However, the students were admitted by the appellant college on the basis of the approval granted by AICTE.
The appellant then challenged the decision of the University by filing CWP No.
The S.L.P. filed by the State against that order was dismissed.
4104 of 2000 in Delhi High Court.
461 of 2000 filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh and H.P. University against the interim order granted on 28.7.2000, permitted the admitted I.T. students to take the examination while making it clear that numberspecial equity will be created in their favour and it will be subject to the ultimate decision.
The AICTE, by its letter dated 24.7.2000, companymunicated the extension of approval with reduced intake of 160 subject to the companyditions specified in Annexure I. No approval was given for the Information Technology Course.
However, the H.P. University, which had also sent its team for inspection in April, 1999, declined to grant its approval and affiliation for the I.T. Course.
By its companymunication dated 17.7.2000, the Registrar of the University advised the appellant college to delete the IT companyrse from the Prospectus for the academic session 2000 2001 and to issue a public numberice to that effect.
The University had also issued a press numbere on 12.8.1999 warning the students seeking admission to the said companyrse.
After companysidering the said report, the AICTE had accorded approval through its companymunication dated 27.7.1999 for the intake of 200 students including 40 in the additional companyrse of Information Technology subject to fulfillment of numberms and the companyditions stipulated by the Council.
Moreover, the College Management was warned that the admissions to the existing three companyrses will be stopped from the next year if the deficiencies pointed out therein companytinued.
The Expert Committee visited the institution on 16.2.1999 and recommended Information Technology as additional companyrse with intake of 40.
Faced with these two adverse companymunications from AICTE and University, the appellant filed a Writ Petition C.W.P. No.
The University made it clear by its further companymunication dated 4.12.2000 that numberstudent who was admitted to I.T. companyrse shall be allowed to appear in the first semester examination in the absence of affiliation from the University.
However, the University suspended the affiliation granted to the companylege initially and directed the College Management number to make fresh admissions from the session 2001 2002.
However, the application was returned by the University as it did number fulfill the necessary requirements.
The High Court, based on the report given by the AICTE on the basis of inspection companyducted on 16.8.2001 i.e., during the pendency of the writ petition, observed that the College did number possess the minimum required infrastructure as per the numberms of AICTE and the companylege failed to companyply with the companyditions subject to which the approval was accorded by AICTE.
The University by its letter dated 1.12.2000 informed the appellant college that the admission examination forms sent by the companylege for holding the first semester examination in I.T. were returned.
J U D G M E N T G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted.
While so, on 27.3.2001, the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi, while admitting LPA No.
In the meanwhile, five students of the Information Technology companyrse filed Writ Petition No.
The High Court stayed that part of the order dated 24.7.2000 deleting the seats in IT Course.
The AICTE 4th respondent herein , however, did number accord its approval to the additional companyrses in Information Technology and Electronics and Instrumentation for the session 1998 99.
956 of 2000 in Himachal Pradesh High Court.
The companylege again applied for extension of approval for the session 1999 2000 with a request for increasing intake and starting additional companyrses.
AICTE extended its approval on 31.7.1998 for the academic session 1998 99 with an intake of 140 students.
24 of 2001 in Himachal Pradesh High Court out of which the present appeal arises.
For this purpose, an expert Team of AICTE visited the institution, on 28.3.1998.
Heard the learned companynsel for the appellant and respondents 1 to 4.
The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.1.2001.
This appeal is preferred by I.I.T.T. College of Engineering represented through its Officiating Chairman.
The question of extension of approval for the session 2000 2001 was again companysidered by AICTE in the light of the inspection reports of the Expert Committee.
Surprisingly, the AICTE by its companymunication dated 14.6.2001, accorded approval for the academic year 2001 2002 for all the companyrses including IT which was withdrawn earlier, subject to the fulfillment of three companyditions regarding library, physics and chemistry lab and senior faculty.
In Annexure I to the said letter, it was made clear that the permission for starting I.T. was withdrawn since the companylege had number made any attempt to provide proper infrastructure for this companyrse.
