ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court seeking quashing of letter dated 10th April, 2013 issued by the Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the AICTE), whereunder the application of the petitioner Institute for extension for approval for the Academic Year 2013-14, has been rejected. He had also made a prayer for quashing of letter contained in File No. ERO14476904/2012-13, dated 11th April, 2013 issued under the signature of the Advisor AICTE, New Delhi (respondent no.4), whereby the petitioner-Institute has been placed under “No Admission Status” for the Academic Year 2013-14, as it would cause serious detriment to the petitioner Institute which is imparting technical education since last 12 years as per the norms and regulation of the AICTE. The petitioner also sought direction upon the respondent authority to accord approval to the petitioner-Institute for Academic Session 2013-14 as according to petitioner Institute, it fulfills all the standards laid down by the AICTE. It also sought for further direction upon the respondents to allow it to take admission in the B.Tech Course for the Academic Session 2013-14. 3. When the writ petition was filed, the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the appellate committee of AICTE being aggrieved by the impugned orders as aforesaid. The matter was adjourned to enable the respondents to file their response and it was also observed that it would be open for the appellate board of AICTE to take a decision in respect of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid period. Thereafter once again the matter was adjourned as no counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents. It was also informed that the appellate body had not taken any decision on the appeal preferred by the petitioner. However, when the matter was taken up on 8th July, 2013, the petitioner pressed an I.A. No. 4580 of 2013, seeking challenge to the appellate order dated 28th June, 2013 passed by the appellate committee of AICTE, whereby the petitioner’s appeal was rejected. After hearing the counsel for the parties the petitioner was allowed to incorporate the proposed amendments in the main writ application. Therefore, the order dated 28th June 2013 passed by the appellate committee is also impugned in the present writ application. 4. After hearing the counsel for the parties the petitioner was allowed to incorporate the proposed amendments in the main writ application. Therefore, the order dated 28th June 2013 passed by the appellate committee is also impugned in the present writ application. 4. The case of the petitioner-Institute is that it has been established in the year 2001. Ever since its affiliation to the Ranchi University, Ranchi and grant of approval by the AICTE for running the Engineering Course, it has been running and maintaining the Institution as per the norms and standards as laid down by the AICTE. It is submitted that yearwise extension of approval to the petitioner Institute has been granted continuously thereafter by AICTE till the Academic Year 2012-13 vide Annexure-1 & 1/1. However a surprise visit was conducted in the petitioner Institute by the AICTE team on 12th April, 2012 and it was noticed to show cause relating to certain deficiencies pointed out by the Surprise Inspection Committee as also to appear before the Standing Complaint Committee of AICTE vide letter dated 24th May, 2012 vide Annexure-2. According to the petitioner, it appeared before the Standing Complaint Committee and explained its bonafide giving satisfactorily replies before the Expert Committee. No adverse communication was made to it thereupon. However, again on 8th August, 2012, another surprise visit was conducted by the AICTE Team and a show cause was issued to it to explain the set of deficiencies pointed out inter alia relating to excess admission in the year 2003-04, the qualification of the Principal /Director of the Institute being not in accordance with norms and the Teacher Faculty Ratio in the institute being also not in consonance with the AICTE requirements vide Annexure-3 dated 27th August, 2012. The petitioner submitted its reply on 8th September, 2012. According to petitioner-Institute, it explained the matter of admission of the Diploma Holders, who had been laterally admitted in 2nd Year Engineering Course and allowed to continue their studies and their results were published at the instance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 645 and 659 / 2005. It also pointed out that the Principal A. Bhattacharya possesses the qualification of B.E., M. Tech and Ph. D in Engineering and was fully eligible for appointment as the Principal of the petitioner-Institute. It also pointed out that the Principal A. Bhattacharya possesses the qualification of B.E., M. Tech and Ph. D in Engineering and was fully eligible for appointment as the Principal of the petitioner-Institute. The petitioner also gave details of the teaching faculty to justify the teacher-students ratio as being in accordance with the norms of AICTE vide its reply dated 8th September, 2012. According to the petitioner, no adverse order was communicated to the petitioner Institute in relation to the deficiencies pointed out by the expert committee. 