTE Act”) w.e.f. 28.12.1987.
Acting on the expert committee report, the AICTE issued proceedings
dated 29.04.2017 directing the petitioner society to produce all the
documents for granting recognition/extension of Approval. Aggrieved
by the orders passed by the AICTE stating that copy of the expert
opinion report has not been furnished and that the AICTE has not
taken into consideration the long possession and pendency of
various cases and also stating that the complainants are not having
any locus standi and that the observations made in O.S.No.496 of
2015 is the subject matter of status quo orders passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, and the disputes among the inter se parties have not
attained the finality and that Standing Appellate Committee of AICTE
cannot recommend for passing of the impugned orders in rejecting
12
the recognition/extension of approval, Writ Petition Nos.17161,
17148 and 17168 of 2017 have been filed.
13. This Court vide common order dated 09.06.2017 in
W.P.Nos.17161, 17148 and 17168 of 2017 granted interim
suspension of impugned orders dated 29.04.2017 passed by the
AICTE on the following conditions:
a) The petitioners shall disclose to the students, who are
seeking admission in the 2nd petitioner/college about the
pendency of the civil case and this writ petition.
b) An undertaking shall be taken from the students, who are
joining in the 2nd petitioner/college indicating their
awareness about the litigation and that they will not claim
any equities later.
14. Aggrieved by the common order dated 09.06.2017 passed by
this Court in W.P.Nos.17161, 17148 and 17168 of 2017, the
respondents filed Writ Appeal Nos.782, 784, 787, 796 and 800 of
2017 on the file of this Court and the same were dismissed vide
common judgment dated 27.06.2017. Subsequently, the AICTE also
filed Writ Appeal Nos.943, 944 and 953 of 2017 on the file of this
Court and the same were also dismissed vide common judgment
dated 14.07.2017. Assailing the same, Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Nos.32973, 34546 and 34508 of 2017 have been filed on the file of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the same were dismissed vide order
dated 01.12.2017 with an observation that the orders of the Division
Bench of this Court, shall not come in the way of final decision.
13
15. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the record.
16. Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.17148, 17161 and 17168 of 2017, submitted
that Two-Man Justice Committee Report, which is the sole basis for
passing of the impugned orders, was not provided to the petitioners.
It is further submitted that constitution of Two-Man Justice
Committee is without jurisdiction and there is no provision under the
AICTE Act, its Regulations, or the AICTE Approval Process Handbook
(APH) that permits the formation of such a Committee. The
Regulation 16.7 of the APH mandates a quorum, which the
committee does not meet and thereby rendering it wholly without
jurisdiction. The Committee exceeded its authority by adjudicating
title disputes between the parties, which is impermissible in law. It
reviewed the society’s ongoing legal disputes and rendered a decision
on ownership, which statutory authorities are not empowered to do.
The complaints considered by the AICTE were limited to title issues.
Despite the same, the AICTE improperly investigated matters
unrelated to the complaint, such as building plans and Occupancy
Certificates (OCs). Even the final impugned order only addresses
title, requesting the petitioner institution to produce a title deed,
confirming that building plans or OCs were not relevant to the
14
decision. Further, the learned Senior Counsel argued that the
complainant, Mr. S.V. Nagaraja Reddy, has no locus standi to file
complaint as the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of
Shahmath Ali Khan, since the GPA was canceled. The suit vide
O.S.No.942 of 2011 filed challenging the cancellation of GPA, was
dismissed. Therefore, the AICTE should not have entertained the
complaint. The Standing Appellate Committee (SAC), which reviewed
the committee’s report, acted contrary to the APH. According to
Regulations 1.11 and 2.24, the SAC can only be constituted if an
appeal is filed by the institution. In this case, no such appeal was
filed, making the SAC’s involvement illegal and without jurisdiction.
The petitioner society has fulfilled the AICTE’s title requirements. It
entered into an agreement of sale with the Muazzam Jah Trust,
paying full sale consideration and filed a suit for specific performance
vide O.S.No.297 of 2004. It is further submitted that in the
proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was recorded that
Shahmath Ali Khan had no claim over the property, and the Trust
expressed its willingness to execute a registered sale deed.
Accordingly, a compromise memo was recorded, confirming payment
of entire sale consideration and the suit was dismissed as
withdrawn. Thus, the society has established possessory title, and no
one, including the trust, can claim better title than the society. The
AICTE’s requirement under Regulation 6.17(b) of the APH is satisfied
15
by valid document under the Transfer of Property Act or other
applicable law. The petitioners have complied with the requirements
through possessory title recognized under Article 141 of the
Constitution. The society could not execute a formal sale deed due to
pending legal proceedings. It is further submitted that in view of the
order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court directing to maintain
status quo further alienation of the property has been prevented.
