JUDGMENT Challenging the order dated 21.1.2014 Annexure P/1 passed by the All India Council for Technical Education withdrawing the EOA i.e. 'Extension of Approval' granted to the petitioner's institute for the academic year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, this writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of this writ petition goes to show that the Swami Vivekanand College of Science and Technology, Bhopal was established by Akshay Shakti Shiksha Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti, a Society registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The said Society established various institutes, one of which is the present institute namely 'Swami Vivekanand College of Science and Technology' situated at Bhopal. The institute in question was established in the year 2006 and before starting the institute, the Society applied for grant of approval and recognition for conducting various courses in technical education. All the formalities in accordance to the statutory provisions were completed and vide Annexure P/10 on 29th of September, 2006, the All India Council for Technical Education granted approval to the institute for intake of 240 students in various faculties as are indicated in the order Annexure P/10 dated 29th of September, 2006. It seems that the Society in question is also conducting certain B.Ed and Pharmacy Courses through another institute namely 'Naveen Swami Vivekanand B.Ed College' and 'Swami Vivekanand College of Pharmacy' which is situated near Barkheri, at Bhopal. Certain disputes arose with regard to these institutes before the Delhi High Court in W.P.C. No.6797/2011 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court directed for conducting joint inspection of the institute and take a decision. Even though the direction in the Delhi High Court was with regard to the institute imparting education in B.Ed and Pharmacy Courses, it seems that during the inspection, conducted with regard to the present Engineering Institute, it was found that two irregularities have been committed on behalf of the Members of the Society while seeking for registration/ recognition/ approval in the year 2006-2007. The irregularities were, that for the purpose of obtaining approval and recognition forged FDR's purportedly issued by a credit Society situated in M.P. Vidhan Sabha Shakha Sahkari Samiti was produced by the Society and the second was that false information was given in the matter of the land of the institute being mortgaged with Bank of India for a loan of Rs. 2 Crores. 2 Crores. On the ground that these two facts were suppressed in the year 2006-2007 when the Society sought for recognition/approval and these facts have now come to the notice in an enquiry conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation pertaining to certain complaints received, the show cause notice was issued and action was proposed to be taken. Finding the allegations to be established and proved in the enquiry, the impugned action has been taken. Accordingly, on the ground that when initial approval/recognition was granted to the institute in the year 2006-2007 the institute had committed fraud in the matter of submission of FDR and further suppressed material fact with regard to mortgage of the land with Bank of India, the recognition of the institute for the academic session 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 were cancelled, the original recognition withdrawn and further action for approval of recognition rejected. 3. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter, Shri Siddharth Gupta challenged the withdrawal mainly on the ground that when the so called irregularities and fraud were committed in the year 2006-2007 the society in question was being managed by a totally different set of office bearers, a dispute arose in the Society with regard to the management and therefore, the entire office bearers were removed and vide orders filed from Annexure P/3 onwards, it is pointed out that in January, 2011 a new set of office bearers were inducted in the office and now the institute is being run by this newly elected office bearers of the Society. It is emphasized by him that the newly elected office bearers rectified all the defects and defaults committed by earlier office bearers and now the society and the institute are functioning in a proper manner. He invited our attention to the various documents available on record and emphasized that for the default committed by earlier Members of the society in the matter of submitting false FDR and false information, the present office bearers of the society are not responsible and therefore, no adverse action should be taken against the institute in question and it will effect the career of the students and the functioning of the Society itself. 4. 4. When such submissions were made by Shri Siddharth Gupta during the hearing of the petition, this Court directed the Regional Directorate of the Institute to look into the grievance of the Society and try to amicably resolve the matter and if required, conduct an inspection and submit a report to this Court. In pursuance to the same, it is seen that a detailed inspection has been conducted by the authorities of the Council and a detailed report has also been filed by them. 5. The Officers of the Council conducted the inspection of the Institute on 10th May, 2014. The Expert Committee consisted of two academic experts and an Architect. A detailed inspection has been conducted and the entire inspection report has been produced before us. The inspecting authority has given its final observation and recommendations which reads as under :- 'The expert committee conducted physical inspection of the institution on 10 May, 2014. The Committee examined the entire financial records and documents of the institution including