5. However, on 15th March, 2013, another surprise visit was conducted by the AICTE Team and the petitioner was informed on 23rd March, 2013 on telephonic message followed by an email from the Advisor (Approval), AICTE, New Delhi, directing the petitioner to appear before the Standing Complaint Committee on 25th March, 2013. Once again the petitioner appeared and explained in detail that no deficiencies existed. The petitioner also made an application on the web portal of the AICTE for extension of approval for all existing course in 1st and 2nd Shift. It also prayed for introduction to M.Tech Course in Communication Engineering and introduction of 2nd shift in Electrical & Electronics Engineering (EEE) for B.Tech Course. The petitioner, however, received a letter dated 10th April, 2013 by which the extension of approval of the Institute for the Academic Year 2013-14 had been rejected. The said letter indicates that the reasons for rejection could be any one which are narrated at clauses (i) to (xvi) to the letter dated 10th April, 2013 (Annexure-5). According to the petitioner, it was at a loss to understand in view of the rejection letter that what was the specific reasons for rejection of the application for extension of approval of the petitioner Institute as not less than 16 vague grounds were mentioned in the said letter. It was not indicated that which of the reasons amongst 16 were applicable to the petitioner Institute. Therefore, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order was passed in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. 6. According to the petitioner, on 11th April, 2013, he received another letter, whereby it was informed that the petitioner Institute has been declared 'No Admission Status' for the Academic Year 2013-14 based on the recommendation of the Standing Complaint Committee. 6. According to the petitioner, on 11th April, 2013, he received another letter, whereby it was informed that the petitioner Institute has been declared 'No Admission Status' for the Academic Year 2013-14 based on the recommendation of the Standing Complaint Committee. These two letters contained at Annexure-5 dated 10th April, 2013 and Annexure-6 dated 11th April, 2013 were originally impugned in the writ application. 7. As per the impugned letter dated 11th April, 2013, the petitioner Institute had been imposed with a punishment of “No Admission Status” on the recommendation of the Standing Complaint Committee, which gave three recommendations (i) for excess admission made during 2003-04, punishment as per Chapter IV Clause 3.1, Page 60, APH 2013-14 has been imposed whereunder excess admission fee amounting five times the total fee collected as per students shall be levied against each excess admission. (ii) Due to non-fulfillment of requirement of qualified principal, no admission status for the academic year 2013-14 (iii) Regarding faculty-students ratio, the institute is suggested that they should submit a detailed list of faculty students ratio departmentwise to the AICTE. 8. The petitioner has sought to assail the aforesaid grounds by making following submission. It is submitted that punishment of five times excess admission fee for excess admission taken in the year 2003-04 relying upon the guidelines contained at Chapter VI clause 3.1 of APH 2013-14 is wholly unsustainable as it seeks to punish the petitioner for an alleged deficiency of the year 2003-04 when no such punishment was in vogue. According to the petitioner as per AICTE hand book for approval for Academic Year 2003-04 being a legal document as per Section (5) of the Gazetted Policy Resolution No. F. 373/Legal (iv)/2002 of AICTE dated 20th November, 2002 and published on 25th November, 2002 in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-III, Section-4, the punishment for excess admission was prescribed as follows : “Excess Admission If any excess admission is made by approved Technical Institution during a particular academic year, the annual intake for such institution may be reduced proportionately during the next academic year.” 9. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been imposed such punishment which was not applicable for such alleged deficiencies at the relevant point of time for the Academic Year 2003-04, as the punishment imposed under APH 2013-14 being of a severe nature could not have been imposed retrospectively to punish the petitioner. 10. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been imposed such punishment which was not applicable for such alleged deficiencies at the relevant point of time for the Academic Year 2003-04, as the punishment imposed under APH 2013-14 being of a severe nature could not have been imposed retrospectively to punish the petitioner. 10. The petitioner also assailed the declaration of no admission status for the Academic Year 2013-14 on the grounds of non-fulfillment of requirement of qualified Principal by taking a categorical stand based upon the documents which are enclosed as Annexure-9 Series being certificates of the Principal Dr. Amitabh Bhattacharya that he possessed the qualification of Doctorate in Engineering and not Doctorate in Science as is being made out. According to the petitioner, these documents relating to the qualification of the Principal were also enclosed in the reply to the show cause to the Standing Complaint Committee which has failed to take it into account and passed the impugned order without application of mind. It also submitted that the petitioner has submitted the faculty students ratio as demanded for which recommendation was made by the Standing Complaint Committee. 