However, those proceedings do not affect the possessory title of the
society. The claim of the respondents that the petitioner-society is
not in possession of Ac.6-00gts of land is false. Although proceedings
under Section 145 CrPC initially granted possession to S.V.Nagaraja
Reddy, those orders were challenged and set aside in the judgment
dated 18.06.2007 passed in CCCA No.21 of 2004. As a result, the
petitioner-society retains possession of entire land admeasuring
Ac.24.10 gts. The focus of the AICTE to produce building plans and
Occupancy Certificates is irrelevant to the complaint. Further, the
petitioner has produced building plans and Fire Services Certificate,
structural stability and fitness certificates confirming compliance
with regulatory requirements. The AICTE’s infrastructure
requirements aim to ensure building safety and adequate facilities
and the petitioner society meets those standards, as confirmed in the
inspection report, 2024 and there is no allegation of unsafe
structures or inadequate infrastructure. Thus, the action of the
16
AICTE amounts to an impermissible review of title disputes, which is
not within its jurisdiction. Withdrawing approval despite compliance
would cause significant hardship to over 6,000 students presently
enrolled in the petitioner-institution. The AICTE has consistently
granted approvals to the institution since its inception in the year
1987. In the year 2012, the AICTE defended those approvals in
response to legal challenges, and the Courts upheld them,
recognizing the AICTE’s awareness of the title disputes. The AICTE
cannot now revisit or revoke those approvals arbitrarily. Thus the
learned Senior Counsel submits that the constitution of the Two-Man
Justice Committee and the impugned order are without jurisdiction
and failure to provide committee’s report violates principles of
natural justice, and the AICTE’s attempt to conduct a title inquiry is
unlawful. Further, the petitioner society satisfied all the
requirements of AICTE including title and infrastructure norms. In
support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the
decisions viz., ECIL v. B.Karunakar 1, Hyderabad Potteries vs.
Collector 2, P.Subba Rao vs. The Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority (HMDA) 3, K. Pavan Raj vs. MCH 4, Rame
1
(1993) 4 SCC 727
2
2001 (3) ALD 600
3
Common Judgment dated 17.11.2022 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.513 and 516 of 2022 by
the Division Bench of this Court.
4
(2008) 1 ALD 792
17
Gowda vs. M.Varadappa Naidu 5 and Poona Ram vs. Moti Ram 6
and ultimately prayed to allow the writ petitions.
17. Mr.B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners in W.P.No.8877 of 2019 vehemently contended
that the petitioners purchased the property under registered sale
deeds and they have also instituted a suit vide O.S.No.496 of 2015,
wherein initially injunction was granted and the same was reversed
vide judgment dated 29.12.2016 passed in Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal No.364, 365, 430 and 438 of 2016 by a Division Bench of this
Court. Questioning the same, the petitioners in W.P.No.8877 of
2019 filed S.L.P.No.7777 of 2017 on the file of Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 24.04.2017
directing both parties to maintain status quo in all respects. It is
further submitted that exemption proceedings issued by the
Government in favour of the petitioner-Society under 20(1)(b) of the
ULC Act, 1976 vide G.O.Ms.No.459 dated 26.03.2008 has been
assailed in WP No.19291 of 2016 and this Court vide interim order
dated 21.06.2016 in WP MP No.23672 of 2016 suspended the said
exemption orders in respect of the land claimed by the petitioners in
W.P.No.19291 of 2016 i.e, plaintiffs in O.S.No.496 of 2015.
Therefore, the petitioner society is not entitled to say that it is the
5
(2004) 1 SCC 769
6
(2019) 11 SCC 309
18
owner/agreement holder of the property, more particularly, when the
validity or otherwise of the exemption orders is sub judice before the
Court. It is further contended that the property in question has been
purchased by the petitioners in W.P.No.8877 of 2019 and as such,
they are having locus to agitate their grievances before all the forums
including AICTE, which granted approval in favour of the society
based on invalid documents and contrary to the AICTE Regulations.
It is further submitted that as petitioner society failed to fulfil the
requirements of AICTE Regulations, the AICTE is conferred with the
power of withdrawal of Approval. The society having participated
before the expert committee/Two-Man Justice Committee is not
having right to dispute the opinion rendered by the said Committee
for contemplating the impugned action by the AICTE and Writ
Petition Nos.17148, 17161 and 17168 of 2017 filed by the petitioner-
society are not maintainable.
