Sampathi Educational Society, v. All India Council For Technical Education,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY W.P.NO.21845 OF 2018

O R D E R

The 1st petitioner - Society is running 2nd petitioner - college for the last seven years with the approval of 1st respondent - AICET. For the present academic year 2018-19, vide impugned order dated 30.04.2018, 1st respondent, based on the recommendations of Standing Appellate Committee that there are deficiencies pertaining to land and building permission documents of the Institute; has withdrawn the approval of the 2nd petitioner - college. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, submits that 1st respondent granted approvals for the last seven years and for the present academic year, AICTE in the rescrutiny inspection committee meeting found that there are no deficiencies and the same is evident from the e-mails sent to the 2nd petitioner - college dated 26.03.2018. The said e-mails are filed as material papers. He stated that in spite of 'nil' deficiencies, impugned order has been passed withdrawing the approval on the ground that the land documents produced by the petitioners are in local language. He states that this is a minor deficienc y and that the petitioners will file translated documents and the necessary building permission granted by the competent authority and the same may be directed to be reconsidered.

Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 1st respondent - AICTE submits that since the deficiencies pointed out were not rectified and information pertaining to land and building of the 2nd petitioner - institution, are found to be incorrect, the approval has been rejected. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. A perusal of the deficiencies mentioned in the impugned order goes to show that the land documents produced by the petitioners are in local language and that the Committee could not be convinced that the land belongs to the petitioner - Institute. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners will file translated documents and building permission plans granted by competent authority.

In view of these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside, leaving it open to the petitioners to file translated documents and approved building permissions granted by the competent authority, and within two weeks of filing such documents, the 1st respondent shall reconsider the claim of the petitioners for grant of approval for the present academic year 2018-19, in accordance with law.

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. -------------------------------------- A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J DATE:29-06-2018 AVS