1. The petitioner, by way of this petition, challenged the order dated 3/8-8-2012 whereby the respondent All India Council for Technical Education rejected the application of the petitioner for establishing Technical Institution/Campus in Rajkot. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Oza submitted that this is a gross case where for their negligence, the respondent is trying to harass the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for grant of permission to start an Engineering Institute in Rajkot. First Scrutiny revealed some deficiencies in the submission of the documents. Therefore, the petitioner resubmitted the documents. The Committee formed for re- scrutiny of the documents recommended the Institute for visit by Expert Committee. The SAC (Standing Appellate Committee) Expert Committee after inspection made its report on 7.5.2012 where (on page No. 19 of the petition) all the columns were filled in – only verification with respect to norms – all programme taken together. Though column Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were filled in but other columns ready/accepted, not ready/not accepted etc. left blank. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only on that basis the present recognition is rejected.
2.1 He has submitted that the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions for recommendation on page Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the petition. Even on page No. 23 of the petition, in “column recommended” tick mark of recommendation was made. The said report was forwarded to SAC Review. The said SAC Review made a check and rejected the proposal (page No. 19 of the petition) vide report dated 31.7.2012 on the ground that no remark has been given for Internet Bandwidth, Printers, Legal Application S/W, Legal System, PCs to Student ratio and Language Laboratory.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the impugned order has not referred any of the comments which have been reflected in the order and return containing deficiencies were available on the website.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Goswami for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that the SAC after considering the report of Expert Visiting Committee dated 7.5.2012, rejected the proposal vide report dated 31.7.2012 and has not recommended for the recognition of the institution. The following remarks are made in the note sheet:
LOR may be issued in regard to the decision of 28th General Meeting dated 26.7.12 (Item No. 27.03.02) to complete the procedure. The decision of SAC Review will be rectified in next council meeting. LOR issued on 8.8.12 (on page No. 31).
5. Before proceeding with the case, the facts as stated above, are that the petitioner applied for grant of permission to start Engineering Institute. SAC Expert Visiting Committee recommended vide report dated 7.5.2012 and the same was signed by four experts. The members have visited the premises of the institute and recommended for approval. Prima facie, from the report which is placed on page No. 19 where verification with respect to norms – all programmes taken together, number required and number available are matching with the requirements.
5.1 It seems that prima facie the Expert Committee has not made tick mark any of the four columns which are there. I am of the opinion that the number which is referred and actual is matching with the requirements. Therefore, it is an essential mistake or omission on the part of the Expert Committee that they have not made tick mark in the ready and accepted column otherwise there is no reason to give contrary view. In view of the fact that they are matching with the requirements and availability as defined in column itself (on page No. 19 of the petition), the same conclusion is supported by the recommendation by the Committee on page No. 23 of the petition. However, it was forwarded to SAC Review.
6. I have considered the evidence from the record. It is only on the ground which is made at page No. 31 of the petition that no remark has been given for Internet Bandwidth, Printers, Legal Application S/W, Legal System, PCs to Student ratio and language Laboratory, the application is rejected. In my view the the requirements in the column are satisfied. Therefore, the Expert Committee recommended for recognition. The SAC Review has wrongly taken a decision on 31.7.2012 and communicated to the petitioner on 3/8-8-2012 which are required to be quashed and set aside. The said decision and the communication are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant approval/recognition to the petitioner institution and consequential order will be passed within 15 days from today. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute.
7. This petition is allowed subject to the condition that the Inspecting authority is at liberty to inspect the premises of the petitioner and if there is any deficiency noticed, they can issue notice with reasons to the petitioner and may pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J) (pkn)