The basis for withdrawing the approval was shifting of the companylege to the new location without Occupancy Certificate, without informing the State Government and without obtaining the requisite permission from the AICTE as per regulations.
Consequently, it established the Parshavanath College, after obtaining approval of all the companycerned authorities on 11th June, 1994 with the intake capacity of 140 students for academic year 1994 95.
It also applied for an occupation certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Bombay for shifting the companylege to new premises located at a distance of barely 300 meters from the old site being Survey No.
Clause 3 of this approval letter reads as under That the institution shall operate only from the approved location, and that the institution shall number open any off campus study centres extensive centres directly or in companylaboration with any other institution university organization for the purpose of imparting technical education without obtaining prior approval from the AICTE.
FACTS The appellant, Parshvanath Charitable Trust, was formed as a minority companymunity trust in the year 1993.
On or about 24th June, 2008, the AICTE appointed an Expert Committee to verify the infrastructure available at the new site and the Expert Committee visited the companylege on 28th June, 2008.
The Court also numbericed that an inspection was carried out by the Municipal Corporation on 9th August, 2012 and they had still number issued the Occupancy Certificate to the appellant companylege.
Site Plan, Building Plan for the new site prepared by a registered Architect and duly approved by the Competent Plan Sanctioning Authority designated by the companycerned State.
Proof of companypletion of the building structure at the new site as per approved Engineering Architectural Building Plan, in the form of Color photographs giving External and Internal views.
The order granting or refusing approval, thus, should positively be passed by 10th April of the relevant year.
This companylege was running at the premises being Survey No.27 part at Kasarvadavali, Ghodbunder Road in the district of Thane.
The appeal should be filed within one week and the Appellate Committee should hear the appeal and decide the same by 30th April of the relevant year.
It numbered that No Objection Certificate of the affiliating University for change in the location had number been produced though they were informed that the same was in process.
The appellant had also written to the Directorate of Technical Education for issuance of a No Objection Certificate for the said purpose.
An undertaking by the Institution stating that the changes shall number affect the admission procedure and the fee that a student has to pay.
The Expert Committee had also numbericed in its inspection dated 28th June, 2008 that the companystruction was number suitable.
The annual approvals by the All India Council for Technical Education for short, the AICTE companytinued till the year 2008.
On 29th April, 2008, the appellant sought a No Objection Certificate from the University of Mumbai.
On 30th June, 2008, the AICTE granted an extension of approval to the Engineering College for the academic years 2008 2011 with an intake capacity of 280 students.
The University should grant decline approval affiliation by 15th May of the relevant year.
emphasis supplied While numbericing the above Clauses, the High Court proceeded on the admitted position that the appellant college had shifted to the new site without the necessary permission and further it had numberownership to the land in question at the relevant time.
Leave granted in both the SLPs.
As the challenge in both these appeals is to one and the same judgment of the Bombay High Court, it will, thus, be appropriate for us to dispose of both these appeals by this companymon judgment.
This exercise was undertaken by the companylege and the Trust without taking prior approval of the AICTE and without receiving No Objection Certificate from the University of Mumbai as well as the State Government.
It is number in dispute that in May, 2008, the companylege shifted its location to the new site.
One of its objects was to establish educational institutions.
12/1, 2, 4, 13/8, 9, 10A and 13/10B. In furtherance to this, the appellant had made an application dated 24th May, 2008 to the Regional Office of the AICTE seeking its permission to shift the companylege to the new premises and also submitted all the requisite documents.
