# Devo Mahesha College of Engg. and Tech v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 690
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-05-22
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devo-mahesha-college-of-engg-and-tech-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42555
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226- "Natural
Justice"-rejection
of
application
for
establishing Engineering College-passed
by member Secretary-placing reliance
upon
report
submitted
by
standing
appeal
committee-without
affording
opportunity to narrate correct factual
position
entails
civil
consequencesopportunity of hearing held-must-order
not sustainable.

Held: Para-9 &10
9.Serious
civil
consequences
follow
because of rejection of the application
for recognition of institutions, as they
2 All] Devo Mahesha College of Engg. And Tech. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
691
made huge investments, the minimum
required is that they are informed of the
specific reason for such rejection. The
SAC must examine the contention raised
on behalf of the institutions while
deciding the appeal and must record
reasons while rejecting the appeal.

10.It is the case of the petitioner that
the report submitted by the Expert
Committee after their visit on 22nd
March, 2013 was factually incorrect. This
Court finds that the report of the Expert
Committee dated 22nd March, 2013 has
been
relied
upon
without
affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
to meet the deficiencies noticed therein.
The order impugned dated 5th April,
2013
therefore,
cannot
be
legally
sustained. It is hereby quashed.

Case Law discussed:
2008 (4) ALJ,226(Pr. 7 & 8); (2003) 11 SCC
519

## Text

690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
their interest in given circumstances, such as,
where the claimants are minors and their
upkeep was required to be protected or
where the claimants are suffering from
personal injury and the amount was required
for further treatment or where the Tribunal
thinks that the claimants are illiterate and,
therefore, the amount was required to be
invested so that the claim amount was not
wasted and such other circumstances, which
are required to be contemplated by the
Tribunal while keeping the amount of
compensation in a fixed deposit. Other than
that, the Tribunal should release the amount
to the claimants so that they can reap the
benefits of the compensation.

11. Rule 220-B further provides that
the amount so invested can be withdrawn, if
a case is made out that the amount is required
to purchase any moveable or immovable
property for improving the income of the
claimant or the amount is required for
expansion of the business or considering the
age, fiscal background and strata of the
society to which the claimants belong or such
larger interest that could be taken into
consideration by the Tribunal.

12. In the instant case, the claimants
have made a categorical statement that the
amount was required to be encashed
prematurely in order to repay the loans,
which they had taken. Obviously, if the
loan is repaid, their economic condition
would improve, which would ultimately
lead to improving their income. Such
ground is a relevant ground coupled with
the fact that the claimants are major and
minor children are not involved which
would require the compensation amount
to be kept in a fixed deposit for their
upkeep. Further, if the amount is invested
for a period of time, the claimants will not
be able to enjoy the compensation.

13. In the light of the aforesaid, the
Court is of the opinion, that the Tribunal
committed a manifest error in rejecting the
application of the petitioner's mechanically
without considering the relevant criteria
given in Rule 220-B of the Rules.

14. Consequently, the impugned
order cannot be sustained and is quashed.
The writ petition is allowed and a writ of
mandamus is issued to the Tribunal to
release the amount in favour of the
petitioners by encashing the F.D.Rs.
prematurely.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2013.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22308 Of 2013

Devo Mahesha College of Engg. and
Tech.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anurag Khanna

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Neeraj Tiwari
Constitution of India Art. 226- "Natural
Justice"-rejection
of
application
for
establishing Engineering College-passed
by member Secretary-placing reliance
upon
report
submitted
by
standing
appeal
committee-without
affording
opportunity to narrate correct factual
position
entails
civil
consequencesopportunity of hearing held-must-order
not sustainable.

Held: Para-9 &10
9.Serious
civil
consequences
follow
because of rejection of the application
for recognition of institutions, as they
2 All] Devo Mahesha College of Engg. And Tech. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
691
made huge investments, the minimum
required is that they are informed of the
specific reason for such rejection. The
SAC must examine the contention raised
on behalf of the institutions while
deciding the appeal and must record
reasons while rejecting the appeal.

10.It is the case of the petitioner that
the report submitted by the Expert
Committee after their visit on 22nd
March, 2013 was factually incorrect. This
Court finds that the report of the Expert
Committee dated 22nd March, 2013 has
been
relied
upon
without
affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
to meet the deficiencies noticed therein.
The order impugned dated 5th April,
2013
therefore,
cannot
be
legally
sustained. It is hereby quashed.

