NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY BHOPAL

COMMON LAW PROJECT

TRIMESTER-1

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO :

RADHA CHARPOTA PROF. GHAYUR ALAM SIR

2019BALLB30

AN ANALYSIS OF
 Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar Appellant[s] v.
Sangam Laxmibai Vidyapeet & ORS. Respondents

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. Question of law 1

2. Material Facts 2

3. Arguements on behalf of Appellant 3

4. Arguements on behalf of respondent 4

5. Concrete Judgement 5
QUESTION OF LAW
1. The question involved in the appeal is that whether the university is bound to provide ‘no
objection certificate’ [NOC] for opening an educational institution for a new course
irrespective of educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction and thereby promote the
mushroom growth of institutions?

2. Is the university bound to give no objection certificate in a local area irrespective of

whether institutions are required in the area and thereby promote the mushroom growth of
institutions?

3. The university in its counter affidavit contended that under the provision of section of the
Telangana education act, 1982 obtaining the no objection certificate was necessary as per the
All India Council Of Technical Education Regulations and 2017 Regulations.

4. The validity of section 20 was upheld in the government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B.
Educational Society. The object stands adopted in the state of Telangana.
MATERIAL FACTS:
1. The grant for no objection certificate [NOC] would not be applied. The grant on the ground
that as per the government’s policy and perspective plan, NOC was not granted for new
educational courses and starting of new institutions as well.

2. There would not be a need to start the course due to mushroom growth of the pharmacy
course along with other university educational courses such as of engineering, etc.

3. The fact situation given in the government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society
2005 3 SCC 212, the court considered the validity of section 20 of the act of 1982 vis a vis
section 10 of AICTE act of 1987 which reaffirmed the situation of retrospective promotion
and subsequent benefits.

4. In case there are large number of institutions imparting education in the area the competent
authority may be justified not to grant NOC for permitting an institution to come up the area.

5. The provisions contained in section 20 are wholesome and intend not only to cater to the
educational needs of the area but also prevent the mushroom growth of the
institutions/courses.
ARGUEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
1. The mushroom growth of the institutions cannot be permitted was rightly pointed out. It is
painful to see that at several places mushroom growth of the institutions had been permitted
by such bodies in an illegal manner.

2. A large number of institutions have already been permitted to function in the state by
central government.

3. There has been a requirement of educational institutions in the locality and that is one of
the main considerations.

4. the respondents also referred to the decision in Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai v.
Chattisgarh swami Vivekananda technical university,2015 11 SSCC 291.
ARGUEMENTS N FAVOUR OF THE APPELANT
1. It is for the AICTE or the PCI to take into consideration the requirements of the area
whether institutions have to be permitted to start a new course of pharmacy, the NOC could
not have been declined.

2. In the perspective plan, it is pointed out that there is need to start pharmacy course as
imbalance has been created by the establishment of other technical institutions such as
engineering, etc. which may not be good for the country’s growth.

3. the counsel appearing for the respondent was not able to point out any of the provisions in
the AICTE act and rules for adjudging requirement of the locality have been framed by the
council.

4. In the absence of guidelines or norms framed to check the mushroom growth of the
institutions, the university cannot be deprived of considering the said aspect.
CONCRETE JUDGEMENT:
The respondent have also referred to the judgement in the Runga Engineering College,
Bhilai, Chattisgarh v. Swami Vivekananda Technical University, 2015 11 SCC 291 where the
question aroused regarding the power of the examining authority that is, the university itself
and the state government, to withdraw the provisional affiliation or to decline grant of the
affiliation.

The decision was taken to disapprove the provisional affiliation granted to the college. On
this, the court observed that the objections on the basis of which the action was taken fall
under one or the other areas which only AICTE has been brought to the notice of AICTE to
take appropriate action against the college. On facts of the instant case, the decision cannot be
applied as it is not the case of shortcomings.

 Resultantly, the appeal deserves to be allowed, same is hereby allowed. We quash the

impunged judgement and order.

 No costs. …………………………..

J.    (Arun Mishra) .……..………………….

J.     (Indira Banerjee)

October 29, 2018   

New Delhi.