11. It is submitted that an appeal was preferred before the appellate committee which is also enclosed to the main writ application being Annexure-11. It is also submitted that these documents were also part of the memo of appeal before the appellate committee of AICTE and each of such grounds which are being urged herein were also taken in the appeal. The qualification of the Principal and the relevant certificates in support thereof were also enclosed as part of the appeal. The copy of the faculty members was also enclosed with the memo of appeal. The petitioner also took a stand before the appellate committee in the memo of appeal that the impugned order was passed without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also without taking into account the aforesaid documents and the explanation furnished by the petitioner in respect of the deficiencies pointed out. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate committee also however rejected the appeal in a wholly mechanical manner without application of mind. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate committee also however rejected the appeal in a wholly mechanical manner without application of mind. Learned counsel by referring to the appellate order submits that perusal of the same would show that on each of these three deficiencies pointed out in respect of the petitioner, the appellate committee without proper application of mind has rejected the appeal without giving any opportunity to petitioner appellant to satisfy it. Therefore, the impugned appellate odder dated 20th March, 2013 bad in law. The petitioner institute was also not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed by the appellate committee. 13. The respondents-AICTE has filed its counter affidavit. It has taken a stand that the petitioner Institute is bound to maintain the standards set by AICTE in running the institute. It carries out routine inspections including surprise inspections to verify the quality of education and technical requirements as required under the terms and conditions and the guidelines framed by the AICTE. The petitioner Institute was inspected by the respondents and a number of deficiencies and violations of norms were noticed. The petitioner thereafter was issued show cause notice and asked to appear before the Standing Complaint Committee which also gave the institution a chance for hearing. Since the petitioner Institute was found to be violating the norms of AICTE, the punitive action was attracted. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed after due show cause to the petitioner and giving it opportunity to explain its stand based upon the deficiencies noticed during inspection made by the successive committee. In response to the interlocutory application also it is submitted that the petitioner Institute has failed to disprove the findings of deficiencies found by the Expert Visiting Committee and the observations of the Standing Complaint Committee and the deficiencies existed. Hence the order of ‘No Admission Status’ was imposed which does not warrant any interference. It is further submitted in support of the impugned order that Expert Committee had found that the Institute was running without qualified Principal, therefore, the decision taken by the appellate committee is as per the law and guidelines of AICTE. 14.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the materials on record, including the impugned orders. 14.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the materials on record, including the impugned orders. The petitioner is a Institute which is established in the year 2001 and has been granted approval by AICTE for running the Engineering Course every year till the Academic Year 2012-13. It is also affiliated to the Ranchi University. It appears that based upon the surprise inspection conducted in the petitioner Institute from time, show causes were issued to it and it appeared and explained its stand. On the basis of another surprise visit on 8th August 2012, the petitioner was asked to show cause vide letter dated 27th August, 2012 (Annexure-3) to the writ application in respect of deficiencies pointed out in the said show cause. The petitioner appeared and filed it show cause on 8th September, 2012, giving explanation in relation to the deficiencies. The deficiencies pointed out, inter alia, were also relating to excess admission of 29 students or Diploma Holders (Civil Engineering) who were given admission against six sanctioned seats in Civil Engineering in the year 2003-04. It also related to the deficiencies in the appointment of qualified Principal/Director, as the Principal was found having a Doctorate in Science only whereas it was required to have a Doctorate in Engineering. However, deficiencies were also related to the faculty students ratio, pay scale, qualification of teaching staffs, equipment/facilities relating to computers, printers, laboratory books and journals as also in relation to additional/essential requirements such as all weather approach is in bad shape, built up area not being sanctioned by the competent authority and other complaints of general in nature. It appears that the petitioner in his reply tried to explain and satisfy the Standing Complaint Committee of its stand in relation to the deficiencies pointed out through its reply dated 8th September, 2012. Finally a surprise visit was again made at the petitioner Institute and by a show cause sent through email the petitioner was asked to furnish reply. According to the petitioner it had appeared before the Standing Complaint Committee and explained in detail that the deficiencies pointed out were unfounded. The order of rejection of its application for extension of approval of the Institute for the Academic Year 2013-14 was issued thereafter which is at Annexure-5 dated 10th April, 2013. 