18. On the other hand, Mr. K.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the AICTE would submit that AICTE being the
statutory authority is empowered under the Regulations to insist the
institutions to produce the documents to the satisfaction of the
requirements of Approval as prescribed in Clause 4.9(a) of All India
Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical
Institutions) Regulations, 2020. It is also submitted that all the
19
existing educational institutions shall invariably fulfill the conditions
imposed in Clause 6.17(a)(b) of AICTE Regulations and all the new
institutions have to fulfill the requirements of Clause 1.5.1(a)(b)(c). It
is further submitted that as per Clause 4.9 of the AICTE Regulations,
all the Technical Institutions shall fulfil the requisite norms as
specified in the Approval Process Handbook and further produce the
documents showing ownership of Land/Building as per the
provisions of Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or any
other Law for the time being in force relating to transfer of property
to or by Companies, Associations or bodies of individuals, in the
name of the Applicant in the form of Registered Settlement Deed/
Registered Sale Deed/ Irrevocable Gift Deed (Registered)/ Irrevocable
Government/ Private Lease Deed (Registered) (for a period of
minimum 30 years with at least 25 years of live Lease at the time of
submission of application). It is also stated that as per Clause 5.6(h)
of AICTE Regulations, for extension of Approval, the institutions have
to file an affidavit that institutions will abide all the terms and
conditions laid down in the Approval Process Handbook, issued from
time to time stating that the declaration of information and
documents submitted for Extension of Approval is true, complete and
nothing is false and that there is no dispute pertaining to the land
and if any information is found to be false, misleading, the AICTE
shall free to take any action, including withdrawal of the Approval. It
20
is stated that the affidavit filed by the petitioner is in the nature of
half-disclosure of the facts about pendency of the litigation and as
such, the AICTE is conferred with the power for withdrawal of the
approval. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that
in the reply filed before the Two-Man Justice Committee, the
petitioners admitted that they do not have ownership documents in
their name and have not produced the approved building plans
issued by the GHMC or the Occupancy Certificates as required under
the Municipalities Act. Therefore, in the absence of these documents,
the petitioner society cannot assert that it has complied with all
requirements relating to ownership, title, and built-up area details
concerning the institutions, as stated in their affidavit. On this
ground alone, the petitioner society is not entitled to the grant of
Approval or Extension of Approval. The learned Senior Counsel
further contends that the AICTE has not adjudicated any title
disputes but has required the petitioner to comply with the
instructions in the Handbook and provide valid title documents as
per AICTE Regulations. It is also submitted that, since the AICTE
lacks the technical expertise to conclude that the documents
provided by the petitioner society confer ownership or lawful
possession, a Committee has been constituted to render an opinion
on the documents submitted for appropriate action. This action does
not amount to violation of the petitioner’s guaranteed rights; rather,
21
it reflects an appreciation of the case from a proper perspective. It is
further submitted that, as the petitioner society was given an
opportunity to submit the necessary documents with sufficient time,
this does not constitute punitive action against the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner has not made a case to claim that the non-
furnishing of copy of the Opinion/Report violates the principles of
natural justice, as the petitioner’s rights have not been adversely
affected by the report. In fact, granting of the initial approval itself is
legally unsound, and this cannot be perpetuated through continuous
renewals. In the absence of any illegality or legal infirmities in the
impugned orders, this Court, in its summary jurisdiction, cannot
arrive at a conclusion to review the decision taken by an authority
constituted under the Statute. In support of his submissions,
learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions viz., Parshvanath
Charitable Trust and others vs. All India Council for Technical
Education and others 7, AICTE v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan 8,
A.M. Kanniappa v. AICTE 9, AP Christian Medical Society v. Govt.
of AP 10, Dr. Ambedkar Institute v. Vaibhav Singh 11, Haryana
7
(2013) 3 SCC 385
8
(2009) 11 SCC 726
9
(1998) SCC Online Mad 1673
10
(1986) 2 SCC 667
11
(2009) 1 SCC 59
22
Financial Corp. v. Kailash 12, Aligarh Muslim University v.
Mansoor Ali 13 and Gadde Venkateshwara Rao v. Govt. of AP 14 –
19. Mr.M.Govind Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that his clients are successors of the Trust
and in the absence of their consent, any sale or agreement created in
favour of the petitioner society is invalid. It is argued that the
petitioner society is not entitled to claim any rights of the Trust,
unless its right is established before a competent Court. Therefore, it
has no basis to claim ownership, and its alleged possession cannot
be considered lawful under the AICTE Regulations. Consequently,
the action taken by the AICTE in withdrawing approval is legal and
does not warrant interference in the light of the facts of the case and
ultimately prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
20. Before adverting to the various issues raised in this batch of
writ petitions, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the
provisions of AICTE Act and the Regulations made thereunder for
granting Approvals to technical institutions.
21. It is apt to refer the object of the All India Council for Technical
Education Act, 1987 (for short “AICTE Act”) and the Regulations
issued thereunder from time to time for granting Approvals to
12
(2008) 9 SCC 31
13
(2000) 7 SCC 529
14
AIR 1966 SC 828
23
technical educational institutions. The Parliament enacted the AICTE
Act in the year 1987 with a view to organizing the technical
education system throughout the country, promoting qualitative
improvement in education, and regulating and maintaining norms
and standards in the technical education system. Section 3 of the
AICTE Act provides for establishment of All India Council for
Technical Education. Section 10 of the AICTE Act deals with
functions of the Council and it shall be the duty of the Council to
take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and
integrated development of technical education and maintenance of
standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under the
Act. Section 10(i) states that the Council may lay down norms and
standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities,
staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment
and examinations. As per Section 10(r), the Council shall take steps
to strengthen the existing organisations, and to set up new
organisations to ensure effective discharge of the Councils
responsibilities and to create positions of professional, technical and
supporting staff based on requirements. Section 23 of the AICTE Act,
confers power on the council by notification in the Official Gazette to
make regulations and the Rules to carry out purposes of the Act.
24
22. As per the AICTE Approval Process Handbook (APH) for the
academic year 2012-13, all existing institutions were mandated to
comply with the provisions of AICTE Act, 1987 which outlines
specific requirements necessary to establish and operate technical
education programs in India. Clause No.2.4(a) of APH states that the
promoter society/trust/A company established under Section 25 of
Companies Act 1956, of a new technical Education Institution shall
have the land as required and prescribed in its lawful possession
with clear title in the name of the promoter society/trust/A company
established under Section 25 of Companies Act 1956, on or before
the date of submission of application.