FDRs and current bank accounts of the Society running the institution. The financial strenth of the institution is sound and the Society is in a position to smoothly run the institution. The required FDR of Rs. 50 (35+15) lakhs were also found available with the society as per AICTE norms. The Committee further found the available faculty as per AICTE norms. The requisite physical infrastructure including buildings, laboratories, class rooms etc. for running the approved courses as per norms of AICTE. No defects were found by the expert committee on the date of inspection. Encl : Part I Part II and corrigendum EVC report and enclosures Financial statement and supporting documents. CD Sign Sign Sign Avijit Kar K. Amadhava Dhwani Shanker Malviya 10.5.14 10.5.14 10.5.14 6. for running the approved courses as per norms of AICTE. No defects were found by the expert committee on the date of inspection. Encl : Part I Part II and corrigendum EVC report and enclosures Financial statement and supporting documents. CD Sign Sign Sign Avijit Kar K. Amadhava Dhwani Shanker Malviya 10.5.14 10.5.14 10.5.14 6. Shri Siddharth Gupta, therefore, now placing heavy reliance on the aforesaid observations and recommendations of the expert committee argued that for the default committed by the previous office bearers of the society and for the grounds as are raised by the respondents now, no action be taken against the Society and based on the recommendations now made by the Expert Committee as is indicated hereinabove, action be taken for considering the case of the institute for granting approval for the next academic session 2014-2015 and to regularize the approval for the period for which the action is taken by the impugned order i.e. for the academic session 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Shri Siddharth Gupta points out that the defects if any which have been pointed out in the impugned order are pertaining to initial approval or recognition which was sought for by the previous Society in the year 2006 and after 2011 the present office bearers have rectified all such defects and in the light of the aforesaid the relief as prayed for be granted so that neither the society or the institute and the students are adversely effected. 7. Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer and argued that for the default committed by the society at the very first instance which is established from the documents available on record, the impugned action is taken and once the withdrawal is found to be proper, there cannot be any restoration of the withdrawal and the only option now available to the petitioner's institute is to apply for new approval with regard to the session 2014-2015 and the prayer made for regularizing the entire action is unsustainable. In support thereof, he invites our attention to Chapter 4 of the AICTE Regulation Clause 1.2 to say that the withdrawal once it becomes operational cannot be recalled or in the light of the withdrawal no further EOA can be granted. It is said that EOA is not permissible and therefore, the petition be dismissed. In support thereof, he invites our attention to Chapter 4 of the AICTE Regulation Clause 1.2 to say that the withdrawal once it becomes operational cannot be recalled or in the light of the withdrawal no further EOA can be granted. It is said that EOA is not permissible and therefore, the petition be dismissed. In support of his contention he invites our attention to a order passed by this Bench in the case of Aditya College of Technology and Sciences v. All India Council for Technical Education - W.P. No.9707/2013 on 26/6/2013 to say that once a statutory provisions are violated then no indulgence can be made by the Writ Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the rival contentions made. It is a fact that normally when the statutory provisions are violated and when a fraud is committed in the matter of seeking approval or recognition for running an institute, this Court is reluctant to interfere into the matter and based on certain judgments on the question, normally indulgence is not made by this Court. However, there are exceptions to the normal rule and in a given case the facts if suggests that a discretion should be exercised in favour of certain parties who have not committed any misconduct or error, benefit should be granted to them to do justice to all concerned. 9. In the present case a glaring fact is that the entire action taken are based on two irregularities committed in the year 2006-2007. The irregularities are submission of fraudulent FDR and suppression of fact with regard to mortgage of the land. When these irregularities were committed in the year 2006-2007 the persons who committed the fraud were the office bearers who are holding the post of the Samiti in question in the year 2006-2007. While they were so working and from 2006-2011 no verification of the documents and FDR submitted was undertaken by the Council, the AICTE themselves conducted enquiry into the matter and granted approval vide Annexure P/10 in the year 2006 and permitted the office bearers who had conducted the irregularity in the year 2006-2007 to continue with the activities of the institute, admit students and permit them to pursue the course. It is only in the year 2011 when the Society was reconstituted with new set off office bearers were functioning that the action was taken by the respondents may be because of the direction issued by the Delhi High Court and report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. However, when the present office bearers were informed about these facts, records do indicate that they rectified all the mistakes immediately, obtained the FDR and requested the Council to conduct inspection again and proceed in the matter. It seems that the respondent council did not do so and therefore, this writ petition was filed. 