Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 01.10.2010 passed by the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi rejecting the proposal of the petitioner for establishment of new technical institution, in the name and style of The Madras School of Social Work. The impugned order dated 01.10.2010, reads as under:- ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (A STATUTORY BODY OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA)Letter of Rejection F.No.TN-011/MBA/2005 Dated: 01-10-2010 To The Society for Social Education and Research 32 Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 Sub: Your proposal for establishment New Technical Institution in the name and style of The Madras School of Social Work, 32, Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008-(MBA course)-reg. Ref: 1. Your appeal dated 17.3.2008 2. Hon'ble High Court order W.P.No.19244 of 2010 dated 16-09-2010 Sir, This is in pursuance to High court of Madras order in W.P.No.19244 of 2010 dated 16-9-2010, I am directed to inform you that the appeal dated 17-03-2008 submitted by the society has been processes as per the approval process laid down in AICTE's Hand Book for Approval Process and the same was placed before a duly constituted Appellate Committee in its meeting held on 24-09-2010. Based on the recommendation of Appellate Committee I am directed to convey that the Council has rejected the application of The Society for Social Education and Research, 32, Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 for establishment of Madras School of Social Work, 32, Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 on the following grounds: 1. The Director, claimed to be appointed by the promoting Trust for the proposed Institution was not having the qualification as prescribed in the norms by AICTE. 2. further, the Society/Trust claimed that the Director was appointed on 02-01-2009, whereas the Minutes of Selection Committee furnished by the Society indicate that the minutes were approved on 2nd September 2010 i.e.20 months after the date of appointment. 3. The Appellate Committee has observed that the computers have been procured recently in the name of international school of Management Studies and claimed to have been installed in Madras School of Social Work, 32, Casa Major road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 4. 3. The Appellate Committee has observed that the computers have been procured recently in the name of international school of Management Studies and claimed to have been installed in Madras School of Social Work, 32, Casa Major road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 4. The Society for Social Education and Research, 32, Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 is running two programmes i.e PMIR and MBA(International) in collaboration with a Foreign University without mandatory approval of ALL India Council for Technical Education, which is violation of the Provision under AICTE's Approval Process Handbook." Petitioner vide application dated 26.06.2006 approached the respondent for permission for starting a Two Year MBA course The application of the petitioner was rejected on the following grounds: (a) The land, the land use, building plan is in the name of existing college, which is not acceptable; (b) The documents related to fund position was not produced; Apart from the above, vide the said order the Petitioner was also informed that as per the provision for Appeal in the Handbook December 2005 the Petitioner can avail of the opportunity for reconsideration of their case after rectification of the above mentioned two deficiencies and that any request for reconsideration should be sent to the Regional Office along with a fee of Rs.50,000/-" 2. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ petition W.P.No.3295 of 2007 which was allowed by this court, and directions were issued to the respondent, to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for starting new MBA course on merits, without payment of fresh fee of Rs.50,000/- was demanded by the Council vide its order dated 07.11.2006. In pursuance to the orders passed by this court in W.P.No.3295 of 2007 the respondent granted letter of intent to the petitioner under Regulation 2.6.5 subject to the following conditions: (a) The petitioner should execute a binding agreement with AICTE that the institution will abide by the present and future regulations and rules of the Council; (b) Furnish a Performance Guarantee deposit of Rs.15 lakhs jointly in the name of the Society and AICTE Regional Office at Chennai; and (c) Remit an additional non-refundable fee of Rs.50,000/- to the Council. The petitioner complied with the stipulated conditions, and committee of experts, was deputed to inspect the college and submit a report to the Council with regard to the infrastructure and other facilities available for the proposed course. 3. The petitioner complied with the stipulated conditions, and committee of experts, was deputed to inspect the college and submit a report to the Council with regard to the infrastructure and other facilities available for the proposed course. 3. The inspection was carried out by the committee on 13.09.2007. The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was not served with the copy of the report of the committee, he was informed by the respondent vide letter dated 26.09.2007, that the report of the Committee was examined by appropriate authorities and the petitioner's proposal for starting a new MBA course was not found viable by the Council. The deficiencies pointed out by the respondent were as follows: (a) The Director is not qualified as per AICTE norms; (b) Proper demarcation of building is yet to be done; (c) No separate library and computer lab are available; (d) Institute is running a 2-Year PMIR program which is not approved by AICTE; (e) The Institute is running an International School for Management Studies in the same campus whose program is not recognized by AICTE. The petitioner was given opportunity to rectify the deficiency, and resubmit his application for starting the course. Petitioner, disputed the demand for Rs.40,000/- as additional fee. The respondent Council thereafter got surprise inspection of the petitioner's institution carried out by another expert committee on 14.05.2008. Inspite of second inspection the petitioner was not granted permission to start two year MBA course. