1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017

Om Sai Punya Educational and  Social Welfare Society & Another                       ….Petitioners

Versus  

All India Council for Technical  Education and Another                                   …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article

32 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus

or  any  other  appropriate  writ  directing  respondent  No.1  to

immediately  issue a  Letter  of  Approval  permitting  petitioner

No.1-society  to  start  its  college,  namely  Anant  Institute  of

Business  Studies  from  the  academic  year  2017-2018.  The

petitioner  No.1-society  applied  in  February,  2017  to

respondent No.1-All India Council for Technical Education (for

short “AICTE”) for its approval to establish Anant Institute of

2

Business Studies (for short “AIBS”). The Scrutiny Committee

of AICTE (for short “SC”) tendered a report dated 01.03.2017.

The petitioners assert that the report did not point out any

deficiency and recommended grant of Letter of Approval to the

petitioner No.1-society.  

2. The said proposal was processed by different committees

between March 2017 and April  2017,  such  as  Expert  Visit

Committee  (for  short  “EVC”)  and  the  Standing  Appellate

Committee – Scrutiny Committee (for short “SAC - SC”). As the

petitioners entertained some apprehension that there would be

delay  in  processing  the  application,  petitioner  No.1-  society

rushed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior

by way of Writ Petition No. 2793 of 2017. They prayed for a

direction against the respondents to process the application as

per  the  procedure  given  in  Approval  Process  Handbook

2017-18  and  consider  the  report  of  SC  which  has  clearly

mentioned that the two different institutes of the petitioners

were  on  different  patches  of  land  and  therefore  to  issue  a

Letter of Approval without any further delay and, in any case,

3

to complete the process of  approval  before 30th April,  2017.

The  respondent  No.1-AICTE,  however,  issued  a  letter  of

rejection on 30th April, 2017. As a result, the writ petition filed

by the petitioners before the High Court came to be dismissed

on  16th May,  2017,  as  having  become  infructuous.  The

petitioners challenged the said decision before this Court by

way of SLP (C) No.15799 of 2017 which was disposed of on

22nd June, 2017, in the following terms:

“O R D E R

By  two  letters  dated  30.04.2017,  the  first  respondent rejected the applications submitted by the petitioners for setting up an Institute of Management and an Institute of Business Studies. The ground on which the rejection took place was primarily that when the EVC team proceeded to inspect the institutions, it was not allowed to do so.  

When  this  petition  came  up  before  the  court  on 19.06.2017,  a submission  was  made  on  behalf  of  the petitioners  that  having  regard  to  the  ground  which weighed  with  the  first  respondent,  the  petitioners  are ready  and  willing  to  submit  themselves  to  a  fresh inspection by an EVC team to be constituted by the first respondent. The hearing was adjourned to enable counsel for the first respondent to take instructions.

During the course  of  the hearing learned counsel appearing  on  behalf  of  the  first  respondent  states,  on instructions,  that  an  EVC  Team  shall  be  constituted expeditiously and a fresh inspection shall be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. This, it has been submitted,  is  subject to  two  conditions;  firstly,  that the petitioners shall pay the usual charges and expenses for

4

the  inspection;  and secondly,  that one  EVC team shall inspect  both  the  Institutions.  Both  these  conditions  are acceptable to the petitioners.  

We accordingly take on record the statement which has  been  made  on  behalf  of  the  first  respondent  and direct  that  in  consequence  the  earlier  rejection  of  the proposal submitted by the petitioners shall not come in the way  of  the  EVC  team  while  carrying  out  a  fresh inspection, as agreed. Thereupon, the first respondent 3 shall  take  a  fresh  decision  in  accordance  with  law expeditiously  uninfluenced  by  the  earlier  order  of rejection.  If  the  petitioners  are  aggrieved  by  the  fresh decision,  they will  be at liberty to  pursue the remedies available in law.  

The special  leave petition  is  accordingly disposed of.  

Pending applications, if  any, shall stand disposed of.”  

3. The  petitioner  No.1-society  thereafter  decided  to

withdraw the  application for  grant  of  approval  for  its  other

institute Anant Institute of Management (for short “AIM”) vide

Application ID No.1-3395565031,  as it  was not  possible  for

them to get affiliation from the Jiwaji University, Gwalior for

the academic year 2017-18. This decision was communicated

to AICTE vide letter dated 5th July, 2017.  