23. In exercise of its powers conferred under sub-section (1) of
Section 23 read with Section 10 and Section 11 of the AICTE Act,
and in supersession of the All India Council for Technical Education
(Grant of Approvals for the Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2012
regarding grant of approval for starting new Technical Institutions,
introduction of Courses or Programmes and increase/variations of
intake capacity of seats for the Courses or Programmes, Extension of
Approval, the All India Council for Technical Education framed
Regulations called as “All India Council for Technical Education
(Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2016”. As
per Clause 4.11 of Regulations, 2016, the Council shall publish, from
25
time to time, Approval Process Handbook detailing the documents to
be attached to the application, the fee to be remitted, the norms and
standards, requirements and the procedure by which the
applications are processed for grant of approval of existing
Institutions/Promoters. As per Clause 4.12 of Regulations, 2016 the
applications received under Clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of Regulations shall
be processed as per the procedures, norms and standards prescribed
in the Approval Process Handbook as notified by the Council from
time to time in addition to the existing Central, State and Local Laws.
As per Clause 4.35, the applicants are expected to provide the
Council true and complete information and documents required for
various purposes. If the information given and/or the documents
provided to the Council are found to be false, incomplete and/or the
applicants have failed to disclose factual information and/or
suppressed/misrepresented the information, the Council shall
initiate action including Withdrawal of Approval/or any other action
as deemed necessary against the applicants. As per Clause 4.36,
AICTE shall also conduct from time to time inspections with or
without notifying dates in such cases where specific complaints of
falsification of documents, misrepresentation, violation of norms of
standards, malpractices, etc. are received. Clause 6 of the
Regulations specifically deals with the requirement of the land and
built-up area. Clause 6.1 states that the Promoter Society/Trust/
26
Company of a new Technical Education Institution shall have the
required land as mentioned in Approval Process Handbook in its
lawful possession with clear title in the name of Promoter Society/
Trust/ Company on or before the date of submission of application.
Further to that it shall be open for the Promoter Society/Trust/
Company to the proposed Institution to mortgage the land after the
receipt of letter of approval, only for raising the resources for the
purpose of development of the Technical Education Institution
situated on that land. Further to that it shall be open for the
Promoter Society/Trust/Company of the existing Institution to run
other Educational Courses/Institutions (Technical/Non-Technical) in
the surplus land arising out of prevailing/reduced norms of land
requirement. However, such surplus land can be used as per the
land use certificate given to the Society/Trust/Company by the
concerned authority subject to such Courses/Institutions having
their own facilities to conduct such Programmes without sharing the
essential facilities such as class room, laboratory etc. with the
already approved Technical Institution. However, Common amenities
such as Canteen, Auditorium, Playground, Parking, etc. may be
shared provided it caters to all the students of all the Programmes.
Clause 8 which deals with withdrawal of Approval states that if any
Technical Institution contravenes any of the provisions of relevant
Regulations, the Council after making appropriate inquiry through
27
Standing Hearing Committee (SHC) and after providing an
opportunity of being heard through the Standing Appellate
Committee (SAC) shall withdraw the approval granted. In case of
Withdrawal of Approval to the Institution, the Technical
Institution/Society/Trust/Company shall apply afresh for approval
after completion of two Academic Years for setting up a new
Institution as per the procedure defined in Approval Process
Handbook. Clause 11 which deals with Complaint Cases states that
in case of receipt of any complaint(s) about an Institution, the same
shall be processed by Grievance Redressal Cell (GRC) of AICTE. The
complaint shall be placed before a Standing Complaint Scrutiny
Committee (SCSC) for further necessary action. If necessary the
complainant may be called to appear before SCSC at his/her own
cost. Based on the recommendation of SCSC, a warning or Show
Cause Notice may be issued to the Institution or EVC may be
conducted. If an EVC was conducted or Show Cause notice was
issued based on complaints, the same shall be placed before the
Standing Hearing Committee (SHC). A representative of the
Institution shall be called to place their point of view before the
Standing Hearing Committee. If necessary, the complainant may be
called to appear before SHC at his/her own cost. The
recommendations of SHC shall be placed before the EC for approval.
The decision of the EC shall be communicated to the Institution by a
28
detailed Speaking Order. If the Institution is aggrieved by the
decision of the EC, the Institution shall have the right to appeal as
per the procedure in Chapter I of Approval Process Handbook.
24. The petitioner-institution was established as society and
registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act,
1860. Originally the land admeasuring Ac.24.10 gts situated at Road
No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, belonged to Late Nawab Mir Usman
Ali Khan Bahadur, HEH Nizam-VII, Hyderabad. It is stated that HEH
Nizam-VII formed a Trust in the name of Moazzam Jah Trust in the
year 1949. The petitioner society has obtained the land initially as a
tenant and subsequently, claiming right as an agreement holder from
the said Trust. The Government issued a Memo No.619/ID/77-42
dated 25.09.1980, which reads as under:
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (ID) DEPARTMENT.