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that it was not given any information regarding reasons for rejection, therefore it had to approach the authorities under Right to Information Act, and it was under the directions Appellate authority under RTI Act that the petitioner was supplied with necessary information. 4. The case of the petitioner is that it rectified, all the deficiencies pointed out by the respondent in the inspection report dated 13.09.2007 and 14.05.2008. The deficiency pointed out and the present position is stated to be as under: Deficiency AICTE Norms Rectification Director is not qualified as per AICTE norms. Professor in relevant discipline with total experience of 15 years in the field of teaching/industry/research Director with B.Tech, IITM; PGDM (IIMA) and above 15 years experience has been appointed. Resume and appointment letter issued to the concerned person is being filed. Professor in relevant discipline with total experience of 15 years in the field of teaching/industry/research Director with B.Tech, IITM; PGDM (IIMA) and above 15 years experience has been appointed. Resume and appointment letter issued to the concerned person is being filed. Out of the existing four faculties appointed as per AICTE norms, two have PhD qualification with more than 10/15 year's experience. Proper demarcation of building is yet to be done Reference is drawn to the inspection committee's report of 14-05-2008 in which they have declared as follows:"yes,It is done by fencing" No separate library & Computer lab are available (a) Library Area-1076 sq.ft Books-150 titles 1000 books Librarian-1 person (b) Computers - 30 Nos System Analyst - I Separate library has been provided as per AICTE norms with 1000 books/150 titles. Internationals journals and magazines have also been provided. Accession register is maintained. Full time librarian has been appointed. Copy of Resume/appointment letter filed. 30 Nos. PIV computers with legal software have been installed in a separate computer lab, purchase document is presently available for the computers installed. Licensed software is also available. Systems operator has been appointed. Copy of Resume/appointment letter is filed. Institute is running 2 year PMIR program which is not approved by AICTE The PMIR program is runs since 1978. It is an approved program by the government of Tamilnadu vide gazette 1980 for appointment of Welfare officers under TN Factories rules. We have submitted an application for converting this program into a three year program which was rejected. Being an autonomous institution, we are authorized to issue the Diploma. We are however willing to discontinue the 2 year PMIT program on obtaining AICTE approval for the MBA day/evening program Institute is running International school for Management studies in the same campus whose program not recognized by AICTE This is a 10 month foundation program for the foreign MBA. We do not issue any degree or certificate. However, if you insist on closing this program we will consider closing down the moment you approve the MBA day/evening program The case of the petitioner is that inspite of removing all the deficiencies, the petitioner was served with the impugned order. The notice of the writ petition was given. Inspite of opportunities having been granted, no counter has been filed. The facts stated in the affidavit to the writ are therefore taken to be admitted. The notice of the writ petition was given. Inspite of opportunities having been granted, no counter has been filed. The facts stated in the affidavit to the writ are therefore taken to be admitted. The case of the petitioner in affidavit is that the deficiencies, pointed out are minor in nature, and can be set right immediately. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that it is wrongly stated that the Director of Institution is not qualified as per AICTE norms. The director of the petitioner's institution is a Engineer from IIT Madras and also a PGDM from IIM, Ahmedabad which is recognized qualification. Therefore, the director of institution is duly qualified, as per norms laid down by the AICTE. 6. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Director was appointed on 02.01.2009 whereas his appointment was only ratified subsequently. Therefore it cannot be said to be any irregularity. 7. There is force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was not open to the respondents to take this be a defect for refusing approval, for starting the new course. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that in the inspection it was noticed that only 25 computers were there, which were short by 5. Therefore no fault can be found with the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that additional 15 computers have been purchased. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further undertaken that in the event of approval, the computers will be shifted to the institution immediately. 9. With regard to objection No.4, learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that the course conduced is for preparing the students for admission to MBA in foreign countries, and is run with the approval of the Government since 1981, and on grant of approval this course would be immediately stopped. 10. In view of the admitted facts it would be seen that the respondents, have mechanically passed an order without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The application of the petitioner could not have been rejected for such minor technicalities. 10. In view of the admitted facts it would be seen that the respondents, have mechanically passed an order without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The application of the petitioner could not have been rejected for such minor technicalities. The respondent could at the best direct the petitioner to arrange all the facilities to start the course specially when letter of intent already stood granted and the petitioner has taken effective steps as directed. 12. For the reasons stated, the impugned order, is set aside. The respondents are directed to take fresh decision, with regard to grant of approval within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 13. It is made clear if any deficiencies still exists, the petitioner is directed to rectify the same. It is only in case if the petitioner fails to rectify the deficiencies pointed out that be taken not to grant approval, otherwise approval be granted. No costs.