HYDERABAD: Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court has dismissed a batch of four writ petitions filed by Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society and others, challenging the action of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in conducting a title dispute adjudication while processing approvals for Muffakham Jah College of Engineering & Technology.
The court also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on each petitioner, payable to Sri Vidhyas Centre for Special Children (Orphanage), situated in Seva Mandal Society, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad, within two weeks. The petitioners were instructed to file the receipt of payment in the court registry.
The writ petitions were filed by the Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society challenging AICTE’s decision, which included the refusal to grant full approval for the institution’s sanctioned intake for the academic year 2017-18, citing unresolved title disputes.
The petitioners argued that the AICTE’s insistence on resolving title issues before granting approval was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and a violation of principles of natural justice.
Senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy, representing the petitioners, contended that the AICTE acted beyond its jurisdiction by setting up a two-men justice committee to adjudicate the title dispute between the petitioners and a third party.
The petitioners argued that this committee had no legal mandate under the AICTE Act or its regulations, and the decision-making process was flawed because the committee’s report was not shared with them, violating the principles of natural justice.
He further claimed that the AICTE’s actions were based on incomplete information, asserting that the petitioner society had complied with all necessary regulatory requirements, including infrastructure standards. He argued that the institution had been in possession of the land and had fulfilled the title requirements, despite some ongoing legal proceedings over the property’s ownership.
On the other hand, AICTE’s senior Counsel, K. Vivek Reddy, defended the authority’s decision, emphasizing that the AICTE was legally empowered to ensure that institutions meet the regulatory requirements specified in its approval process handbook, including providing valid ownership documents.
Vivek Reddy pointed out that the petitioner society had failed to provide necessary documents such as approved building plans and occupancy certificates, which are mandatory for extending approval under the AICTE regulations. He further clarified that the AICTE was not adjudicating title disputes but was simply requesting compliance with the conditions laid down in its guidelines.
Justice Bhaskar Reddy, after hearing the arguments from both sides, ruled that the AICTE’s decision to withhold full approval due to non-compliance with its regulations was justified.