4. In the meantime, in deference to the observation made by

this Court in its order dated 22nd June, 2017, EVC conducted

5

a fresh inspection in respect of AIBS and submitted its report

on 1st July, 2017 pointing out the deficiencies. The petitioners

then rushed to this Court by way of present writ petition filed

on 22nd July, 2017, but before that the proposal for grant of

Letter of Approval to the petitioners’ institution was referred to

SAC-SC,  which  finally  submitted  its  recommendations  and

observations to AICTE. The respondent No.1-AICTE, vide letter

dated  21st July,  2017  informed  its  decision  to  the

Principal/Chairman  of  the  petitioner  No.1-society.  The  said

communication reads thus:

“ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL Education  (A Statutory Body of the Govt. of India)

Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India Nelson Mandela Marg, New Delhi – 110067

Phone: 011-26131576, 77, 78, 80 Website: www.aicte-india.org

F.No. AICTE/AB/CR/PID 1-3404613481     Date: 21.07.2017

To,   The Principal/Chairman, Om Sai Punya Educational and Social Welfare Society, 404, Suparsvnath Apartment, A-8, Silicon City, Madhya Pradesh – 452012

Sir,

This has reference to Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 22.06.2017 regarding conduct of a fresh Inspection in respect of  Anant  Institute  of  Business  Studies,  M.P.  (AID 1-3404613481)  and  2.  Anant  Institute  of  Management,  M.P.

6

(AID 1-3395565031). The EVC was conducted on 01.07.2017 to both institutes. The EVC has reported deficiencies in respect of  both Institutes.  The matter was placed before the SAC on 13.07.2017  for  recommendation.  The  representative  of  the Institute presented the case before the SAC.  

The recommendation and observation of SAC in respect of Anant Institute of Business Studies, (AID 1-3404613481) are as under:

S. No.

Deficiencies noted  by EVC

Observation  of  SAC dated 13.07.2017

Other  Institution (AICTE approved/  not under  AICTE ambit) are being run/proposed to be  run  in  the same  patch  of land  of  land shown  for  the present Institution.  – Proposed to run in  the  new Anant  Institute of Management.

Documents  for  closure  are submitted & accepted.  

1. Amenities Area: Boys  Common Room  Girls  Common Room

Architects  certificate  & Affidavit  are  submitted  & Accepted.  

Recommendation: “The SAC recommends LOA for starting Anant Institute of

Business Studies from the Academic year 2018-19.  

The above recommendation of SAC has been approved by the  Competent  Authority  in  the  Council.  You  are  hereby intimated  to  comply  with  the  recommendation  of  SAC  for

7

starting Anant Institute of Business Studies from the Academic year 2018-19.  

Sd/-             Advisor  

(Approval Bureau)”

5. Notably, the petitioners have not claimed any relief with

reference to the aforementioned communication. The relief in

the writ petition, however, is to issue a writ in the nature of

mandamus to respondent No.1-AICTE, to immediately issue a

Letter  of  Approval  and permit  the  petitioner  No.1-society  to

start  its  college  AIBS  from  the  academic  year  2017-18.

Absence of  challenge to the communication dated 21st July,

2017 even if overlooked, the moot question is whether in the

fact situation of the present case the petitioners can succeed

in getting the relief as claimed in the writ petition. Indubitably,

it is not open to AICTE to breach the timelines specified in the

AICTE  Act  and  the  Regulations  framed  thereunder  for

processing the proposal for grant of a Letter of Approval. It is

well settled that the schedule specified in the Regulations has

statutory  backing.  Its  adherence  is  mandatory  and  not

directory. As per the said schedule, AICTE does not have any

8

jurisdiction or authority to issue approval for commencement

of a new course or for additional intake of students beyond

30th April  of  the  year  immediately  preceding  the

commencement  of  an  academic  year.  In  the  case  of

Parshvanath Charitable Trust  Vs.  All  India Council  for

Technical  Education, 1it  has  been made  amply  clear  that

even  the  order  granting  recognition  by  the  Appellate

Committee  of  AICTE  should  not  fall  foul  of  the  admission

schedule. The admission schedule for academic year 2017-18

has  already  commenced  and  been  substantially  completed.

The academic year has also commenced and the last date for

completing the admission process is August 15th,  2017. The

dates  and  timelines  are  provided  in  the  Regulations  and

reiterated by this Court in the aforementioned decision. The

same are inviolable.  

