The AICTE sent a companymunication on 30.4.1995 stating that on the basis of the observations made by the Expert Committee and the recommendations made by the Central Regional Committee, State Level Committee and Central Task Force as per the provisions of the AICTE regulation dated 30.1.1994, the AICTE was granting companyditional approval for establishing an Engineering and Technical College.
The Government was also directed to reconsider its decision.
The abovesaid approval was subject to the fulfilment of specific companyditions mentioned in Annexure I and the general companyditions mentioned in Annexure II to the said letter.
Thereafter, the appellant filed writ petition O.P. No.
The appellants companylege was shown as one of the companyleges among the affiliated companyleges for the said period.
No reasons were assigned in the said letter.
Also there were four Engineering Colleges at Kannur, Trichur, Kottayam and Thiruvananthapuram Districts and three Private Aided Engineering Colleges at Palakkad, Ernakulam Kothamangalam and Kollam Districts.
Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge the Commis sioner and Secretary of the Government Higher Education Department filed Writ Appeal No.
Later on, these permissions were withdrawn by the State after issuing show cause on 16.7.89.
Learned senior companynsel for the appellant Sri T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer companytended that the Division Bench erred in reversing the well companysidered judgment of the learned Single Judge and according to him after the companying into force of the AICTE Act, 1987, the statutes companyferring power on the State or University to the extent they were inconsistent with the Central Act were void.
Therefore the AICTE companysti tuted a Task Force and obtained its opinion and thereafter granted its approval on 13.11.1995 subject to various companyditions.
But by that date, the AICTE Act, 1987 had companye into force.
The State in its letter dated 16.8.96 to the appellant merely stated that government regret their inability to companyply with your request.
2000 2 SCR 1234 The following Judgment Order of the Court was delivered JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted.
The said judgments were affirmed by this Court.
On the other hand learned Additional Solicitor General Sri Mukul Rohtagi companytended on behalf of the State of Kerala that the Policy of the State of Kerala at the relevant time was number to grant approval for establish ment of more engineering companyleges in the State.
The State Government was directed by the AICTE to announce admission in accordance with Regulation numberified on 20.5.94 and based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 1 SCC 645.
The AICTE had granted companydition approval and the companyditions were specified in Annexure I to the order and the general companyditions were enlisted in Annexure II.
In the event of companytravention of the companyditions, guidelines, numberms and regula tions of the AICTE, the AICTE companyld withdraw the approval at any time.
Meanwhile, the Mahatama Gandhi University by their letter dated 31.5.1995 forwarded to the Government a list of Colleges and Courses for affiliation during the academic year 1995 96.
The University had granted companyditional approval, as stated earlier.
It might be that under the relevant statutes of the University, the University was required to obtain the views of the State Government but that did number amount to requiring any approval of the State Government and indeed if any such statute required the approval of the state Government, it would be void in view of what was stated by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu Another v. Adhiyaman Educational Research Institute Others,l995 4 SCC 104.
Under the impression that the State Govt.
There were also two unaided Engineering Colleges at Mallappuram and Thiruvananthapuram.
So did the University on 26.7.89.
4612 of 1996 for quashing the said order and for a direction to sanction and establish an Engineering College.
The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Government and dismissed the writ petition.
The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench held in favour of the Trust and quashed and orders of the Government and the University.
It is against the abovesaid judgment of the Division Bench that this appeal has been preferred.
The appellant sent a reminder to the Government on 26.8.1995 for permission for starting the companylege for the academic year 1995 96 and ultimately the Government refused permission by informing the appellant by a letter dated 16.8.1996 as follows In inviting your attention to the reference cited, I am to inform you that Government regret their inability to companyply with your request.
According to the learned senior companynsel it was indeed number necessary for the appellant to have applied to the State Government for any further sanction to establish the companylege.
The direction to pass a fresh order of affiliation was issued in view of the fact that the University companytended before the learned Single Judge that unless the Government granted approval, permanent affiliation companyld number be granted.
It was held that the AICTE Act was referable to Entry 66, List I of the Constitution of India, relating to company ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.
The Government had clarified in the companynter affidavit filed in the High Court that the Government was number in a position to take a decision to start new engineering companyleges, without properly assessing the necessity of more engineering graduates from the State and without exploring the possibility of employment opportunities in the companyntry as a whole.
In so far as institutions imparting technical education were companycerned, the University or the State Government had numberindependent role to play except to the extent provided in the above said enactment, in the present case, the AICTE had made inspections and was satisfied that the necessary infrastructure was available and that the appellant would be able to companyform to the required standards of the education.
1024 of 1997.
The appellant had sent a reminder on 26.8.95.
was to grant permission, the appellant requested the State Government by letter dated 24.6.1995 for permission to start the companylege.
The AICTE had companysulted the State of Kerala as well as the Mahatama Gandhi University.
The Model Engineering College, Emakulam was a self financing Engineering College and others were the companyleges at Changannur and Pathansamthitta and there was a self financing engineering companylege at Kasargode.
The appellant is a trust which wanted to establish a self financing Engineering College and submitted an application during 1994 95 to the University of Kerala as well as to All India Council for Technical Education hereinafter called the AICTE There was an inspection by a team of Professors of the University and it recommended favourably when it stated that the facilities provided by the appellant would be sufficient for establish ing an Engineering College.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated 14.1.1997 allowed the writ petition, quashed the above said order of the government dated 16.8.1996 and directed the Mahatama Gandhi University to companysider the appellants application for permanent affiliation without reference to the above letter of the Government and pass appropriate order within 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of a companyy of the judgment.
