1.0 The petitioner institution herein has prayed for issuance of a suitable direction to the respondent to issue the letter of approval to the petitioner for commencing courses in the concerned branches of the discipline of Engineering at the level of diploma pursuant to the application of the petitioner.
2.0 The facts of the case as per the present petition, in a nutshell, are set out as under:
2.1 The petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed format to the respondent on 05.02.2012 seeking permission for commencing courses in the discipline of Engineering in the concerned branches thereof at the level of diploma. The said application came to be scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee of the respondent on 16.02.2012 and since everything was found to be in order, the Scrutiny Committee of the respondent recommended the visit to the set up of the petitioner by Expert Visiting Committee (EVC) of the respondent.
2.2 Accordingly, the EVC visited the set up of the petitioner on 05.03.2012 and the committee noted certain deficiencies and the application of the petitioner came to be rejected on 07.04.2012.
2.3 The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Standing Appellate Committee of the respondent against the said letter of rejection. During the course of hearing of the appeal it was conveyed to the petitioner that the EVC of the respondent would once again inspect the set up of the petitioner for verification.
2.4 Accordingly, on 06.05.2012, the EVC revisited the set up of the petitioner and was absolutely satisfied with regard to the infrastructure and other facilities. However, the report of the EVC of the respondent was not available on the website. The petitioner addressed a communication dated 02.07.2012 to the respondent inter alia raising a grievance about the nonavailability of the said report and also subsequently addressed communication dated 06.07.2012 and 19.07.2012 about the nonavailability of the aforesaid report. However, the respondent did not issue any letter of approval and therefore the petitioner has approached this court.
3.0 Mr. Panchal, learned advocate with Mr. Prajapati for the petitioner submitted that the course of action of the aforesaid nature on the part of the respondent in not issuing the letter of approval to the petitioner in respect of its aforesaid application for commencing courses in the concerned branches of the discipline of Engineering at the level of diploma which is impugned herein is exfacie in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India warranting an appropriate redressal at the hands of this Court.
3.1 Mr. Panchal submitted that though the EVC revisited the set up of the petitioner and was absolutely satisfied with regard to the infrastructure and other facilities, the report of the EVC of the respondent was not available on the website. Inspite of several communication by the petitioner raising a grievance about the non availability of the said report, the respondent did not issue any letter of approval. Therefore the inaction on the part of the respondent in not issuing the letter of approval is nothing but high handedness on the part of the respondent and calls for intervention from this court.
4.0 Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the EVC of the petitioner institution was again conducted on 06.05.2012 wherein the Expert Visit Committee recommended the proposal and forwarded the same to Regional Committee. The matter was again placed before the Standing Appellate Committee for review on 09.05.2012. On review, the Standing Appellate Committee did not recommend the case of the petitioner institution and accordingly final letter of rejection was issued by the respondent on 29.06.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner institution again submitted a representation and keeping in view the said representation, the matter pertaining to petitioner institution was placed before the Council in its 28th Meeting held on 26.07.2012. The Council after considering the matter agreed for giving one more chance for EVC to verify the facts. Accordingly, the respondent vide its letter dated 17.08.2012 has requested the Regional Officer, Central Regional Office, AICTE, Bhopal to conduct the EVC of the petitioner institution and forward the report to the Council at the earliest.
5.0 Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having perused the materials placed on record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner deserves consideration.
6.0 It is not disputed that as everything was found to be in order, the committee recommended visit of the set up of the petitioner by an Expert Visiting Committee (EVC) of the respondent. The EVC of the petitioner institution was again conducted on 06.05.2012 wherein the Expert Visit Committee recommended the proposal and forwarded to Regional Committee. The matter was again placed before the Standing Appellate Committee for review on 09.05.2012 . On review, the Standing Appellate Committee did not recommend the case of the petitioner institution and accordingly final letter of rejection was issued by the respondent on 29.06.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner institution again submitted a representation and keeping in view the said representation, the matter pertaining to petitioner institution was placed before the Council in its 28th Meeting held on 26.07.2012. The Council after considering the matter agreed for giving one more chance for EVC to verify the facts. Accordingly, the respondent vide its letter dated 17.08.2012 has requested the Regional Officer, Central Regional Office, AICTE, Bhopal to conduct the EVC of the petitioner institution and forward the report to the Council at the earliest.
7.0 Accordingly, on 06.05.2012, the Expert Visiting Committee of the respondent visited the set up of the petitioner. During the course of the said visit, according to the petitioner, the said Expert Visiting Committee was absolutely satisfied with regard to the infrastructure and other facilities in the set up of the petitioner. However, it appears that no report was issued.
8.0 From the facts of the case it is also clear that no concrete ground for alleged denial of the letter of approval to the petitioner is pointed out. Even the affidavit in reply also does not set out any justifiable reason for this court not to interfere in the petitioner. If no lacunae is pointed out in the set up of the petitioner there was no reason for not granting approval. In short, the respondent is not in a position to point out any deficiency on the part of the petitioner institution so as not to issue the letter of approval. The recommendations of the Committee are in favour of the petitioner institution and such recommendation cannot be given a gobye.
9.0 In the premises aforesaid, petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to issue necessary certificates/letters with immediate effect to the petitioner institution. However, if any discrepancy/deficiency, still persists, the same shall be met with/corrected by the petitioner within a period of two months from today. It shall be open to the respondent to inspect the premises of the petitioner after three months from today and on finding any discrepancy/deficiency, it shall be open to the respondent to take action after issuing due notice to the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the action, if any, on the part of the respondent afresh. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*