Sonopant Dandekar Arts V.S. Apte Commerce And Mh. Mehta Science College v. National Assessment And Accreditation Council An Autonomous Institution Of Ugc
Kavita S.J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by JITENDRA SHANKAR NIJASURE Date:
2026.02.10 11:51:51 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.4817 OF 2025 JITENDRA SHANKAR NIJASURE Sonopant Dandekar Arts V.S. Apte Commerce and M.H. Mehta Science College & Anr.,
...Petitioner
Versus
National Assessment & Accreditation Council & Ors.,
...Respondents
---------- V.P. Vaidya a/w Satyajeet Joshi i/b Mahendra Agvekar for Petitioner. Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Jainendra Sheth fore Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Milind Deshmukh for Respondent No.3 - UGC. ---------- CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATED : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2026.
ORDER :
1.
By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the Letter dated 26th December, 2024 issued by the Standing Committee of National Assessment and Accreditation Council ("NAAC"). By the impugned letter it has been held that after scrutinization of all documents, decision has been taken for revisiting the Petitioner Institution.
1/5
2.
It is the Petitioner's contention that though the Petitioner is not averse to the re-visit of the Peer Team at the Petitioner Institution, the impugned letter has not provided reasons for such revisit. The Petitioner's further contention is that the Petitioner Institution has fully complied with the stipulated accreditation and assessment process without any lapse.
3.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Standing Committee of the Executive Council has no power to withhold accreditation results without assigning any cogent or valid reasons. Further, the power to direct re-visit lies with Appeals Committee and not with the Standing Committee of the Executive Council. He has submitted that the Standing Committee of the Executive Council cannot usurp the powers of the Appeals Committee in a completely arbitrary and illegal manner. 4.
There is an Affidavit-in-Reply to the Petition, which is filed today. Respondent No.1 - NAAC has set out the guidelines approved by its Standing Committee. It is provided as per guidelines that upon scrutinization of the documents, the Standing Committee may either (i) declare the results, or (ii) order for a Re-DVV, or (iii) 2/5
order for a Re-visit, or (iv) order for a Re-DVV and Re-Visit. It is further provided in Paragraph 5.9 for re-visiting of the Petitioner - College, three alternative slots of two days each may be provided for the visiting Peer Team (online) to enable Re-Evaluation of the Qualitative Metrics (QIMs). Thereafter, the results will be declared by the Standing Committee of the Executive Committee of NAAC in accordance with the established procedure. In the event, the College has any grievance after the declaration of result, it is always open to the College to prefer an Appeal before the Appeals Committee of NAAC.
5.
We have considered the submissions as well as perused the averments in the Writ Petition as well as the averments in the Affidavit-in-Reply of Respondent No.1. There is no prohibition for revisiting of the Petitioner Institution during the assessment process by the Standing Committee of the Executive Committee of the NAAC as has been now sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioner. Although there is a provision for re-visit in the Appeal process that by itself does not imply that the Standing Committee of the Executive Committee of NAAC has no power to issue an order of re-visit of the Petitioner Institution.
3/5
6.
There is also no prejudice caused to the Petitioner by the re-visit of the Petitioner Institution as after such re-visit for the purpose as provided in the guidelines approved by the Executive Committee, the Petitioner Institution in the event of any grievance after declaration of the results of accreditation by Standing Committee of NAAC has a right to prefer an Appeal before the Appeals Committee.
7.
We accordingly find no infirmity in the impugned letter dated 26th December, 2024 which itself has stated that the Standing Committee of the Executive Committee of NAAC had scrutinized all the documents and thereafter decided for re-visit of the Petitioner Institution.
8.
The contention of the Petitioner that reasons are required to be mentioned in the impugned letter for the Petitioner to avail an opportunity to prefer an Appeal from the decision for the revisit is misconceived in view of the fact that the Petitioner is at liberty to avail the appellate remedy upon declaration of results by the Standing Committee of the Executive Committee of NAAC i.e. upon completion of the established procedure and which decision in any 4/5
event would contain the reasons.
9.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.] 5/5