The Supreme Court has asked the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to expeditiously dispose of a writ petition challenging a regulation of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).
As per the regulation a technical institution is not entitled for extension of approval if a charge sheet is filed against any of the members of the trust, unless they are acquitted.
A Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar passed the order on a special leave petition filed by the Sun College of Engineering and Technology, Erachakulam, Kanyakumari. Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, L. Nageswar Rao and S. Prabhakaran, appearing for the college, contended that the impugned regulation was illegal and unconstitutional.
When the Bench sought to know from counsel whether any decision had been rendered on the writ petition pending in the High Court challenging the regulation, Mr. Rohatgi said it was pending.
However, he said in the present appeal, the Division Bench had made an observation that the regulation could not be construed as bad in law and the government had the right to include certain regulations for maintaining discipline.
At this juncture, Justice Swatanter Kumar told counsel that the High Court was wrong in making such an observation when the writ petition challenging the regulation was pending disposal.
In a brief order, the Bench, while adjourning the hearing on the SLP by six weeks, said: “In the meanwhile, the petitioner (college) is at liberty to approach the High Court with the prayer to deal with the writ petition and the interim application pending before the Madurai Bench.
If such a request is made to the Bench of the High Court concerned, we request the High Court to deal with the matter on priority uninfluenced by the impugned judgment in the present petition.”
In its SLP, the appellant stated that it was running the college as per approval from 1999-2000 till 2008-2009. In 2009 a CBI probe was ordered into the approval and, during the pendency of the petition challenging the same, the approval was granted as per court orders.
In March 2012, fresh regulations were issued incorporating new clause which said “any institution/society/trust or a member belonging to these if charge sheeted, shall not be considered for extension of approval unless they are acquitted”.
The appellant filed a fresh writ petition challenging the regulation and even as this was pending, the Division Bench rejected the plea for renewal. The present appeal is directed against this judgment.