15. According to the petitioner it had appeared before the Standing Complaint Committee and explained in detail that the deficiencies pointed out were unfounded. The order of rejection of its application for extension of approval of the Institute for the Academic Year 2013-14 was issued thereafter which is at Annexure-5 dated 10th April, 2013. 15. The reasons for rejection, indicated therein are being quoted below: “Reason for rejection would be any among the following as applicable to your Institute. 1. Due to overall deficiency observed based on the date uploaded by the institute on the portal. 2. Receipt of CBI/CVC/CVO/FIR references. 3. Deficiency found in the Surprise Visit and pending compliance against the showcase, and further recommendations of SAC 4. Excess admissions in previous academic years 5. Break in Extension of approvals in the previous years. 6. Institute kept under No admission category. 7. Complaints/Ragging/Grievances/pending Court matter. 8. Charge sheet filed by CBI 9. Affiliated for more number of increases 10. Affiliated to More than 1 affiliating University. 11. Applied first time on portal (No Permanent Id) 12. Not eligible. 13. Processing fees paid or not received 14. Affiliated to private University 15. Withdrawal of approval 16. Incorrect date entered on the Portal.” 16. Perusal of the same shows that the respondents member secretary, AICTE did not found even proper to tick of any or more than one of the reasons which were applicable to the petitioner Institute. Perusal of 16 reasons shows that they related to wide variety of deficiencies, many of which may not have been applicable to the petitioner Institute. The reasons are the soul of an order, it enables the appellate authority or the higher forum to decipher the grounds on which the order has been passed so that it can be scrutinized in appeal or by the higher forum. 17. The opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 at para 47 is apposite in the present case as well and is quoted hereinbelow: Para 47: Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decision, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (b) A quasi judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. .(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restrain on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons gave virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubberstamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor 32.) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor 32.) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain 33 EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford 34, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decision”. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”. 18. The impugned order dated 10th April, 2013 therefore appears to be suffering from complete non application of mind and also for failing to disclose the specific reasons, for which the extension of approval for the petitioner institute has been rejected for the Academic Year 2013-14. 19. The order dated 11th April, 2013 (Annexure-6), by which “No Admission Status” for the Academic Year 2013-14 has been declared in respect of the petitioner Institute has been based upon three recommendations of the Standing Complaint Committee in respect of the deficiencies considered by it and the explanation submitted by the petitioner in respect of the same, amongst the grounds contained from serial nos. a to h, which are enclosed in the Chart in a tabular form to the impugned order. The Standing Complaint Committee has made recommendations for charging excess admission fee amounting five times total fee collected as per the students for having taken excess admission in the Academic Sessions 2003-04. This punishment has been imposed as per Chapter IV clause 3.1, Page 60, APH 2013-14. 2. Perusal of the hand book which is also brought on record on behalf of the petitioner, issued by AICTE for the Academic Year 2003-04 and also approval process hand book for the year 2013-14 at Annexure-7 series shows that for a deficiency or violation of AICTE norms in taking excess admission, the punishment proposed in the hand book of 2003-04 provided for reduction of annual intake for such institution to be reduced proportionately during the next academic year. The hand book of the year 2013-14, on the other hand provided for punishment of imposition of excess admission fee amounting five times the total fees collected per student against each excess admission apart from other punishment. The aforesaid punishment proposed in the hand book of 2013-14 obviously could not have been made retrospectively applicable to the charge/deficiency of excess admission taken in the year 2003-04, as such severe punishment was not in existence for the alleged deficiencies in the year 2003-04 when the relevant guidelines as contained in Annexure-7 Series Hand Book for Approval Process for the Academic Year 2003-04 were in vogue. It is well settled that if the punishment even in a civil proceeding, for any alleged misconduct or deficiency on established charges is being sought to