Case Law discussed:
2008 (4) ALJ,226(Pr. 7 & 8); (2003) 11 SCC
519

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Neeraj
Tiwari,
learned
counsel
for
respondent nos. 2 to 4 and learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
Staterespondents.

2. Application made by the
petitioner
institution,
namely,
Devo
Mahesha
College
of
Engineering
&
Technology, Sukrit, Robartsganj, Sonbhadra
for establishing a college of engineering and
technology was rejected by the Member
Secretary, All India Council for Technical
Education (hereinafter referred to as the
'AICTE') under order dated 6th March, 2013.
The only reason assigned in the order is that
there are deficiencies as per the reports, (a)
Scrutiny report, (b) Re-scrutiny report, (c)
Expert Committee visit report, (d) Regional
Committee report, and (e) Rejection in the
EC. As per the rules applicable, the matter
stood referred to the Standing Appeal
Committee (hereinafter referred to as the
'SAC'). The petitioner was informed vide
letter of the same date i.e. 6th March, 2013 to
appear before the Appeal Committee on 12th
March, 2013 at its New Delhi office.
Petitioner was permitted to produce all
original records in support of his defence.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in
response to the aforesaid order, he did
appear before the SAC on the date and time
fixed. However, SAC referred the petitioner
to the Regional Office and directed the
petitioner to make available all relevant
records on 14th March, 2013 before the
Regional Office. Petitioner complied with
the aforesaid direction and thereafter the
petitioner was informed that a team of
expert shall visit the petitioner institution on
22nd March, 2013. Actual inspection did
take place on 22nd March, 2013 by the
team of experts of AICTE. Suddenly on 5th
April, 2013, petitioner has been served with
an order signed by the Member Secretary
stating therein that his application for
establishing the engineering and technology
institution has been rejected on the basis of
the reports, as referred earlier with the
addition of SAC report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
points out that the Appellate Committee did
not afford any opportunity of hearing before
taking such decision. The scrutiny report in
fact is based on incorrect statement of facts.
Deficiencies pointed out in the scrutiny
reports are non-existent. If opportunity of
hearing had been afforded by SAC he would
have demonstrated that the deficiencies do not
exist.

5. Faced with the aforesaid contention,
Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondents contended that it is not necessary
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
for the SAC to afford fresh opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, inasmuch as his claim
has been considered earlier and records were
examined. The Scrutiny Committee Report is
only for verification of the case pleaded by the
institution got inspection done by the Expert
Committee, no further opportunity of hearing
was required to be afforded.

6. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
parties and have examined the records of
the present writ petition.

7. At the very outset, this Court may
record that the manner of rejection of the
applications of the institutions as in
practice with the AICTE by merely
referring to the deficiencies as noticed in
various reports is highly unsatisfactory.
The case of the institutions seeking such
recognition qua that deficiencies having
been removed, are non-existent, must be
considered under an order supported by
reasons for not accepting their case.

8. The Apex Court in its judgment in
the case of State of Uttranchal vs. Sunil
Kumar Negi reported in 2008 (4) ALJ,
226 (Pr. 7 and 8) as well as in the case of
Raj Kishor Jha vs. State of Bihar &
Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 519 has held that
reasons are heart beat of any conclusion
and without the same it is lifeless.
reported in

9. Serious civil consequences follow
because of rejection of the application for
recognition of institutions, as they made huge
investments, the minimum required is that
they are informed of the specific reason for
such rejection. The SAC must examine the
contention raised on behalf of the institutions
while deciding the appeal and must record
reasons while rejecting the appeal.

10. It is the case of the petitioner
that the report submitted by the Expert
Committee after their visit on 22nd
March, 2013 was factually incorrect. This
Court finds that the report of the Expert
Committee dated 22nd March, 2013 has
been relied upon without affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to
meet the deficiencies noticed therein. The
order impugned dated 5th April, 2013
therefore, cannot be legally sustained. It is
hereby quashed.

11. Let the SAC decide the appeal of
the petitioner by means of a reasoned
speaking
order,
after
affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
preferably within two weeks from the date
a certified copy of this order is filed
before the authority concerned.

12. The present writ petition is allowed
subject to the observations made above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22916 Of 2013

Padam Kumar Agarwal
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector General(Registration) and
Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Srivastava, Sri K.M. Mishra
Sri V.K. Agarwal, Sri Vijendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution Of India, Art. 226- Termination
of compassionate appointment-without