http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4167 of 2003

PETITIONER: I.I.T.T. College of Engineering                                  

RESPONDENT: State of H.P. & Ors.  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/08/2003

BENCH: K.G.Balakrishnan & [P.Venkatarama Reddi.

JUDGMENT:                                                   J U D G M E N T

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents 1 to 4. This appeal is preferred by I.I.T.T. College of Engineering represented  through its Officiating Chairman. The Engineering College was started by a  Society, by name, International Institute of Telecom Technology Society, Kala  Amb, registered under the Societies Registration Act.  The Society established  the Engineering College at Sirmaur District in the State of Himachal Pradesh  after obtaining initial permission from All India Council for Technical Education  (for short AICTE) in 1997 and ’no objection’ certificate from the University and  started four year degree courses in Electrical Engineering, Electronics &  Communication Engineering and Computer Science & Engineering,  with a  maximum intake of 40 students in each discipline. The College sought  permission to start a Degree course in Information Technology and extension of  approval for the session 1998-99. For this purpose, an expert Team of AICTE  visited the institution, on 28.3.1998.  AICTE extended its approval on 31.7.1998  for the academic session 1998-99 with an intake of 140 students. The AICTE (4th  respondent herein), however, did not accord its approval to the additional  courses in Information Technology and Electronics and Instrumentation for the  session 1998-99. The college again applied for extension of approval for the  session 1999-2000 with a request for increasing intake and starting additional  courses. The Expert Committee visited the institution on 16.2.1999 and  recommended Information Technology as additional course with intake of 40.  After considering the said report, the AICTE had accorded approval through its  communication dated 27.7.1999 for the intake of 200 students including 40 in the  additional course of Information Technology subject to fulfillment of norms and  the conditions stipulated by the Council. However, the H.P. University, which had  also sent its team for inspection in April, 1999, declined to grant its approval and  affiliation for the I.T. Course. The University had also issued a press note on  12.8.1999 warning the students seeking admission to the said course. However,  the students were admitted by the appellant-college on the basis of the approval  granted by AICTE.

The question of extension of approval for the session 2000-2001 was  again considered by AICTE in the light of the inspection reports of the Expert  Committee. The AICTE, by its letter dated 24.7.2000, communicated the  extension of approval with reduced intake of 160 subject to the conditions  specified in Annexure-I. No approval was given for the Information Technology  Course. In Annexure-I to the said letter, it was made clear that the permission for  starting I.T. was withdrawn since the college had not made any attempt to  provide proper infrastructure for this course. Moreover, the College Management  was warned that the admissions to the existing three courses will be stopped  from the next year if the deficiencies pointed out therein continued. By its  communication dated 17.7.2000, the Registrar of the University advised the  appellant-college to delete the IT course from the Prospectus for the academic

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

session 2000-2001 and to issue a public notice to that effect. Faced with these  two adverse communications from AICTE and University, the appellant filed a  Writ Petition (C.W.P. No. 4104 of 2000) in Delhi High Court. The High Court  stayed that part of the order dated 24.7.2000 deleting the seats in IT Course. The  University by its letter dated 1.12.2000 informed the appellant-college that the  admission/examination forms sent by the college for holding the first semester  examination in I.T. were returned. The University made it clear by its further  communication dated 4.12.2000 that no student who was admitted to I.T. course  shall be allowed to appear in the first semester examination in the absence of  affiliation from the University. At this stage, it appears that the college had  submitted an application for grant of affiliation for the course of I.T. on  11.12.2000. However, the application was returned by the University as it did not  fulfill the necessary requirements. The appellant then challenged the decision of  the University by filing CWP No. 956 of 2000 in Himachal Pradesh  High Court.  The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.1.2001. While so, on 27.3.2001, the  Division Bench of High Court of Delhi, while admitting LPA No. 461 of 2000 filed  by the State of Himachal Pradesh and H.P. University against the interim order  granted on 28.7.2000, permitted the admitted I.T. students to take the  examination while making it clear that no special equity will be created in their  favour and it will be subject to  the ultimate decision. The S.L.P. filed by the State  against that order was dismissed. Surprisingly, the AICTE by its communication  dated 14.6.2001, accorded approval for the academic year 2001-2002 for all the  courses including IT which was withdrawn earlier, subject to the fulfillment of  three conditions regarding library, physics and chemistry lab and senior faculty.  However, the University suspended the affiliation granted to the college initially  and directed the College Management not to make fresh admissions from the  session 2001-2002.