6. The grievance  of  the  petitioners  is  that  the  petitioners

had submitted their application for grant of approval within

the  specified  timeline  and  also  completed  all  the  necessary

formalities.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  the  inaction  of  the

1  . (2013)  3 SCC 385

9

AICTE which resulted in delay and the petitioners cannot be

held responsible for that and moreso, after having made huge

investment  upto  rupees  four  crores  for  establishing  the

college. This plea has been countered by respondent No.1 by

filing  the  affidavit  of  Assistant  Director  to  oppose  this  writ

petition,  dated  9th August,  2017.  It  is  asserted  by  the

respondents that in terms of the statutory obligation cast on

the respondent No.1, the proposal submitted by the petitioner

No.1-society for starting two new institutes namely AIBS and

AIM for  the  academic  year  2017-18 was  processed  in  right

earnest. Further, it is only on 5th July, 2017 the petitioners

withdrew  their  proposal  in  respect  of  AIM,  whereafter  the

deficiency of sharing the same land and other infrastructure

between the two institutes stood removed. Only then it became

possible  to  issue  a  Letter  of  Approval  to  AIBS and  was  so

issued on 21st July, 2017, for the academic year 2018-19. It is

asserted by the respondents that the SAC-SC on 15th April,

2017 had found something amiss and noted that AIBS has a

common building plan and land, for which a fresh scrutiny of

the proposal was essential by a single committee. As a result,

10

fresh scrutiny was undertaken by a common EVC for  both

institutes.  As  directed,  on  25th April,  2017  EVC  went  for

inspection of the institutes. The team of EVC, however, was

not allowed to enter the approach road of the institutes for

reasons best known to the petitioners. This fact was intimated

to petitioner No.1-society by the AICTE vide letter dated 30th

April, 2017. Finally, after the direction given by this Court on

22nd June,  2017,  EVC  proceeded  to  take  inspection  in  the

presence of  the representative of  petitioner No.1-society and

inspection was conducted on 1st July, 2017. As apprehended

earlier  by  the  authorities,  it  was  noticed  that  both  the

institutes were situated on the same patch of land and shared

various other common facilities. This deficiency could not be

condoned under the Rules. Presumably, realising this position,

the petitioners were advised to withdraw the proposal relating

to AIM and gave in writing in that behalf to AICTE only on 5th

July,  2017.  It  is  only  thereafter  the  respondent  No.1  could

process the proposal  of  the petitioners to start AIBS, which

was  so  accorded  on  21st July,  2017  for  the  academic  year

2018-19.  The  respondents  have  relied  on  the  exposition  in

11

Para 46.6 of the decision in  Parshvanath Charitable Trust

(supra), which reads thus:-

“46.6.  If  the  appellate  authority  decides the  matter prior to 30th April of  the year concerned and grants approval to a college, then alone such institution will be permitted to be included in the list of colleges to which admissions are to be made and not otherwise. In other words, even if the appellate authority grants approval after 30th April,  it will  not be operative for the current academic year.  All  colleges which have been granted approval/affiliation by 10th or 30th April, as the case may be, shall alone be included in the brochure/advertisement/website  for  the  purpose  of admission and none thereafter.”

7. In  the  backdrop  of  the  aforementioned  facts,  it  is

unfathomable as to how respondent No.1-AICTE can be held

responsible for the delay in issuing the Letter of Approval in

respect of AIBS for the academic year 2017-18. It is obvious

that the petitioners having realised that because of inspection

by one EVC, their claim of no deficiency at all will be exposed

were advised to withdraw the proposal in respect of another

institute  (AIM)  which  shared  the  same  plot  of  land  and

common facilities.  This  deficiency was then removed by the

petitioners  only  in  July,  2017,  by  sending  communication

12

dated  5th July,  2017  for  that  purpose.  The  fact  that  the

petitioners have already made huge investments per se cannot

be the basis to overlook the statutory timelines specified for

grant of approval, which this Court has authoritatively held to

be mandatory and not directory. Any indulgence shown to the

petitioners would inevitably affect the larger public interests,

as  the  academic  course  has  already  commenced  for  the

current academic year from 1st August, 2017 and the last date

up to which the students can be admitted against the seats

available in any recognised college, is specified as 15th August,

2017.  

