IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.22327-22329/2019 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
1. M/S BTL POLYTECHNIC, PLOT NO.259/B, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560099.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SURESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O KRISHNIAH.
2. M/S. B.T.L. EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PLOT NO.259/B, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560099.
BY ITS CHAIRPERSON SMT. SUVARNA LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O LATE DR. B.T. LAKSHMAN.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI V. V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, OPP: MAHARANIS COLLEGE, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, SOUTHERN REGION, HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT PRASANNA KUMAR BLOCK CENTRAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, PLACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
3. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110067. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G. S. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-1 AND R-3 SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-B DTD:30.10.2018 RECOMMENDING 20% REDUCTION IN INTAKE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-20 PASSED BY THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE PERFORMING ITS DUTIES UNDER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE R-2, QUASH ANNEXURE-C DTD:17.1.2019 RECOMMENDATION OF THE SAC PERFORMING ITS DUTIES UNDER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE R-2, RECOMMENDING TO PUT THE INSTITUTION UNDER "NO ADMISSION CATEGORY" BY R-3; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure-B), recommendation of the Standing Appellate Committee (‘SAC’ for short) dated 17.1.2019 (Annexure-C) and the order of the AICTE dated 15.5.2019 (Annexure-H).
2. The first petitioner is the institution set up by the petitioner No.2 – registered Trust, imparting education in Diploma Courses duly recognized by the AICTE. It is the grievance of the petitioners that for the academic year 2019-20, on the application moved by the petitioners for grant of extension of approval (EOA), Scrutiny Committee recommended for 20% reduction in intake, whereas on the appeal preferred by the petitioners, Standing Appellate Committee (SAC) recommended for “no admission category”, if the petitioners fail to submit the building plan by the competent authority within a week from the date of communication of SAC. It is the contention of the petitioners that the building plan was made available in compliance with the order of SAC. However, AICTE by order dated 15.5.2019 has placed the petitioner No.1 under “no admission category” for the academic year 2019-20.
3. It is not in dispute that the Scrutiny Committee consisting of experts after inspection and considering the deficiencies has recommended for 20% reduction in intake to grant EOA relating to the academic year 2019-20. Being aggrieved by the said recommendation, the petitioners had preferred appeal before the SAC. It is well settled law that SAC, on appeal, is required to consider the grievance of the petitioners against the decision/recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee challenged therein. But surprisingly, the SAC has placed the petitioner No.1 under “no admission category” subject to submission of the building plan approved by the competent authority within a period of one week. It is case of the petitioners that such a building plan has been furnished in compliance with the recommendation of the SAC. In the event of the withdrawal of appeal by the petitioners before the SAC or if no appeal was preferred against the order of the Scrutiny Committee, no further reduction would have been made by the SAC finally resulting in the order of the AICTE as per Annexure-H to the writ petition. If that analogy is applied, the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee consisting of the experts in the field cannot be ignored.
4. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be sub-served in setting aside the order of the SAC and restoring the order of the Scrutiny Committee subject to the petitioners submitting the approved building plan with the AICTE within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and is ordered accordingly.
5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.
6. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, all the pending I.A.s stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MD