Memorandum No.619/ID/77-42 Dated 25-9-1980.
Sub: – Land Acquisition – Ranga Reddy District, Shaikpet Village –
Building “Mount Pleasant” in Banjara Hills in possession of
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. – Handing over to the Prince
Mussan Jah Trust – Instructions – Issued.
Ref:- 1) From the General Manager, Hanagement Development
Institute, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Secunderabad, letter
No.BHE/MDI/OM/30, dated 2-6-1980.
2) From the Secretary, Prince Muzzam Jan Trust, Hyderabad,
letter dated 18-9-1980 to the Secretary to Government,
Industries and Commerce Department.
29
The Government have considered the request made by the Prince
Muzzan Jah Trust, Hyderabad in their letter second cited to return the
building “Mount Pleasant” in Banjara Hills covered by Land Acquisition
Proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.388, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 4-9-1976 and
G.O.Rt. No.928, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 31-8-1979, now in possession
of M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Secunderabad to the above Trust
to start an Engineering College, recently sanctioned by Government. The
Government have considered the request and decided that the building
may be taken possession of from M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Secunderabad and returned to Prince Muzzam Jah Trust for making it
available for starting an Engineering College recently sanctioned by
Government, as decided by the Trust.
2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District is requested to take
possession of the said building from M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Secunderabad and return it to the above Trust immediately and report
compliance to Government.
B. PRATAP REDDY,
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.
To
The District Collector,
Rangareddy District, Hyderabad.
Copy to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries),
Hyderabad
Copy to the Secretary, Prince Muzzam Jah Trust, Parade Villa,
Hyderabad-1.
Copy to the General Manager, Management Development Institute, 39,
Sarojini devi Road, Secunderabad-500003.”
25. A careful reading of the aforesaid memo reveals that the
“Mount Pleasant” building in Banjara Hills, acquired by the
Government through Land Acquisition Proceedings via
G.O.Rt.No.388, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 4-9-
1976, and G.O.Rt.No.928, Industries & Commerce Department,
dated 31-8-1979, and the possession of which was with M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd., Secunderabad, was handed over to the Prince
Moazzam Jah Trust for establishing an Engineering College. Except
30
issuing the said Memo, the Government has not executed any
conveyance deed transferring the property in favour of the petitioner-
society complying the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
There is no material on record to show that the land acquired as
stated in the Memo dated 25.09.1980 was released in favour of the
petitioner on payment of market value or any conveyance deed was
executed. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.459 dated 26.03.2008
granted exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the ULC Act, subject to
petitioner society utilizing the exempted land for running educational
institution and it should not be leased out without prior permission
of the Government. Admittedly, as on date, there is no valid transfer
in favour of the Society, strictly following the provisions of Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. Further, in Appendix 17 of the Approval Process
Handbook 2016-17, Clause 17.0 deals with documents to be
submitted for issuance of Extension of Approval of Existing
Institutions. The required documents are:
i) A copy of the Registration Certificate and Trust Deed / Registration
Certificate of the Society.
ii) Memorandum of Association and Rules.
iii) Details of Board of Governors of the Institute constituted as per
Appendix 18.
iv) The registration document establishing that the land on which the
concerned technical Institution is located is in legal possession of
sponsoring trust / society as the case may be;
v) Land use Certificate establishing that Competent Authority has
allowed the use of the land on which the concerned Institution is located
is for educational purpose and for the purpose of establishment of the
Institution concerned.
31
vi) Khasra plan (Master plan) to show that the land is contiguous issued
by the Competent Authority.
vii) Final building and floor plan duly approved by the competent
authority.
viii) Certificate from an architect registered with Council of Architecture
regarding total built up area of the building and carpet area of each
room.
ix) The Letter of Approval, initially given by the AICTE, at the time of
establishment of the Institution approved by the AICTE;”
26. After the AICTE Act, came into force, the petitioner institution
has made an application for granting Extension of Approval. The
AICTE, relying on the affidavit filed and documents enclosed has
granted Extension of Approval to the petitioner-institutions. While-
so, petitioners in W.P.No.19291 of 2016 (plaintiffs in O.S.No.496 of
2015) has submitted a complaint on the file of the AICTE stating that
the petitioner society has not submitted valid documents either for
title or for possession for seeking approval or extension of Approval
as per the provisions of the AICTE Act or complied with the AICTE
Regulations and requested to cancel the Grant of Approval/
Extension of Approval. Acting on the said complaint, AICTE has
issued notice to the petitioner society vide proceedings in reference
No.CVO/AICTE/2010/SCRO/16(SUUS)79(ii)/1412 directing to
appear before the One-Man Committee for enquiring into the said
complaint. It is stated that the petitioner society has submitted a
detailed reply dated 15.03.2016 to the Committee constituted by the
AICTE, stating the facts relating to the title and possession of the
32
society. Pending adjudication of the said complaint, the alleged
successors, Ameena Merzia and Ooliya Kulsum claiming that they
are the successors/beneficiaries of the Trust had submitted a
complaint stating that the society is not having any right over the
properties and the colleges and requested the AICTE to take
necessary action. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted a
detailed reply to the said complaint before the Committee constituted
by the AICTE on 29.11.2016. Since the complicated issues are
involved to decide the validity of the documents and as the AICTE is
not expertised to decide such issues, a Two-Man Justice Committee
headed by Justice N.L.Tibrewal (Retired Acting Chief Justice of
Rajasthan High Court) and Sri G. Shankar, Architect, was
constituted for rendering opinion on the claims of inter se parties.