In the meanwhile, five students of the Information Technology course filed  Writ Petition No. 24 of 2001 in Himachal Pradesh High Court out of which the  present appeal arises.  Inter alia, they sought for directions to accord affiliation, to  direct AICTE to take appropriate steps to safeguard interests of the students and  to direct the College Management to comply with the directions issued by the  University and AICTE. A prayer was also made that till the College Management  takes steps to comply with the directions of the concerned authorities, the  management and administration of the college should be taken over by a senior  official-cum-administrator who shall also conduct an inquiry against the  management of the college.

The High Court took the view that the approval by AICTE does not result  in automatic affiliation by the university and the affiliation fell within the exclusive  power of the university. As there was no affiliation or approval from the University  to run the IT course, the action of the University authorities in not allowing the IT  students to appear for the examination cannot be faulted. The High Court, based  on the report given by the AICTE on the basis of inspection conducted on  16.8.2001 i.e., during the pendency of the writ petition, observed that the College  did not possess the minimum required infrastructure as per the norms of AICTE  and the college failed to comply with the conditions subject to which the approval  was accorded by AICTE. The High Court also referred to the affidavit filed by the  Member Secretary-cum-Officiating Chairman of AICTE, in which he stated that  the college lacked basic infrastructure not only for the course of IT, but also other  courses. He further stated that the Council had decided to keep the admission of  fresh batch of students for the session 2001-2002 in abeyance. The High Court  then observed: "The Member-Secretary probably realized albeit belatedly, that  the stand taken on behalf of AICTE earlier was not befitting a responsible  Council. He, therefore, tried to be rather objective and frankly admitted that the  grievance of the State Authorities and University had substance."

Having commented adversely on the manner in which the college was  being run and the litigative zeal of the College Management, the High Court  considered it just and proper to issue certain directions in the interests of the  student community and for better administration. The substance of directions are  as follows:

1.      The AICTE should take an appropriate decision keeping in view the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

statutory provisions and various communications and reports forming part  of the record. 2.      Director of Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training,  Himachal Pradesh should act as Administrator for the college and  temporarily takeover the management and administration of the college  and initiate steps for obtaining affiliation/extension of affiliation from the  University for IT course of B.Tech. 3.      He shall also comply with the relevant rules and regulations and do  everything necessary to safeguard the future of the petitioners and other  students. In particular, the Administrator in collaboration with respondent  Nos.1-4 should take necessary steps to ensure that the students in IT, if  otherwise eligible, should be adjusted in other Engineering colleges.  Thus, the writ petition was partly allowed with heavy costs. Pursuant to this order, the Director of Technical Education nominated the  Joint Director of Technical Education to look after the affairs of the college. The  said official is now functioning under the overall control of the Administrator. The  entire management and control is now with the Administrator. Steps were taken  to see that the  students of IT course were allocated seats in other colleges in  adjoining States.  The IT course has been discontinued at present.

The counter affidavit filed by the Additional Secretary (TE) gives an  elaborate account of various steps taken by the Administrator to set right the mal- administration, the improvement of facilities and service conditions of staff and  the refund of security deposit amount to a substantial extent. It is also stated that  some of the deficiencies pointed out by the Committee constituted under the  directions of this Court have been rectified and in due course of time, other steps  will also be taken in the light of the financial position. It is also averred in the  counter affidavit that because of various improvements made by the  Administrator, AICTE and H.P. University gave approval for the year 2002-2003  to run the courses (other than IT). For granting approval for the ensuing year, the  AICTE team already inspected the college.

