Worldwide Knowledge Foundation MGM Technological Campus v. Council of Architecture, India Habitat Centre & President, Council of Architecture, India Habitat Centre

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942** ## **W.P.(C) No.25143 OF 2020(P)** ## **PETITIONER:** **WORLDWIDE KNOWLEDGE FOUNDATION MGM TECHNOLOGICAL CAMPUS, ATHIPPATTA, EDAYUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY EEVARGHESE YOHANNAN, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. MR. YOHANNAN GEEVARGHESE, SECRETARY, WORLD WIDE KNOWLEDGE FOUNDATION, MGM TECHNOLOGICAL CAMPUS, ATHIPPATTA, EDAYUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - AHINUS H., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. H.HALEEFATHUDEEN, RESIDING AT SAFA, UMAYANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM -691 589.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHY (P-41) SMT.REENA THOMAS SMT.NIGI GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE, INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, CORE-6A, 1ST FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** **2 PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE, INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, CORE-6A, 1ST FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.** **R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA** **SMT. KRISHNA S., CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.25143 OF 2020(P) -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, which applied before the 1[st] respondent Council of Architecture seeking approval of new Architecture College, namely, MGM College of Architecture at Valanchery, for conducting B.Arch Course. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated 04.11.2020 issued by the 1[st] respondent; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 along with Ext.P8, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the 1[st] respondent to grant approval for B.Arch Course, within a time limit to be prescribed by this Court. 2. On 17.11.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by speed post and through e-mail to the respondents. 3. A statement has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 through the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit, producing therewith Exts.P9 to P11 as additional documents. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also W.P.(C) No.25143 OF 2020(P) -3- the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents 1 and 2. 5. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P5 order, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the rejection of the application for approval of new Architecture College for conducting B.Arch Course, for the academic year 202021, stands dismissed. 6. In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (e), (g), (h) and (j) of sub-section (2) of Section 45 read with Section 21 of the Architects Act, 1972, the 1[st] respondent Council of Architecture, with the approval of the Central Government, made the minimum standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 1983. Regulation 8 deals with standards of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for technical education. Appendix-B of the Regulations deals with designation, pay scale, qualification, etc., required for faculty positions and Appendix-C deals with physical facilities. 7. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application dated 31.01.2020 for approval of new Architecture College for conducting W.P.(C) No.25143 OF 2020(P) -4- B.Arch course, for the academic year 2020-21. The 1[st] respondent vide letter dated 14.07.2020 required the petitioner to submit compliance report on academic and infrastructure facilities. The petitioner submitted a compliance report dated 28.07.2020, which was considered by the Executive Committee of the 1[st] respondent at its meeting held on 23.08.2020. Having considered the compliance report, the Executive Committee decided to reject the application made by the petitioner with the following observations; “1) Required cadre-wise Faculty as per Council Regulations, 1983 is not identified by the Institution. 2) One Professor apart from Principal/Head is not identified by the Institution as per Council Norms. 3) One Associate Professor and one more Assistant Professor are also not identified by the Institution as per Council Norms. 4) Copy of Land Use certificate (with translation) for Institutional use duly approved by competent local authority not submitted.” 8. The decision taken by the Executive Committee of the 1[st] respondent was communicated to the petitioner on 27.08.2020, as stated in the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The Executive Committee at its 223[rd] meeting held on 15.10.2020 decided to provide a final opportunity to the petitioner institution W.P.(C) No.25143 OF 2020(P) -5- and it was informed that an online inspection shall be conducted by the Council. The said fact was informed to the petitioner vide Ext.P2 communication dated 15.10.2020. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 appeal dated 21.10.2020 and the 1[st] respondent vide Ext.P4 communication dated 26.10.2020 informed the petitioner that an online inspection will be conducted on 28.10.2020. Accordingly, an online inspection was conducted. The recommendations of the online Inspection Committee was considered by the Executive Committee at its meeting held on 29.10.2020. Based on the recommendations of the Inspection Committee, the Executive Committee decided to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P5 communication dated 04.11.2020, with the following observations; “(i) One of the faculty members listed was not available and could not be present; a different architect was identified and met the Inspection Committee. He had no teaching experience and was also running his practice. A few others also had their own practice, and one senior faculty member was associated with another institution for a reasonably long time. There was no consent letter from him to join the institution. (ii) The Inspection Committee was not convinced that they would be in a position to join and continue as full-time teachers.” W.P.