I.I.T.T. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING versus STATE OF H.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 08-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
1.1.T.T. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 
v. 
ST A TE OF H.P. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 2003 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, I950-Articles I9(l)(g) and 226-Unaided private 
Educatidnal Institution-Establishment of~anction for intake of students and 
C approval for additional course of Information Technology-Students seeking 
admission-Affiliation suspended-Deficiencies in management and 
administration-Writ Petition-High Court directing private management of 
the college to be taken over by court appointed official-Justification of-
Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing such direction since it 
is against the principle of autonomy in regard to administration, thus direction 
D set aside-Management and a1ministration to be restored to the college 
however, administrator appointed pursuant to the directions of the High Court 
to oversee the running of the institution-Educational Institutions. 
Appellant-Engineering College obtained permission from All India 
E Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and 'no objection' certificate 
from the University and started engineering courses. This permission was 
extended time to time. However, AICTE did not grant approval for 
Information Technology course. Later on it granted its approval and 
appellant-college admitted the students. However, the University refused 
to grant its approval and affiliation for the I.T. Course. AICTE thereafter 
F withdrew the permission for starting I.T. course since the college had not 
made any attempt to provide proper infrastructure for this course. 
Registrar of the University also advised the appellant-college to delete the 
IT course from the prospectus. Appellant then filed a Writ Petition. High 
Court stayed the order deleting the seats in IT Course. University did not 
G allow the students to appear in the first semester examination in the 
absence of affiliation from the University. Appellant..,College then filed ari 
application for affiliation for the course of IT which was rejected. AICTE 
then accorded approval for the academic year 2001-2002 for all the courses 
including IT which was withdrawn earlier, subject to the fulfillment of 
conditions. However, the University suspended the affiliation granted to 
H 
348 
I.I.T.T. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING v. STATE 
349 
the college initially and directed the College Management not to make A 
fresh admissions, from the session 2001-2002. Meanwhile, students of IT 
course filed writ petition seeking directions to accord affiliation and a 
direction that management and administration of the college should be 
taken over by an official-cum-administrator. High Court issued directions 
for appointment of an Administrator for management and better 
administration of the college and for initiating steps for affiliation. Hence B 
the present appeal. Inspection team of AICTE and the team headed by 
the Director, IIT submitted inspection reports. 
Appellant contended that the direction of the High Court appointing 
an Administrator and taking over the management is without authority C 
of law and even· opposed to the concept of autonomy of private unaided 
colleges; and that the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under· 
Article 226 of the Constitution. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. The obligation to make up the deficiencies and to prove 
the general academic atmosphere lay on the shoulders of the College 
Management, but unfortunately, no positive steps were taken. 
Undoubtedly, there was discontentment amongst the students and the 
teachers. The latest report of the team constituted under the orders of this 
Court as well as the report of AICTE furnished to the High Court and E 
the earlier report of the University inspection team unmistakably indicate 
that there were deficiencies in many respects, especially in regard to IT 
course and all was not well with the functioning of the college. 
[355-H; 356-A-C] 
1.2. High Court, taking stock of this factual situation and in order F 
to ensure better administration and management, thought it fit to appoint 
an Administrator. There seems to be good deal of improvement after the 
Administrator took over. However, the High Court apparently did not 
realize that there was no provision under which the management of an 
unaided private college could be taken over by the Administrator. None G 
of the counsel was able to point out any provision either under the AICTE 
Act or the HP

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.