Summary
An institution could not admit students beyond AICTE’s sanctioned intake even if it considered the regulator’s handling of its expansion request arbitrary. The prescribed five-times-fee financial penalty for 42 excess admissions was upheld. To protect students who had completed the course, their admissions were preserved and award of degrees directed, while the institution remained liable for the penalty after crediting its court deposits.
Issues
- Whether alleged delay or arbitrariness in approval justified admissions beyond sanctioned intake.
- Whether the prescribed excess-admission penalty should be reduced.
- What relief should protect students who completed the course.
Provisions considered
- Chapter IV, clause 3.1, AICTE Approval Process Handbook, 2016–2017Five times the total fees per excess student applied; other listed punitive measures could also be imposed. (¶ 9–10)
Held
- The institution should have sought judicial relief against any alleged approval error rather than exceed sanctioned seats. The Court did not decide its allegations concerning AICTE delay or arbitrariness. (¶ 7)
- With admitted course fees of ₹11 lakh, the prescribed penalty was ₹55 lakh per excess student, totalling ₹23.10 crore for 42 students. AICTE had no discretion to reduce that financial penalty under the clause. (¶ 9–10)
- Students should not bear the consequences of the institution’s unlawful conduct. Their admissions were not set aside, and degrees were ordered for those who had completed the course. (¶¶ 8, 11)
Result
Writ petition disposed of. ₹23.10 crore penalty upheld; ₹4 crore deposited in Court to be adjusted, with balance ₹19.10 crore payable to AICTE within eight weeks, failing which lawful action permitted. Degrees directed for the students who completed the course. Pending applications disposed of.