Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 779 (GUJ)

SANJEEVANI EDUCATION TRUST v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2007-12-06

D.A.MEHTA

body2007
( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed with the following prayers: "7 PRAYER the petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ in the name of mandamus, and/or any other appropriate writ, order and direction to: (A) Allow this petition. (B) Declare that the action and/or non-action on the part of respondent authorities in not granting No Objection Certificate to the petitioner trust for establishing and running a Study Centre, duly recognized by Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, an Open University, at the place shown in the cause title, being arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional. (C) Declare that there is no basis, reason or foundation for the respondent authorities in not granting No Objection Certificate for starting a Study Centre under the Distance Education Systems and thereby depriving the petitioner to start Study Centre, which is violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. (D) Declare that the petitioner having been provisional recognition by the Statutory Central Open University, it is not open for the State Authorities to refuse and/or not grant No Objection Certificate for starting said Study Centre which has been set up as per the norms of the Statutory YCMOU". ( 2 ) ON the basis of two letters issued by Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University on 12. 04. 2007, which were in the form of Provisional Study Centre recognition for (A) Basic Study Centre and (B) Information Technology (IT) Study Centre, the petitioner approached respondent No. 3-Authority for No Objection Certificate. The grievance is that despite reminders on 27. 06. 2007 and 7. 7. 2007, the respondent-Authority did not take any steps to either grant No Objection Certificate or decide the application moved by the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE petitioner thereupon preferred present petition. Upon Notice having been issued, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent-Authorities made a statement which has been recorded by the Court in order dated 20. 09. 2007 in the following words. ( 3 ) THE petitioner thereupon preferred present petition. Upon Notice having been issued, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent-Authorities made a statement which has been recorded by the Court in order dated 20. 09. 2007 in the following words. Date : 20/09/2007 oral ORDER learned AGP states, under instructions, that the petitioner was orally informed on the basis of the Study Centre Manual supplied by the petitioner, that the petitioner is required to obtain recognition from AICTE before the respondent authority can issue No Objection Certificate, but the petitioner having not complied with the said requirement, the respondent authority cannot issue the No Objection Certificate. In the circumstances, the respondent authority is directed to file a specific affidavit of the officer concerned who had made such oral communication categorically stating as to which representative of the petitioner-Institution was orally communicated. Affidavit shall be filed on or before 03. 10. 2007. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed on or before 09. 10. 2007. Matter to be listed on 10. 10. 2007. Sd/-[ D. A. MEHTA, J ] ( 4 ) THE aforesaid statement was followed up by averments in paragraph No. 5 and 6 of the Affidavit-in-reply as under:- "5. At the outset I say that the petitioner had approached the authority for the No-objection Certificate for starting study centre for Diploma and Degree Courses of Engineering. I say that one Shri Balvantbhai H. Solanki, President of the petitioner Trust visited the deponent and requested to grant No-Objection Certificate. He has also submitted selected pages of Study Centre Manual of 2006 of Yashvant Rao Chavan Maharashtra Open University. I say that petitioner Trust want to start study centre for 3 study courses viz. 1. Electornic Engineering, 2. Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and 3. Diploma in computer Engineering. I say that the petitioner was informed to obtain the recognition from the Apex Authority i. e. of All India Council for Technical Education for starting the courses of Engineering. Even as per the Pages of study centre manual which was handed over by the petitioner to the deponent, wherein clause -16. 05 states that "aicte" recognition for the degree programme in the respective discipline as an essential prerequisite for the study centre recognition for all 30 courses of semester 7 to 12 satisfied for in degree programme in engineering or technology. 05 states that "aicte" recognition for the degree programme in the respective discipline as an essential prerequisite for the study centre recognition for all 30 courses of semester 7 to 12 satisfied for in degree programme in engineering or technology. The petitioner was also advised to approach the office of Commissioner of Higher Education, so that necessary information regarding No-Objection Certificate from the Local University, which is also required for affiliation of any institution/study centre for starting course, which are affiliated, with any University situated outside the State of Gujarat. I say that the petitioner has visited the deponent on several occasions and on every occasion he was instructed to obtain recognition from the apex authority as well as to approach other authority for required procedures. 6]. I say that the petitioner wants to start study centre that constitutes classroom-teaching, practicals to be performed as well as project work, which is required to be entertained at the end of the study course. The study centre imparts education of diploma as well as degree of engineering, which is a full-fledged course with intake capacity of the students prescribed by Yashwant Rao Chavan Maharashtra Open University. Referring to the Study Centre manual submitted by the petitioner clause 30. 01. 01 to 30. 01. 02 states that, the subjects are of practical type which is indicated as PR whereas other subjects are indicated as TH which indicates Theory type, which clearly indicates that the courses for which the petitioner seeks approval, are the courses where the practicals are the part of syllabus, which could be conducted only by the institutions imparting full time courses. Therefore, the study centre for which the petitioner seeks approval is certainly not a different type of study centre then regular study courses. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R1 is the copy of the selected pages of Study Centre Mannual supplied by the petitioner". ( 5 ) THE aforesaid averments have been disputed by the President of the Trust and the Manager of the Institute in the Affidavit-in-rejoinder. ( 6 ) AT the time of hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner has invited attention to Clause Nos. 16. 05 and 16. 06 of Study Centre Manual, 2006 to contend that respondent-Authorities were wrongly placing reliance on Clause No. 16. 05 which was not applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner. ( 6 ) AT the time of hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner has invited attention to Clause Nos. 16. 05 and 16. 06 of Study Centre Manual, 2006 to contend that respondent-Authorities were wrongly placing reliance on Clause No. 16. 05 which was not applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner. That the case of the petitioner was governed by Clause No. 16. 06. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, it is apparent that after the respondent-Authority raised an objection, the petitioner did not take any steps to explain the facts and the nature of courses that the petitioner was inclined to commence and for which provisional recognition had been obtained. In the circumstances, without recording any opinion on merits of the controversy between the parties it would be in the fitness of things if the petitioner is directed to approach respondent-Authority with a detailed explanation as to the nature of courses that petitioner intends to commence in light of the provisional order of recognition. ( 8 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall approach the respondent-Authority, more particularly respondent No. 3-Authority, within a week from today. The learned AGP states that respondent-Authority shall take a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the explanation from the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN light of the what is stated hereinbefore by the respective advocates, the petition stands disposed of accordingly. Notice discharged.