10. Be it as it may be, the fact remains that during the pendency of this writ petition, this Court has directed for conduct of inspection and now the recommendation of the Expert Committee which is reproduced hereinabove goes to show that institute does fulfil all the norms, requisite building, land, faculty, FDR and everything is in order and there is no deficiency which is found to be expert committee which warrants penal action to be taken against the institute. That being so it is in the backdrop of these facts that a decision is to be taken as to whether withdrawal of the recognition in the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 should be regularized and institute permitted to seek fresh EOA for the academic session 2014-2015. 11. When the irregularities were committed in the year 2006-2007 and when the fraud in the matter of obtaining recognition was committed in the year 2006-2007 for six academic years right from 2006-2007 up to 2011-2012, the students continued to pursue their course, their courses were recognized and the institute was permitted to function without any hindrance for this period no penal action is taken and the approval is not withdrawn. Thereafter, when the new office bearers took charge of the office in the year 2011, between 2011 till 10.5.2014 when inspection was conducted on directions issued by this Court nothing is brought to the notice of this Court to say that there was any irregularity in the functioning of the institute and the institute was continuing with the irregularities as was available in the year 2006-2007. On the contrary, Shri S. Gupta has brought on record, documents to show that office bearers have rectified each and every error restored the entire matter as required under law and requested for inspection and grant of approval and it is only when respondents refused, that they approached this Court. From the aforesaid, it is clear that for Certain acts of commission and omission were committed by the previous office bearers of the society in question, because of which the present office bearers and the society and students may be put to certain loss. Even though Shri Pradeep Sharma tried to emphasize that the students will be accommodated in some other institute and they will not suffer but the fact remains that if the students are removed and the institute is directed to seek fresh approval, it would cause adverse effect on the institute. 12. Taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances and peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to direct the respondents to consider the report of the Expert Committee dated 10.5.2014 and proceed to grant extension of approval to the institute in question in accordance to rules and regulation for the academic session 2014-2015. It is to be taken note of that for the irregularities committed right from the academic session 2006-2007 up to 2011-2012 no adverse action is taken, however, though during this period the irregularity was continuing but the same has been regularized, the recognition and approval granted continued and the students have passed out and no action has been taken against the Society for this period. It is only for the period 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 that action is taken. If for the irregularity committed which was continuing between the year 2006 to 2012, no adverse action is taken then it is too harsh on the Society particularly in the changed circumstances to take action for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 only, particularly when the office bearers and the persons responsible for the irregularity committed who are no more in office and during this period, there is no further irregularity pointed out in the matter. On the contrary, the Expert Committee report dated 10.5.2014 indicates that everything is in order and approval could be granted. On the contrary, the Expert Committee report dated 10.5.2014 indicates that everything is in order and approval could be granted. That being so, we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, if no adverse action is taken for the year 2006 up to 2012, then in the facts and circumstances of this case particularly in the light of the Inspection Report dated 10.5.2014 that has come on record, the period from 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 should also be regularized now and a direction to this effect should be issued. 13. Accordingly, we hold that the respondents should regularize the period for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and the withdrawal of approval ordered for the said period by the impugned order stands set aside and the functioning of the institute for the aforesaid period is directed to be regularized in accordance with law. That apart, for the academic session 2014-2015 the respondent's Council is directed to take action for conducting inspection in accordance with law and to consider the case of the institute for granting extension of approval. It is reported that the admission and counselling process for the next academic session 2014-2015 is to commence very shortly and a schedule has also been issued by AICTE. For the purpose of seeking approval for this academic session i.e. 2014-2015, respondent Council shall permit the petitioner's institute and the Society access through its on-line portal. The institute shall be permitted to submit its application on-line and thereafter it shall be processed in accordance with law. Necessary arrangement for permitting access to the institute to the on-line portal shall be made available by the respondents Council with effect from the date the on-line process of submitting the application forms etc. commences as per the schedule fixed. 14. With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. Petition allowed.