Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner has invited this Court s attention to the earlier order passed by this Court in earlier petition on the subject matter being Special Civil Application No. 11709 of 2012 on 16.10.2012. The relevant portion reads as under:
5. Before proceeding with the case, the facts as stated above, are that the petitioner applied for grant of permission to start courses in the premises in the discipline of Engineering at the level of diploma. SAC Expert Visiting Committee recommended vide report dated 6.5.2012 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. 41 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 made tick mark in column ready and accepted . I am of the opinion that the number which is referred and actual is matching with the requirements. The Expert Committee made tick marks in column ready and accepted and there is no reason to give a contrary view. In view of the fact that they are matching with the requirements and availability as defined in column itself (on page No. 41 of the petition), the same conclusion is supported by the recommendation by the Committee on page No. 45 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. 41 of the petition that SAC found some deficiency in library facility that actual number of Internet Bandwidth, Printers, Legal Application S/W, Legal System S/W, PCs to Students ratio and language Laboratory is not available, 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 and communicated to the petitioner on 8-8-2012 which is 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.
The aforesaid order unequivocally contained a clear direction qua granting approval/recognition to the petitioner institution and consequential order to that effect was to be passed within a period of 15 days from the date of order. Nothing happened except exchange of communications and counsel invited Court s attention to page-56, wherein, communication is reproduced, which has in effect of informing the petitioner that Expert Visiting Committee would visit the proposed institution on 01/04/2013 at 10=00 AM and they were to keep ready with the arrangement of videographer etc. mentioned thereunder. The Expert Visiting Committee visited the institution on 04/01/2013, as the date mentioned in the communication was taken to be the date in format of month, date and year, which institute had understood on its plain reading mentioned to be date in format of date, month and year. Therefore, naturally, the petitioner institution was not expecting to arrange videographer etc. ready on 01/04/2013, as it was expected to be on 01/04/2013. Therefore, it was informed on the very same date to Expert Visiting Committee explaining the situation and request was made to arrange visit in near future. The order came to be made on 01/02/2013 rejecting the application for approval/recognition as ground was shown that petitioners were not prepared for inspection.
The Court is of the considered view that the order passed by this Court on 16.10.2012 in Special Civil Application No. 11709 of 2012 did leave no room for any guess work, inferences or doubting the purport of the direction. The layman with knowledge of English would understand the direction contained in the order, whereunder the respondent was under clear obligation to issue approval/ recognition and it was open to the respondent to challenge the same, if it was so advised. Unfortunate it is that, instead of complying with the direction, an ingenious way to avoid the compliance is deviced and as a result thereof, the exchange of communication ensued.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited this Court s attention to page 56 and in juxtaposition page-36 indicated that the ordinary way of mentioning the date of Expert Visiting Committee is first date, then month and thereafter year and that format is adhered to in page-36 communication, therefore, there was no earthly reason for inferring difference so far as page-56 is concerned. Similarly, when it is mentioned in the communication at page-56, there was no any room for even remotely emphasis or infer differently. Therefore, in my prima-facie view, the order of rejection on such ground that on 04/01/2013 the institution was not ready for inspection preposterously absurd.
The respondent is therefore hereby called upon by way of this notice for final disposal in this matter returnable on 08.03.2013 to either comply with the direction contained in the order dated 16.10.2012 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11709 of 2012, or else, file detailed reason by way of affidavit, to be filed by Chairman and Secretary both justifying the impugned order dated 01/02/2013, failing which, the Court will be left with no other alternative but to allow the petition in terms of the prayers, as the averments would remain uncontroverted. The counsel for the petitioner has assured the Court that if the papers of direct service of notice are made available today and direct service is permitted today, the respondent shall be served on or before 01/03/2013. Accordingly, Direct service permitted today.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav Page 5 of 5