The inspection committee constituted as per the interim order of this Court  focused its attention on seven aspects, namely, space, laboratories, staff, library,  facilities like hostel, games etc., interaction with students and financial discipline.  The committee commented that the infrastructure, laboratories and equipment  were deficient in many respects and the salary and other conditions of service  were not satisfactory. However, the committee reported certain improvements  and works in progress after the takeover of the management by Administrator.  In  the course of interaction with students, it was noticed that there was marked  positive change in many respects and hostel life was more satisfying and secure.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was strident in his  criticism of the reports furnished by the inspection team of AICTE during the  pendency  of the writ petition and the latest inspection report submitted by a  committee headed by Director, IIT during the pendency of this SLP. It is his  contention that the former report and the volte face adopted by AICTE in its  subsequent affidavit in the High Court was the result of unwarranted intervention  by the High Court and that the inspection was slipshod lasting only for a few  minutes. It is submitted that the material facts noted in the two inspection reports  are opposed to the  ground realities and the approach was not fair.  Certain  photographs were produced in support of his contention. It is pointed out that the  previous reports of AICTE were not referred to by the two inspection teams and  there was no specific reference to the ’norms of AICTE’ which are not satisfied.  The learned counsel repeatedly emphasized that the infrastructural facilities and  the establishment the appellant has are far superior to many other colleges for  which the affiliation/approval was granted and if reasonable time was granted,  the defects could have been rectified. The learned senior counsel also made it  clear that at present the appellant is not interested in starting the IT course  having regard to various developments that have taken place and it would make  a fresh approach to the AICTE and University as and when it intends to restart  the course. Above all, the learned counsel submitted that the direction of the  High Court appointing an Administrator and taking over the management is  without authority of law and even opposed to the concept of autonomy of private  unaided colleges stressed by the larger Bench of this Court in T.M.A. Pai

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

Foundation vs. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC Page 481]. He drew our  attention in particular to paragraphs 50, 53, 55 & 68. Reliance has also been  placed on the dicta laid down in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner  & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department [(2000) 5 SCC 231]  at  para 28. The learned counsel finally submitted that the High Court clearly  exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It is not possible for us to discredit the two inspection reportsâ\200\224one by the  AICTE and the other by the team headed by the Director, IIT. No doubt there is  an apparent variation between the observations made in these two reports and  the earlier reports of AICTE, as well as the report of CSIO which was prepared at  the instance of the appellant. In fact, this Court directed constitution of an  independent team of experts when it was brought to the notice of the Court that  there were conflicting reports. Such report should be given its due weight. Even  though some of the comments, especially with regard to the buildings, are too  widely made and even if there are some inaccuracies here and there as pointed  out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the report cannot be simply ignored.  Even if basic infrastructure in the form of buildings and land is available, that is  not all. The latest report of the team constituted under the orders of this Court as  well as the report of AICTE furnished to the High Court and the earlier report of  the University inspection team unmistakably indicate that there were deficiencies  in many respects, especially in regard to IT course and all was not well with the  functioning of the college. However, there seems to be good deal of improvement  after the Administrator took over.  The obligation to make up the deficiencies and  to improve the general academic atmosphere lay on the shoulders of the College  Management, but unfortunately, no positive steps were taken. Undoubtedly,  there was discontentment amongst the students and the teachers. The High  Court, taking stock of this factual situation and in order to ensure better  administration and management, thought it fit to appoint an Administrator.  However, the High Court apparently did not realize that there was no provision  under which the management of an unaided private college could be taken over  by the Administrator. In spite of our repeated query, none of the counsel was  able to point out any provision either under the AICTE Act or the HP Education  Act or University Act permitting the authorities to take over the management of  institution. However laudable the objective behind the steps taken by the High  Court, it cannot be justified under law. The imposition of an Administrator to take  over the reins of administration for an indefinite point of time would undoubtedly  amount to interference with the right of administering and managing a private  educational institution which is now recognized to be a part of the fundamental  right under Article 19(1)(g) as held by this Court in TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State  of Karnataka (Supra). It would go against the principle of autonomy in regard to  administration which has been emphasized by this Court in the said case. In the  circumstances, the jurisdiction under Article 226 could not have been exercised  by the High Court to oust the private management and transfer the management  to a Court-appointed official.