27. The Expert Committee has issued notice to both parties and
afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and directed the
petitioner-society to submit the following documents:
(i) The ownership/land title documents with regard to the land and
building meant for running the above three institutions approved by the
AICTE.
(ii) Approved building plan of all the buildings which are related to the
institutions approved by the AICTE along with the division of land for
each of the approved institutions. A competent architect registered with
the Council of Architecture need to sign the documents along with
mandatory approvals from local municipal authorities.
(ii) The completion certificate from the Competent Authority with regard
to the buildings meant for the above three educational institutions
approved by the AICTE.
33
28. It is revealed from the record that in terms of the directions
issued by the Two Man Justice Committee, the petitioner has not
produced any document and in fact the petitioner’s representative
admitted that the society/institute is not having ownership of the
land and as such no building plain is sanctioned in favour of the
society by the competent authority. Except stating that the civil
suits vide O.S.No.496 of 2015 and O.S.No.387 of 2006 instituted in
respect of the subjects lands are pending, the petitioner society has
failed to produce the documents. As there is no other option, the
Committee directed the Regional Officer, SCRO, AICTE, to produce
the photocopies of the following documents relating to approvals
granted to the petitioner society, as mentioned below:
“(i) Land title documents showing ownership submitted by the
institutes at the time of first approval granted by the AICTE or
subsequently.
(ii) Copies of the Approved building plan by the Competent Authority of
all the three institutes referred to above.
(c) Copies of Completion Certificate/Occupancy Certificate of the
building where the above institutes are located.
(iv) Land requirements as per AICTE norms at the time of first
approval.
(v) Copy of today’s proceedings be also sent to both the complainants
and the society/institutes while intimating them next date of hearing.”
29. The Two-Man Justice Committee after considering the entire
records relating to Grant of Approval and pending cases on the file of
the various forums and after meticulous examination of the AICTE
34
Regulations, submitted a detailed report. The crucial observations of
the Committee as recorded in the Report, are extracted hereunder:
“f) From the above discussions/ observations it can be safely concluded
that the above Society/Institutions neither had nor have any title of
ownership in their favour which is mandatory for approval/extension of
approval by the AICTE.
It may be further observed that this aspect was not considered at any
time by the concerned officers of the AICTE either at the time of granting
first approval to the above three institutions or thereafter while granting
Extension of Approval for the reasons best known to them.
g) From the discussions made earlier, it is further clear that there is no
approved building plan of the institution by the Competent Authority, as
well,
Occupancy Certificate which are also mandatory requirements for grant
of approvals and extension of approvals,
Recommendations:-
Based on the above observations and conclusions, it is recommended
that a copy of this final report be forwarded to the Approval Bureau with
all documents submitted by the parties to proceed to take action against
the institutions.
Note: So far the Engineering college is concerned it is functioning from the
year 1982 or so and taking this aspect in consideration, the AICTE may
give sometime to the Society conducting the said institution for getting
proper Registered Conveyance Deed of ownership in its favour from the
current owners of the land. However the other two institutions have been
started subsequently after the AICTE was constituted under the Act of
Parliament, as such, the other two institutions are not entitled to get any
favour for grant of time. However it is for the Approval Bureau or the
Competent Authority of the AICTE to take action under the Approval
Process Handbook.
A copy of this report be sent to Approval Bureau today for doing the
needful.
Sd/-xxxxx Sd/-xxxxx
Justice (Retd.) N.L. Tibrewal Sham Shri G. Shankar,
Chairman Architect (Member)".
30. On keen examination of the observations of the Committee
would reveal that from the inception of establishment of the
35petitioner-society, it was not having valid documents in its favour.
The case of the petitioner society is that the Government vide Memo
No.619/ID/77-42 dated 25.09.1980 has re-delivered/handed over
the land acquired vide G.O.Rt.No.388, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 4-9-
1976 and G.O.Rt.No.928, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 31-8-1979.
Except producing the said memo dated 25.09.1980, the petitioner
society has not filed any documents or the conveyance deed. It is
settled law that the acquired property vested in the State is free from
all encumbrances unless the petitioner society or their alleged vendor
(Trust) produces any conveyance deed transferring the property. Be
that as it may, as per Clause 6 of the AICTE Regulations, 2016, the
petitioner has to submit documents relating to title and lawful
possession. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the AICTE, the Two-Man Justice Committee (Expert
Committee) except suggesting that the documents produced by the
petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of the AICTE Regulations
for granting approval, has not decided the validity or otherwise of the
title of inter se parties. Further, the petitioner was provided ample
opportunity to produce documents to demonstrate compliance with
the conditions, specifically regarding whether sanctioned permission
for the construction of the buildings had been obtained. In fact, the
representative of the petitioner who appeared before the Committee
on 02.09.2016 had admitted that ownership of the land does not vest
36
in the petitioner society and as such, no building plan is sanctioned
in favour of the society/institute by the Competent Authority. In
view of the admission by the petitioner society, there is nothing
erroneous in the observations made by the Expert Committee (Two-
Member Justice Committee) and the findings recorded in the report,
which indicate that the petitioner society has not complied with the
AICTE regulations. The decision in ECIL vs. B. Karunkar’s case
(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the
petitioner society was present before the Committee and admitted
that it does not possess any valid documents of ownership or
construction permissions. The non-supply of copy of expert report
does not vitiate the impugned orders as the petitioner society was
given reasonable opportunity to produce the documents.