8. The petitioners would contend that the deficiencies noted

in the EVC report dated 1st July, 2017 were contrary to the

finding noted in its previous report dated 10th March, 2017 as

also of SAC-SC report dated 19th April,  2017. The argument

though attractive at the first blush deserves to be stated to be

rejected. Inasmuch as, the earlier report of EVC and SAC-SC

were based on the proposal and documents submitted by the

petitioners. Notably, the EVC team which wanted to visit the

13

site  for  inspection on 25th April,  2017 was obstructed from

entering the college complex. On 15th April, 2017 the SAC-SC

had already expressed apprehension about the factual position

and had advised one EVC team to visit both the institutes so

that the correct position could be ascertained. That became

possible only after the direction given by this Court on 22nd

June, 2017. The common EVC then inspected the site in the

presence of the representative of the petitioner No.1- society

and  submitted  its  report  dated  1st July,  2017  mentioning

about the two deficiencies noticed during the said inspection

namely, another institute of the petitioner No.1- society in the

name of AIM was proposed to be run on the same land on

which AIBS was situated and a fresh deficiency about the area

of the Boys’ Common Room and Girls’ Common Room being

less than the required area i.e. 75 sqm. This report must be

taken as the final observation of the EVC which is based on

inspection of the site. In other words, some noting made in the

previous report submitted by EVC and SAC-SC would be of no

avail to the petitioners.   

14

9. It is next contended that as the deficiencies have since

been removed, the AICTE was obliged to grant approval for the

academic year  2017-18 as was the  intent  behind the order

passed  by  this  Court  on  22nd June,  2017.  Even  this

submission does not commend to us. For, on a fair reading of

the order dated 22nd June, 2017, we find that no direction has

been issued to AICTE to grant approval for the academic year

2017-18. Rather, it has been left open to the AICTE to take a

fresh  decision  in  accordance  with  law  uninfluenced  by  the

earlier  order  of  rejection.  As  noted  earlier,  the  deficiencies

noticed in the EVC report dated 1st July, 2017 stood removed

only after the petitioners withdrew their proposal relating to

AIM vide  letter  dated  5th July,  2017.  Since  approval  to  be

accorded by the AICTE was after the cut off date of 30th April,

2017 for the academic year 2017-18, it chose to issue approval

for starting AIBS institute for the academic year 2018-19. No

fault can be found with the AICTE in that regard, as even the

order  dated 22nd June,  2017 expected the  AICTE to  take  a

fresh decision in accordance  with law.  Suffice  it  to  observe

that the decision of this Court dated 22nd June, 2017 cannot

15

be  construed  as  a  direction  to  AICTE to  grant  approval  in

breach of the statutory timelines specified in that behalf.  

10.  It  is  next contended by the petitioners that  there is  no

other institute in the entire district of Ashok Nagar, Madhya

Pradesh which imparts courses pertaining to Business Studies

and  therefore  grant  of  approval  for  starting  AIBS  for  the

academic year 2017-18 will be in public interest. This is an

argument of desperation. For, the petitioners are responsible

for the present situation. In the fact situation of the present

case,  we  are  not  inclined  to  show  any  indulgence  to  the

petitioners especially when the entire admission process has

been  substantially  completed  and  the  academic  year  has

commenced from 1st August, 2017. Any indulgence shown to

the petitioners would fall  foul of the admission schedule for

the academic year 2017-18.     

11. A priori,  in law, the petitioners are not entitled for the

relief as claimed in the writ petition. Furthermore, from the

facts which have now emerged it is noticed that the petitioners

were fully aware of sharing of the same piece of land and some

16

of the common facilities between the two institutes but did not

disclose  that  fact  in  the  original  application  (proposal).

Whereas, the team of officers of EVC who had visited the site

for  inspection on the  earlier  occasion were  obstructed from

entering the building complex, obviously with ulterior design.

Realising that the deficiency of two institutes sharing the same

plot and some of the common facilities would come in the way

of the petitioners, the petitioners have since been advised to

withdraw the proposal  in respect of  AIM. That decision was

taken  by  the  petitioners  on  1st July,  2017,  which  was

communicated to AICTE only on 5th July, 2017. It is only after

receipt of  that communication,  the AICTE proceeded on the

assumption  that  the  stated  deficiency  stood  removed  in

respect of AIBS and accorded approval to the said institute on

21st July, 2017, but for the academic year 2018-19. Keeping in

mind,  the  aforementioned factual  position and in particular

the conduct of  the petitioners, the question of granting any

relief to the petitioners much less by invoking plenary powers

of this Court, in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution of

India,  to  condone  or  relax  the  timeline  regarding  grant  of

17

approval and to direct the respondent authorities to treat the

approval  for  the  academic  year  2017-18  as  prayed  by  the

petitioners does not arise.  

12. Accordingly,  this  petition  being  devoid  of  merits  is

dismissed with costs quantified at Rupees Fifty Thousand to

be paid to the respondents within four weeks from today.  

                                      …………………………………….J. (Dipak Misra)

 ....……………………………….J. (A.M. Khanwilkar)

New Delhi,  Dated: August 16, 2017.