Prashant Institute Of Professional Studies v. All India Council For Technical Education

$~A-4 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4147/2020 & CM APPLs. 14920-21/2020 PRASHANT INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES ... Petitioner Through Mr.Ravi Kant and Mr.Mayank Manish, Advs.

Versus

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION .... Respondent Through Mr.Anil Soni, Adv. for AICTE

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 14.07.2020 This hearing is conducted through video conferencing. CM APPLs. 14920-21/2020(exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4147/2020 1.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order of rejection dated 30.06.2020 passed by the All India Council For Technical Education(hereinafter referred to as the 'AICTE') and to also direct the AICTE to give a hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that it is an institution seeking approval from AICTE for Post-Graduate Diploma in Management(in short the 'PGDM') for the session 2020-21. The petitioner states that it has all

infrastructural and instructional facilities for starting the PGDM courses as per norms of the AICTE. It is stated that due to a procedural error in processing of the application, the respondent AICTE failed to give a chance of hearing and issued the impugned order dated 30.06.2020 rejecting the application of the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the letter of rejection dated 30.06.2020 which states that on scrutiny of the application of the petitioner certain documents including legal incumbency certificate, proof of working capital(funds) and certificate issued by bank manager regarding the financial status of the applicant were not submitted. He relies upon a communication dated 06.06.2020 to submit that these documents were submitted but perhaps on account of some inadvertent error, they could not be properly uploaded.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

It appears from the writ petition that the grounds on which the impugned letter of rejection has been sent by the AICTE dated 30.06.2020 is premised on non-availability of certain documents which the petitioner states he has sent to AICTE but inadvertently perhaps as there was a technical mistake could not be uploaded.

6.

In these circumstances, as it is only a technical error, it would be in the interest of justice that the concerned committee, namely, the Standing Appellate Committee may treat the present writ petition of the petitioner as a representation of the petitioner and may deal with the same as per law keeping into account the submission made above. While considering the present representation the concerned committee may consider the case of the petitioner uninfluenced by rejection order dated 30.06.2020. Needful be

done within two weeks.

7.

Nothing further survives in this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

JAYANT NATH, J.

JULY 14, 2020/st