IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.27000 OF 2019 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
1. DR.T.M.A. PAI POLYTECHNIC (A UNIT OF DR.T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION) REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL M.I.T. CAMPUS, MANIPAL-576 104 UDUPI DISTRICT 2. DR. T.M.A.PAI FOUNDATION A REGISTERED TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SYNDICATE HOUSE, MANIPAL UDUPI DISTRICT-576 104 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.GIRISH KODGI, ADV.) AND:
1. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION NELSON MANDELA MARG VASANTH KUNJ NEW DELHI-110 070 BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY 2. DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA TANTRIK SHIKSHAN BHAWAN, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.S.VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE REDUCTION IN INTAKE OF 20% STUDENTS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-20 AS PER ORDER DATED: 15.05.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-G IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue writ of mandamus declaring that the reduction in intake of 20% students for the academic year 2019-20 as per order dated 15-5- 2019 in F.No.AICTE/AB/SWR/1-
460505371/2019 passed by the Respondent no.1 as per Annexure – G is illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law.
(ii) Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court be pleased to in the ends of justice and equity.
2. Petitioners Institution is a trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 with an object of establishing various educational institution. First petitioner is running a polytechnic from the year 1985. For the last 34 years, petitioners/institution are imparting education in Diploma course. Presently, the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approval for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2018 is occupying the field governing the polytechnics in the entire country. Petitioner had the benefit of approval for the academic year 2018-19 by order dated 04.04.2018 vide Annexure ‘A’, petitioner was permitted to admit the students in the following disciplines:
3. The intake is sought to be reduced by 20% by the impugned order dated 15.05.2019 (Annexure ‘G’).
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Expert Visiting Committee visited the petitioner’s institution on 07.03.2019. Thereafter, the Standing Hearing Committee (SHC) fixed the date of hearing on 06.04.2019 and it was deferred to 19.04.2019. The outcome of the meeting is the impugned order dated 15.05.2019 by which petitioner’s intake has been reduced by 20%.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner’s intake seats have been drastically reduced on various disciplines which is without giving an opportunity of hearing. There was no proposal for reducing the intake seats. Respondents have abruptly proceeded to reduce the intake of seats by 20% with reference to certain deficiencies in respect of infrastructure of the petitioner-institution.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out from Annexures R.1 to R.4 that each and every step has been adhered before passing the impugned order and petitioner had an opportunity of hearing on 19.04.2019 before SHC. Therefore, question of giving an opportunity before reducing the intake to an extent of 20% may not arise. Hence there is no information in the impugned decision.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Crux of the matter in the present petition is, “Whether respondents can reduce the intake of seats vide its order dated 15.05.2019 without hearing the petitioners?”
9. As is evident from Annexure ‘A’ dated 04.04.2018, petitioners-institution was allowed to intake 60 seats in Automobile Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer Science & Engineering, Electronics & Communication Engg, Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Mechatronics, Mechanical Engineering and Printing Technology. Reasons for reducing 20% intake are not forthcoming except certain deficiencies. Blanketly, respondents cannot reduce 20% intake seats for various deficiencies. It all depends on deficiencies in each and every discipline (course) and then one can come to the conclusion that in a particular discipline, for want of infrastructure certain percentage of intake be reduced, that too, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners. Therefore, the contentions of the respondents that they have adhered each and every step before passing the order and petitioners have been heard in the matter on 19.04.2019 by the SHC cannot be appreciated for the reasons that respondents have not appraised this Court by producing any documents to show that petitioner has been appraised that his institution’s intake would be reduced by 20% before passing the order dated 15.05.2019. Therefore, order dated 15.05.2019 insofar as reducing 20% of intake seats for the ensuing year is without hearing the petitioners. Accordingly, Annexure ‘G’ is set-aside.
Respondents are hereby directed to issue show cause notice to the petitioners indicating deficiencies in every discipline so also what is the basis for reducing 20% intake seats be mentioned in detail so as to enable the petitioners to file an appropriate explanation to such show cause notice. Official respondents are permitted to pass a fresh order after dealing with each and every contentions of the petitioners to be raised against show cause notice.
With the above observations, petition stands allowed. All the I.As. stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Brn