W P NO.

18593

Name of the parties:

AL Madina Munawara educational society & Ors……………………….Petitioner

Vs.

A.I.C.T.E, Director Approval Bureau & Ors………………………………Respondent

Facts:

The petitioner here filed a writ petition , challenging the order issued by the 2nd respondent:
Director Approval Bureau A.I.C.T.E There by withdrawing the approval petitioners’ college on
the grounds that the college does not comply under norms specified providing land and
admeasuring 0.5acres as per the guidelines of the 1st respondent as illegal ,irregular , contrary to
the guidelines of the respondent .
1st petitioner is registered under Societies Registration Act & it is a self financed educational
society. The 2nd petitioner obtained its first approval for running the college on 10-5-1998 with
the intake strength of 40 students for MBA. Later the 1st respondent issued a gazette thereby
amending the AICTE Regulation 8.
The 1st respondent later addressed the reduction of intake strength from 40 seats to 30 seats via
letter but 2nd petitioner made an application in regards to increase the intake to 60 seats from 40
seats and explained the problems faced due to the reduction of strengths. In 2007 the Respondent
visited the petitioner’s college for verification and to grant the same
The petitioner then addressed the letter high lightening the allowance for shifting from the old to
new premises and sought approval for the same from osmania university and got the no
objection. Then, expert committee sanctioned the increment ton 120 seats.
There was a surprise inspection from respondent’s side to petitioner and it was notified that there
were some minor deficiencies in the college. The standing hearing committee, AICTE issued a
notice directing the petitioner to submit its explanation. The petitioner rectified its many
deficiencies. All the major objections reported by the respondent was explained in details by the
petitioner. But the respondent put the petitioner’s college under “No admission” status and also
only granted the liberty of 10 days to file to file the appeal if aggrieved. The petitioner sought
more time for filling for the appeal. The respondent issued a circular to the petitioner about the
standing appellate committee meeting wherein it stated that the appeal has to be in between
9:30A.M to 1:30 PM to all the 25 colleges.
The honorable high court granted interim orders in all the matters thereby suspending the orders
of the 2nd respondent. Later the matter was appealed by the 1st respondent but all the writ appeals
filled were dismissed by the divisional bench of the high court. The extension of approval of the
2nd petitioner is only valid only till 30-04-2018 if not then they would have to face the
suspension order.
So the petitioner has filled a writ of mandamus before the honorable high court
Contentions made:

 As per the amended regulation 1994 8(4)(c) not withstanding anything contained on
clauses (a) & (b) the recruitment of land shall be as per the relevant norms and standards
specified by the council & also as per the regulation no. 8(8)(iv) in case the applicant
society or trust does not hold ownership right over the land a lease agreement duly
registered in its name for a temporary accommodation for a minimum period of two
years.
Thus, under both these regulations requirement of land is not mandatory
 The building construction was made after obtaining the proper approval from GHMC as
an “ Institutional Building”. And the 2nd petitioner has addressed a letter to the
respondent to allow the college to be shifted to the new premises and was given no
objection certificate by the osmania university and also the respondent expert committee
visited the 2nd petitioner college at new premises and granted the intake of 120 seats
 The petitioner is running its college from past 20 years without any break
 The deficiencies shown by the standing hearing committee were minor in nature and the
petitioner ratified them. The core objections raised was that the college was shifted to the
new premises without any permission or approval but as under the regulation of the 1st
respondent land is not required in mega/metro cities. However, the standing committee
without considering all these objections, submitted its report to the counsil
 The 2nd petitioner was one among the 25 colleges thus it is understood that the petitioner
was not given the sufficient time to present the case
 The authority that decided the recommendation of the standing hearing committee and
the authority who decided the recommendations of the standing appellate committee is
tge 2nd respondent itself. So this is a bad law.
 The honorable high court has previously granted interim orders in the similar previous
writ petitions earlier.

Laws applied:

 Article 14, 19, 21 & 30(a) OF The Constitution of India

 Article 226 of the constitution of India
 Regulation no. 8(4)(c) of societies regulation act, 1994