LPA No.597/2011. Case: Council Of Architecture Vs All India Council For Technical Education & Anr.. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberLPA No.597/2011
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, Adv.
JudgesDipak Misra, Cj, J.
IssueEducational Law
Judgement DateSeptember 07, 2011
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

Judgment:

Dipak Misra, Cj, J.

  1. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 16th May, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 4662/2007, the Council of Architecture (COA), the appellant herein, has preferred the intra-Court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.

  2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the factual matrix that is required to be exposited is that the first respondent, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), a statutory body constituted under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short „the 1987 Act‟), invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being grieved by the communication dated 20th December, 2006 made by the COA informing to the AICTE that the nominations made by it were not in accordance with the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 (for short „the 1972 Act‟) and were legally invalid and hence, the said nomination of two members by the AICTE was not acceptable to the COA.

  3. The Department of Higher Education in the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD), Government of India, supported the stand of the AICTE and, on 14th June, 2007, wrote to the COA stating that its Executive Committee did not have any authority to reject the nomination. The COA was called upon to invite two members nominated by the AICTE for the forthcoming meeting by the COA to be held on 29th June, 2007 but when no invitation was forthcoming, the AICTE was compelled to knock at the doors of the court for seeking a writ of certiorari for quashment of the decision / communication dated 20th December, 2006 of the COA and for issue of a command to the COA not to hold a meeting on 29th June, 2007 without the participation of two members of the AICTE. A writ of mandamus was also sought directing the COA to accept the nominations made by the AICTE by its letter dated 11th October, 2006.

  4. Before the writ court, it was contended by the AICTE that if the dictionary clause pertaining to technical education occurring in Section 2(g) of the 1987 Act is appropriately appreciated and further if the scheme of things is taken into consideration in accordance with the practice, it would be quite vivid that the AICTE has the power and authority to nominate two members. A contention was canvassed that the Apex Court has upheld the validity of the 1987 Act. In support of the said stand, reliance was placed on State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104, Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State & Anr., (2000) 5 SCC 231 and Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2001) 8 SCC 676.

  5. The stand put forth by the AICTE was resisted by the COA on the foundation that the legislative intendment, as is clear from the language employed in Section 3(3)(b) of the 1972 Act, does not permit nomination by the AICTE constituted under the 1987 Act and the legislative intention being clear, the court should not interpret the provision in a way which would tantamount to modifying the language of the statute. To buttress the said submission, the decisions in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Limited v. U.P. Financial Corporation, (2003) 2 SC 455, Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230 and Union of India v. Priyankan Sharan, (2008) 9 SCC 15 were commended to.

  6. The learned Single Judge...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT