Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Rachna Sansad College of Applied Art & Craft and Rachna Sansad Trust, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders passed by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The first order dated 8 April 2016 rejected the petitioners' request for change of location without granting them a hearing. The second order dated 30 April 2016 rejected the application for extension of approval for the academic year 2016-17 and placed the petitioners under the 'No Admission' category. The Standing Appellate Committee affirmed the AICTE's decision on 30 April 2016. The petitioners sought quashing of these orders and a direction to AICTE to grant extension of approval for the academic year 2016-2017, upload the petitioner no.1 college for the Centralized Admission Process (CAP), and allow participation in CAP and institutional quota admission for B.A.F. (Applied Art) courses. The college was established with State Government approval on 4 August 2000 for a 4-year B.F.A. degree course with intake of 60 students. AICTE granted first time approval on 8 August 2001, which was extended up to academic year 2015-16. The petitioners applied online on 10 February 2016 for two approvals: extension of approval for 2016-17 and change of location/site. AICTE rejected the change of location application without hearing and later rejected the extension application. The High Court initially granted ad-interim relief on 1 June 2016 staying the No Admission order and directing inclusion in CAP. The Supreme Court, in SLP No. 22082 of 2016, set aside this ad-interim order on 14 December 2016 and directed the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The petitioners contended that the initial land requirement was 0.5 acres and could not be retrospectively increased. They also argued that architectural education does not fall under AICTE purview, relying on All India Council for Technical Education v. Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of Architecture, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1445. They further submitted that subsequent extension approvals for academic years 2017-18 to 2021-22 at the same venue rendered the impugned orders redundant, and that deficiencies had been cured. The final decision of the High Court on the merits is not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Challenge to AICTE Orders - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioners filed writ under Article 226 impugning orders dated 8 April 2016 and 30 April 2016, seeking directions to grant extension of approval and allow participation in Centralized Admission Process - High Court initially granted ad-interim relief on 1 June 2016, later set aside by Supreme Court on 14 December 2016 with direction to decide on merits - Final disposal of writ petition not stated in provided text (Paras 1-3, 7-8).
B) Education Law - Technical Education Approval - Land Requirement for Approval - All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (implied) - Petitioners contended that initial land requirement of 0.5 acres could not be retrospectively amended, and AICTE rejected change of location without hearing - Standing Appellate Committee affirmed rejection - Court considered arguments but final order not present in provided excerpt (Paras 9-12, 18).
C) Education Law - Jurisdiction of AICTE - Architecture Education - All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (implied) - Petitioners argued that architectural education does not fall under AICTE, relying on Supreme Court decision in AICTE v. Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of Architecture, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1445 - Jurisdictional challenge raised before the court (Paras 16-17).
D) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Hearing Before Rejection - AICTE rejected change of location application without granting any hearing to petitioners - Violation of audi alteram partem alleged - Petitioners claimed subsequent extensions of approval for academic years 2017-18 to 2021-22 at same venue rendered impugned orders redundant (Paras 12, 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether AICTE's rejection of change of location without hearing violated principles of natural justice; whether AICTE's rejection of extension approval based on amended land requirement was arbitrary when rights had accrued under earlier requirement of 0.5 acres; whether AICTE has jurisdiction over architecture education/colleges of applied art; whether subsequent grant of extension approvals from 2017-18 to 2021-22 rendered the impugned orders redundant for academic year 2016-17
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India
- AICTE approval process
- change of location approval
- natural justice
- retrospective application of amended land requirement
- architecture education not under AICTE
- extension of approval redundancy due to subsequent approvals
- interim relief and Supreme Court direction
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (10) 25
Writ Petition No. 2122 of 2016
R. D. Dhanuka, Abhay Ahuja
Mr. S. C. Naidu, Mr. Manoj Gujar, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Ms. Divya Yajurvedi, Mr. Sudesh Kumar Naidu, Mr. T. R. Yadav for petitioners; Mr. Abhijeet A. Joshi, Ms. Varsha Sawant, Mr. Swapnil Jadhav for respondent no.1; Mr. Hemant Haryan for State; Mr. Rui A. Rodrigues for respondent no.6
Rachna Sansad College of Applied Art & Craft; Rachna Sansad Trust
All India Council for Technical Education; Directorate of Art J. J. School of Applied Art; The Commissioner & Competent Authority State CET Cell; The Directorate of Technical Education; State of Maharashtra; University of Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging AICTE orders rejecting change of location and extension of approval, placing petitioners under No Admission.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of orders dated 8 April 2016 and 30 April 2016; direction to AICTE to grant extension of approval for academic year 2016-2017; upload petitioner no.1 for CAP and allow participation in CAP and institutional quota.
Filing Reason
AICTE rejected application for change of location without hearing and rejected extension of approval, placing petitioners under No Admission; Standing Appellate Committee affirmed.
Previous Decisions
Division Bench granted ad-interim relief on 1 June 2016 staying No Admission order and directing inclusion in CAP. Supreme Court in SLP No. 22082 of 2016 set aside this ad-interim order on 14 December 2016, directing High Court to decide on merits. Standing Appellate Committee affirmed AICTE's rejection on 30 April 2016.
Issues
Whether AICTE's rejection of change of location without hearing violated principles of natural justice.
Whether AICTE's rejection of extension approval based on amended land requirement was arbitrary when rights had accrued under earlier requirement of 0.5 acres.
Whether AICTE has jurisdiction over architecture education/colleges of applied art.
Whether subsequent grant of extension approvals from 2017-18 to 2021-22 rendered the impugned orders redundant for academic year 2016-17.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that initial land requirement of 0.5 acres could not be retrospectively amended, and AICTE rejected change of location without hearing.
Petitioners contended that architectural education does not fall under AICTE, relying on Supreme Court decision in AICTE v. Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of Architecture, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1445.
Petitioners submitted that deficiencies were cured and subsequent extension approvals from 2017-18 to 2021-22 at same venue made impugned orders redundant.
Petitioners relied on Bombay High Court decision in Motiwala Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 11390 of 2017.
Judgment Excerpts
By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order 8 th April, 2016 rejecting the request of the petitioners for change of location without hearing the petitioners and an order dated 30 th April, 2016 passed by the Director, Approval of All India Council for Technical Education placing he petitioners under 'No Admission'.
On 8 th August, 2001, the petitioner no.1 was granted First Time Approval by the respondent no.1 for the academic year 2001-02 which was extended for each subsequent academic year 2015-16.
The Standing Appellate Committee by order dated 30 th April, 2016 affirmed the decision of the respondent no.1 for non-issuance of Extension of Approval for the academic year 2016-17.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Architectural Education does not come under the purview of AICTE. In support of this submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of All India Council for Technical Education vs. Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of Architecture and others, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1445 and more particularly paragraphs 9, 10, 67, 68, 70 and 71.
Procedural History
On 4 August 2000, State Government granted approval to establish college of Applied Arts and Craft with intake of 60 students. On 8 August 2001, AICTE granted first time approval for 2001-02, extended up to 2015-16. On 10 February 2016, petitioners filed online applications for extension of approval for 2016-17 and change of location. AICTE rejected change of location without hearing (order dated 8 April 2016 per para 2, or 8 May 2016 per para 6) and rejected extension approval on 30 April 2016, placing petitioners under No Admission. Standing Appellate Committee affirmed on 30 April 2016. Division Bench of Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief on 1 June 2016 staying No Admission and directing inclusion in CAP. Supreme Court in SLP No. 22082 of 2016 set aside ad-interim order on 14 December 2016, directing High Court to decide on merits. Final decision not present in provided text.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fees) Act, 2015: Section 7