(C) No.25143 OF 2020(P) -6- 9. On receipt of Ext.P5 communication dated 04.11.2020 of the 1[st] respondent, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 07.11.2020, seeking reconsideration of the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the 1[st] respondent on 29.10.2020. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has produced Ext.P6 consent letter dated 25.06.2020 issued by Ar.Shajith and Ext.R6(a) offer letter dated 01.06.2020 issued by the petitioner to Ar.Shajith for the post of Associate Professor; and Ext.P7 consent letter dated 25.06.2020 issued by Ar.K.A.Shamsudeen, expressing his consent to join duty, as and when required by the petitioner. In the said letter, it is stated that he had attended an interview for the post of Principal/Professor/ Associate Professor/Assistant Professor in the proposed MGM College of Architecture, on 20.05.2020. 10. The specific stand taken in the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is that the consent letter of Ar.K.A.Shamsudeen was not even submitted in the online appeal sent through email on 22.10.2020. In the hard copy of the appeal submitted by the petitioner, which was received in the office of the 1[st] respondent on 03.11.2020, the consent letter of W.P.(C) No.25143 OF 2020(P) -7- Ar.K.A.Shamsudeen dated 21.10.2020 was unsigned. In the consent letter of Ar.K.A.Shamsudeen produced along with the writ petition as Ext.P7, which is one dated 25.06.2020, he attended the interview on 20.05.2020, whereas in the unsigned consent letter enclosed along with the hard copy of the appeal, the date of interview is mentioned as 21.10.2020. Ar.Dhaneesh V. Jacob, another faculty shown by the petitioner was not available during the online inspection, as he was stated to be under quarantine, owing to COVID-19. It was in such circumstances that the Executive Committee decided to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner. 11. In **Medical Council of India v. The Principal, KMCT Medical College [(2018) 9 SCC 766]** it was contended before the Apex Court that the inspection was not properly conducted. Repelling the said contention, the Apex Court held as follows; “15. We do not deem it necessary to deal with the submission made on behalf of the College regarding the inspection not being properly conducted. This Court has repeatedly said that a decision taken by the Union of India on the basis of a recommendation of an expert body regarding the inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges cannot be interfered with lightly. Interference is permissible only when the colleges demonstrate W.P.(C) No.25143 OF 2020(P) -8- jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala fide. [See: **Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India (2013) 10 SCC 60** and **Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (2016) 11 SCC 530** ]. As no case is made out by the College for interference with the inspection report, we decline the request of Mr.Sibal for remand of the matter to the High Court.” 12. The application made by the petitioner for the academic year 2020-21 was originally rejected by the Executive Committee of the 1[st] respondent Council on 23.08.2020. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 29.10.2020. The said decision of the Executive Committee is based on the recommendation made in the report of the Inspection Committee, which conducted online inspection, on account of COVID-19 pandemic. Any interference on the findings of the Executive Committee of the 1[st] respondent Council, which are based on the recommendation made by the Inspection Commission, is legally permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only when the petitioner demonstrates jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or malafides. In the absence of any vitiating circumstances, no interference is warranted on the findings of the Executive Committee of the 1[st] W.P.(C) No.25143 OF 2020(P) -9- respondent in its decision taken on 29.10.2020. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** bpr W.P.(C) No.25143 OF 2020(P) -10- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31.1.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.1.2020 EVIDENCING PAYMENT MADE ALONG WITH EXT.P-1** **EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.10.2020 OF THE IST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION.** **EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.10.2020 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF COMMUNICATION OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 4.11.2020. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 25.6.2020 ISSUED BY AR.SHAJITH. EXHIBIT P6(A) COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2020 ISSUED TO AR.SHAJITH. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 25.6.2020 ISSUED BY AR.K.A.SHAMSUDHEEN. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 7.11.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING RECONSIDERATION. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.6296/AC-B/KUHS/2013 DATED 24/09/2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES. EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.6296/AC-B/KUHS/2013 DATED 28/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES. EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.6296/AC-B/KUHS/2013 DATED 15/05/2019 ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES.** W.P.(C) No.25143 OF 2020(P) -11-