Furthermore, in line with the Committee’s recommendations, the
respondents have not canceled the approval but have only granted
time to the petitioner institution to comply with the regulations.
Further, in State Bank of Patiala and others vs. S.K.Sharma 15,
the Hon’ble Apex Court clarified that the principles laid down in ECIL
vs. Karunkar case (supra), cannot be put into a strait-jacket
formula and its applicability depends upon the context and the facts
and circumstances of the case. AICTE has provided all the
reasonable opportunities to the petitioner society such as issuing
15
(1996) 3 SCC 364
37
show cause notice dated 01.11.2016 and thereafter, appointed the
expert committee for rendering opinion on the documents submitted
by the petitioner society and procedure adopted by the AICTE is
inconsonance with the principles of natural justice and no prejudice
is caused to the petitioner on account of non-furnishing the copy of
the Two Man Justice Committee Report and even in the absence of
said report also, invariably the petitioner has to fulfil the
requirements of producing the title deeds, relating to ownership and
possession in terms of Section 8 of the Transfer Property Act.
31. In the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust vs AICTE
(supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:
“25. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by the
Central authorities such as AICTE have the force of law and are binding on
all concerned. Once approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the
courts would normally not substitute their view in this regard. Such expert
views would normally be accepted by the court unless the powers vested in
such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner
impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act. In All India Council
for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726] ,
this Court, while stating the principles that the courts may not substitute
their opinion in place of the opinion of the Council, held as under: (SCC pp.
732-33 & 736, paras 17-18 & 32)“17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of
courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational
policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off.
If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or
enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step
in. In J.P. Kulshrestha v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980
SCC (L&S) 436 : (1980) 2 LLJ 175] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424-26,
paras 11-17)’11. … Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to
tread. …
17. … While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts
should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.’
38(emphasis supplied)
18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27 : (1985) 1 SCR
29] this Court reiterated: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29)’29. … the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own
views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic
matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing
technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of
educational institutions and the departments controlling them.’
32. This is a classic case where an educational course has been created
and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or
academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a
new course or programme requires examination of various
academic/technical facets which can only be done by an expert body
like AICTE. This function cannot obviously be taken over or discharged by
courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge
course was permitted for four-year advance diploma-holders who had
passed the entry-level examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter,
by another mandamus in another case, what was a one-time measure was
extended for several years and was also extended to post diploma-holders.
Again by another mandamus, it was extended to those who had passed
only 10+1 examination instead of the required minimum of 10+2
examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students
who wanted to better their career prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure.
But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards,
adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses.
Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education.”
(emphasis in original)
28. We have already noticed that the compliance with the conditions for
approval as well as regulations and provisions of the Aicte Act is an
unexceptionable condition. Clause 9.22 of the Handbook of Approval Process
issued by Aicte provides a complete procedure for change of location, station
and the same is permissible subject to compliance with the procedure. It
contemplates obtaining of “no-objection certificate” from the State
Government or UT Administration and affiliating body concerned. The same
clause also requires submission of the land documents in original and
clearly provides that the same may be a registered sale deed, irrevocable
government lease for a minimum period of 30 years, etc. by the authority
concerned of the Government. Further, it provides that site plan, building
plan for new site should be prepared by a registered architect and should be
approved by the competent plan sanctioning authority designated by the
State.
32. It is further to be seen that mere granting of permission/
approval at the initial stage, or subsequent extension thereof, does
not confer any vested right. The AICTE is empowered to conduct
39
periodic inspections to verify whether the petitioner-Society has met
all requirements as per the undertaking furnished in the prescribed
proforma. The Society is not entitled to compel the AICTE to grant
approval or extension, nor can it seek a declaration from this Court
that the AICTE’s action is arbitrary or illegal. The said contention is
nothing but compelling the respondent-authority to repeat an
illegality or to issue another unwarranted order. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jagjit Singh 16, has
observed that “illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis
of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the
illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and
discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a
purpose.”