be imposed, it cannot be more severe than what it was at relevant time when such deficiency or misconduct had existed. [See State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.CH. Gandhi reported in (2013) 5 SCC 111 ]. Moreover the punishment proposed under AICTE Hand Book for Academic Year 2013-14 could not have been made retrospectively applicable to curtail the right vested in the Institute under the AICTE Hand Book for Academic Year 2003-04. Therefore, the punishment of excess admission fee five times is also unsustainable in law. 21. It further appears that the petitioner had produced all the relevant materials before the Standing Complaint Committee relating to the qualification of the Principal of the College Dr. A. Bhattacharya which show that the Principal had degrees of Bachelor in Metallurgical Engineering from the University of Burdwan in the year 1968. He also had a Master of Technology from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay in Metallurgical Engineering with specialization in Extractive Metallurgy. The principal had been conferred the Doctor of Philosophy degree on the subject of thesis “the Development of a Theoretical Model for Dry Corrosion of Metals showing Oxide Evaporation and Studies on Nickel Base Alloys at Elevated Temperatures with and without Dispersoids”. 22. The reasons contained in the impugned order dated 11th April, 2013 relating to non-fulfillment of requirement of qualified Principal for declaring “No Admission Status” for the Academic Year 2013-14 also seems to have been rendered without proper application of mind and without taking into account the documents furnished by the petitioner Institute in respect of qualification of its principal. 22. The reasons contained in the impugned order dated 11th April, 2013 relating to non-fulfillment of requirement of qualified Principal for declaring “No Admission Status” for the Academic Year 2013-14 also seems to have been rendered without proper application of mind and without taking into account the documents furnished by the petitioner Institute in respect of qualification of its principal. Regarding the third reasons relating to faculty students ratio the petitioner is said to have been furnished the details which it was asked to do departmentwise to the AICTE. 23. In such circumstances, therefore, the impugned order dated 11th April, 2013 suffers from non application of mind for imposing a punishment of no admission status for Academic Year 2013-14 upon the petitioner Institute for deficiencies in the requirement of qualified Principal which however does seem to be established on the basis of records. 24. The Institute had preferred an appeal before the appellate committee of the AICTE which is also enclosed as Annexure-11 to the writ application. It appears that the petitioner Institute had also enclosed the relevant documents relating to its stand in respect of the deficiencies pointed out by the Standing Complaint Committee for declaration of “No Admission Status” i.e. copy of the qualification of Dr. A. Bhattacharya, Principal. It also enclosed copy of the list of faculty members to explain faculty students ratio as pointed out. In view of the recommendation of the Standing Complaint Committee, it had also taken a ground that the punishment of five times admission fee imposed for taking excess admission in the year 2003-04 could not have been applicable for cause of action of the year 2003-04. The petitioner has also made out a case that it had not been granted any opportunity of hearing before the appellate order was passed by the appellate committee. 25. However, perusal of the appellate order which is Annexure-11 indicates that the appellate committee of AICTE has also refused to interfere in the order of rejection of extension of approval of the petitioner Institute for the Academic Year 2013-14 as also declaration of “No Admission Status” being guided by the same grounds which were the basis for passing the impugned orders by the original authority. It does not appear that the appellate committee has taken into account the reasons and the explanations submitted by petitioner which have been discussed hereinabove while dealing with the impugned orders dated 10th April, 2013 and 11th April, 2013. It therefore once again suffers from non application of mind and has been passed in a mechanical manner. 26. In such circumstances and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the impugned orders contained at Annexure-5 dated 10th April, 2013 and Annexure-6 dated 11th April, 2013 as also the appellate order dated 20th June, 2013 cannot be sustained in the eye of law as well as on facts and they are accordingly quashed. The matter is remanded to the AICTE to once again consider the explanation of the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law in respect of its application for extension of approval for the Academic Year 2013-14 as also on the explanation furnished by the petitioner in respect of the deficiencies pointed out to it earlier. 27. It is the contention of the petitioner that admission for the Academic Sessions 2013-14 would be closed by 15th August 2013. In that view of the matter and the exigencies shown, the respondents-AICTE shall proceed to take a decision in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as aforesaid within 2 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 28. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid term. Petition allowed.