Summary
The Court refused to require AICTE approval for the 2017–2018 academic year after the statutory deadline. Shared land and facilities between two proposed institutes were remedied only when one proposal was withdrawn in July; the institution’s conduct, rather than AICTE inaction, caused the delay. The prior order required a lawful fresh decision, not approval in breach of timelines. Approval for 2018–2019 was left intact.
Issues
- Whether the earlier inspection order required approval for 2017–2018 despite the deadline.
- Whether the institution’s investment and claimed public need justified relaxation.
Held
- The statutory approval schedule was mandatory. Approval after the applicable April cutoff could not ordinarily operate for the same academic year; large investment did not justify disregarding the admission schedule. (¶ 5–7)
- The final inspection recorded shared facilities and other deficiencies; earlier document-based observations did not override the site findings. Withdrawal of the other institute’s application removed the central deficiency only in July. (¶ 6–9)
- The prior Supreme Court order required reconsideration in accordance with law and did not direct approval for 2017–2018. The institution’s obstruction and nondisclosure also defeated its request for Article 142 indulgence. (¶ 9–12)
Result
Writ petition dismissed with fifty-thousand-rupee costs payable to respondents within four weeks; no direction to advance the 2018–2019 approval to 2017–2018.