Directions to check mal-administration in conformity with the provisions of  relevant statutes is one thing and deprivation of management to the private body  which established the institution is another thing. The latter should not have been  resorted to without authority of law. We have, therefore, no option but to set  aside the order of the High Court appointing the Administrator to manage the  affairs of the college. At the same time, we are of the view that certain checks  and balances are needed to ensure proper administration of the college in the  overall interest of the students. While allowing the previous Management  (Society) to resume management, the present nominee of the Administrator  (Joint Director, Technical Education) shall continue to play a role in overseeing  the functioning of the college and guiding the Managing Committee at least for a  year. It is to be noted that the Director, Technical Education is also one of the  members of the Governing Body. He is not a stranger to the managing body of  the College. If so, he can continue to play an active role if not in the capacity of  the Director, in his capacity as a member of the Governing Body. We are anxious  to see that the process of improvements brought about by the Administrator and  his nominee should not come to a halt and the students should not feel insecure.  

Before concluding, we may refer to the argument of the learned senior

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

counsel for the appellant that in view of what has been laid down in Jaya Gokul  Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher  Education [(2000) 5 SCC 231], the University should not have withheld the  affiliation inspite of the approval given earlier by AICTE. It is contended that the  provisions of the AICTE Act and Regulations will prevail over the provisions if any  in the University Act or State Act which are inconsistent with the provisions of the  former Act. This contention need not be considered in view of the latest stand  taken by AICTE and the approval/affiliation given by AICTE as well as University  during the tenure of Administrator for courses other than IT.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of with the following directions:--

The management and administration of the college shall be restored to the  appellant within a month. However, to protect the interests of the students by  keeping up the tempo of improvements made by the Administrator and to have a  check against mal-administration at least for sometime, we direct that the present  nominee of the Administrator, namely, the Joint Director of  Technical Education  should be allowed to oversee the running of the institution and give necessary  instructions to the Management in the interests of creating proper academic  atmosphere in the campus, while keeping in view the financial position and the  obligations to be discharged by  the Management to maintain necessary  standards. The said official should be allowed to have access to material  information including the financial position and transactions. In regard to  admissions for the current year i.e., for the year 2003-2004, the list of admissions  shall be finalized only after consultation with the said official and any objections  pointed out by him should be duly considered by the Management. Nothing  should be done by the Management to disturb the existing conditions of service  of teaching and non-teaching staff  to the detriment of such staff. Whatever  amount that was withdrawn just before the pronouncement of the judgment of the  High Court and subsequent to the judgment, shall be put back in the bank under  intimation to the Joint Director, Technical Education. In case any irregularities or  instances of mismanagement or non-compliance with the directives given herein  are noticed, the Director of Technical Education may approach the High Court for  appropriate orders. It is open to the AICTE/University authorities to call upon the  petitioner to remedy the deficiencies that may be persisting at the time of  granting affiliation/approval in the future and in case of non-compliance, to take  such action as is open to them under law. The need or otherwise of the nominee  official (Joint Director, Technical Education) to continue to be associated with the  administration on the lines indicated supra may be reviewed by the High Court  after the expiry of at least one year.

The operative part of this judgment was pronounced on 9th May, 2003.  This detailed judgment with reasons is now pronounced.