Heritage Academy v. All India Council For Technical Education

$~A-5 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4720/2020 & CM APPLs. 17016-17/2020 HERITAGE ACADEMY ... Petitioner Through Mr.Mayank Manish & Mr.Ravi Kant, Advs.

versus ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION ... Respondent Through Mr.Anil Soni, Standing Counsel with Mr.Devesh Dubey, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 30.07.2020 This hearing is conducted through video conferencing. CM APPLs. 17016-17/2020 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4720/2020 1.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner institute seeking quashing of the impugned order being the letter of rejection dated 30.06.2020 and to direct AICTE/Respondent to give a hearing to the petitioner. 2.

The petitioner institute had sought approval from the AICTE respondent for the Post Graduate Diploma in Management for the session 2020-21. It is claimed that the institution is ready with all infrastructural and instructional facilities for starting the course. However, due to ongoing Covid-19 crisis in Indore city the petitioner institute was unable to upload required documents and AICTE rejected the application observing deficiencies.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on account of the Covid crisis in Indore city petitioner was unable to produce all the relevant documents which has resulted in the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 30.06.2020. 5.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner. A hearing was given on 18.06.2020 and the order is passed on 30.06.2020. In the interregnum, there was no grievance expressed by the petitioner of any inability to produce the relevant documents. He also relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust and Ors. vs. AICTE & Ors. being Civil Appeal No.9048/2012 to contend that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for this academic session of 2020-21. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that all he seeks is a rehearing of the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case. He states that he is not pressing for grant of permission to start the course for this academic session. He states that prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if he has to apply all over again for fresh consideration by respondents. 7.

Let the petitioner make a representation to the respondent on the above grounds. In case a representation is made, the respondent will deal with the same as per law keeping into account the submission of the petitioner. Such a representation if made may be considered expeditiously. 8.

With the above directions, petition stands disposed of. JAYANT NATH, J.

JULY 30, 2020/st