33. Chapter IV of Approval Process Hand Book for the Academic
Year 2016-2017, confers power on the AICTE for withdrawal of the
Approval, if any of the Regulations are violated. The following points
would clarify that the petitioner society has not fulfilled the
requirements of AICTE Act and the Regulations made thereunder:
i) The Government vide Memo No.619/ID/77-42 dated
25.09.1980 decided that the “Mount Pleasant” building in
Banjara Hills covered by Land Acquisition Proceedings in
16
(1995) 1 SCC 745
40G.O.Rt.No.388, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 4-9-1976 and
G.O.Rt.No.928, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 31-8-1979, which
was in possession of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Secunderabad, be handed over to Prince Muzzam Jah Trust for
making it available for starting an Engineering College but no
conveyance deed has been executed transferring absolute
rights in favour of the Trust or Society.
ii) Clause 1.1 of the AICTE Regulations states that an Institution
running any Program/Course in Technical Education in
violation of Regulations/Approval Process Handbook (APH)
2016-17, shall be liable to appropriate initiation of Penal /Civil
action including fine, no admission, reduction in sanctioned
intake, withdrawal of approval and/or criminal action by the
Council against defaulting Societies/Trusts/Companies/
Associated Individuals and/or the Institution, as the case may
be.
iii) As per Clause 6 of the AICTE Regulations, 2016, for
establishing Technical Education Institution, it is a condition
precedent that the Promoter Society/Trust/Company of a new
Technical Education Institution shall have the required land as
mentioned in Approval Process Handbook in its lawful
possession with clear title in the name of Promoter
41
Society/Trust/Company on or before the date of submission of
application. No such documents have been filed by the
petitioner society as on date.
iv) The representative of the petitioner society while appearing
before the Two Man Justice Committee, has admitted that the
petitioner-society is not having ownership/construction
permission granted by the competent authority and the same
was recorded in the Report dated 02.09.2016.
v) It is mandatory to produce building plan/Occupancy
Certificate issued by the competent authority, under Clause 6
of the AICTE Regulations, 2016, for grant of affiliation or for
extension of approval. The petitioner has failed to produce the
approved plan/Occupancy Certificate issued by the competent
authority in accordance with the Building Rules, 2012 issued
in G.O.Ms.No.168 Municipal Administration and Urban
Development (M) Department dated 07.04.2012 read with
G.O.Ms.No.245 Municipal Administration and Urban
Development Department dated 30.06.2012.
vi) The inter se disputes among the legal heirs of the Trust and
also purchasers are pending for adjudication in the suit vide
O.S.No.496 of 2015 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
42
Hyderabad. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
S.L.P.No.7777 of 2017 vide order dated 24.04.2017 directed
both parties to maintain status quo in all respects over the
subject lands, which would amply establish that as on date, no
valid transfer has been made in favour of the petitioner society.
vii) The exemption granted by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.459
dated 26.03.2008 in favour of the petitioner society has been
suspended by this Court vide interim order dated 21.06.2016
in WP MP No.23672 of 2016 in WP No.19291 of 2016 and the
said writ petition is pending for adjudication.
viii) The claim of the petitioner that it is in long possession of the
subject property by virtue of interim orders granted by this
Court or by the Civil Court does not confer any right, unless
the said possession has been recognized by granting
declaratory decree by competent Court.
ix) The Two-Man Justice Committee has issued notice and
considered the documents submitted by the petitioner to
evaluate whether the documents submitted by the petitioner
would fall within the Clause 6 of the AICTE Regulations, 2016
and that does not amounts to rendering any opinion on the
civil disputes between the inter se parties. Non-furnishing
43
copy of the Report does not vitiate the impugned proceedings
as the petitioner was given fair opportunity to represent his
case before the Committee for production of the documents.
x) The AICTE, being the competent authority is conferred with the
power to grant approvals subject to fulfilling the conditions laid
down under the Regulations and it has rightly passed the
impugned orders and the same does not suffer from any legal
infirmities warranting interference by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
xi) The claim of the petitioner society that it has paid certain
amounts to the successors of the Trust and the claim of the
respondents (petitioners in WP No.8877 of 2019) as purchasers
are required to be decided by the competent civil court after
considering the evidence adduced in support of the claim.
Pending adjudication of the said issues, neither of the parties
to these writ petitions can claim any right over the property
under dispute. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant the
relief sought in W.P.No.8877 of 2019.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders passed by the
AICTE on the ground of non-compliance of AICTE Regulations, do
not warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, these writ petitions
44
are liable to be dismissed. The observations made by this Court in
this common order are confined only for the purpose of disposal of
the writ petitions and shall have no bearing on any proceedings
pending between the parties or on any proceedings initiated by any
third party against any of them. Furthermore, the findings of this
Court and the dismissal of the writ petitions will not affect the
admission of students in the petitioner institutions for any of these
Academic Years, nor the consequential issuance of certificates to the
students.
35. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed with costs of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable by the petitioners
in each writ petition to Sri Vidhyas Centre for the Special Children
(Orphanage) (Regd. No. 1559/99) situated at Plot No.24, Block No.3,
Seva Mandal Society, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad, Telangana
500026, within a period of two (02) weeks from today and copy of the
receipt shall be filed in the Registry.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these
writ petitions, shall stand closed.
____________________________
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
45
36. After pronouncement of the above order, Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel seeks to stay the operation of this order for a
period of two weeks. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the considered view that it would be just and
appropriate to grant stay of the operation of this order for a period of
two weeks from today. Accordingly, there shall be stay of operation of
this order for a period of two weeks from today.
____________________________
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 07.11.2024
Note: 1) Issue C.C in two(2) days.
2) L.R copy to be marked.
(b/o)
SCS