Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Everest Educational Society, through its President Dr. Abdul Gaffar Quadri, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the order dated 28th June 2016 passed by the Admissions Regulating Authority for Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Respondent No. 1). The petitioner is an educational society running an engineering college, and had applied for a change in intake capacity for the academic year 2016-2017. The Director of Technical Education (Respondent No. 3) and an Expert Committee had recommended the increase. However, the Authority rejected the application without considering these recommendations and without assigning any reasons. The petitioner contended that the rejection was arbitrary and illegal, and that the Authority had failed to apply its mind to the material on record. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, argued that the Authority had considered the matter and passed the order. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the impugned order did not reflect any consideration of the recommendations of the Director of Technical Education or the Expert Committee, and no reasons were given for the rejection. The court held that the order suffered from non-application of mind and was unsustainable. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the Admissions Regulating Authority for fresh consideration, directing it to pass a reasoned order after considering all relevant material, including the recommendations of the Director of Technical Education and the Expert Committee. The court also directed that the fresh decision be taken within four weeks from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Non-application of mind - Admissions Regulating Authority - The Authority rejected the petitioner's application for change in intake capacity without considering the recommendations of the Director of Technical Education and the Expert Committee, and without assigning any reasons. Held that the order suffers from non-application of mind and is unsustainable in law. (Paras 5-7) B) Right to Education - Change in intake capacity - Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2015 - The petitioner, an unaided private professional educational institution, sought increase in intake capacity for its engineering college. The Authority rejected the application without considering the positive recommendations of the Director of Technical Education and the Expert Committee. Held that the Authority must consider all relevant material and pass a reasoned order. (Paras 3-7) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial review of administrative orders - The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can set aside an order that is arbitrary and suffers from non-application of mind. The matter was remitted back to the Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for change in intake capacity by the Admissions Regulating Authority was arbitrary and illegal for non-application of mind and failure to consider relevant material.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28th June 2016 passed by the Admissions Regulating Authority is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Admissions Regulating Authority for fresh consideration. The Authority is directed to pass a reasoned order after considering all relevant material, including the recommendations of the Director of Technical Education and the Expert Committee, within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Non-application of mind by statutory authority
- Failure to consider relevant material
- Right to establish and administer educational institution
- Reasoned order requirement
