JL, Dignity Education Society, a v. Council of Architecture, an

JL, Dignity Education Society, a society registered under Societies Act having its registration No.5548, through its President Shri Pramod S/o Phoolchand about 49 years, R/o Station Road, Raipur (CG). Lunawat, Lunawat,

2. Dignity College of Architecture, through its Principal Shri Q.H. Kapadia, S/o Sadiq Hussain, aged about 53 years, R/o Ahmedji Colony, Nalgar Chowk, Raipur (CG). Versus

Council of Architecture, an autonomous Government India, constituted Architects Act, 1972, through its Registrar, India Habi^at' Centre, Core - 6A, 1st Floor, - Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003.

Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, though its Registrar, North Park Avenue, Sector - 8, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner, above named, most humbly and respectfully beg to submits as under: - in" /' 63 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH. C.J. HON'BLE SHRI R.S.SHARMA. J. Writ Petition fCl No. 1756 of 2012 Petitioners Dignity Education Society and another VERSUS Respondents Council of Architecture and another Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Appearance: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the Petitioners. Shri Rakesh Shroati and Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, counsel for Respondent - 2. ORDER (3rd December, 2012)

1. Dignity Education Society, Raipur (the Society) is a registered runs a College of the Society Registration Act. It society under Architecture in the name of the Dignity College of Architecture, Raipur (the College). Vivekanand Technical University, district Durg (the University). The College is affiliated to the Chhattisgarh Swami

2. The College grants a degree of Bachelor of Architecture which is recognised by the University. The degree course is for a period of five years.

The Council of Architecture, New Delhi (the Council) is an autonomous statutory body of the Government of India incorporated under the Architectures Act, 1972. No College of Architecture can be started without the permission of the Council. The Council was granted permission to admit 80 students in the 4. three academic years namely, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. There is no dispute regarding these three years.

The University also conducts a National Aptitude Test Architecture (NATA). This test is conducted online and was conducted from 15.03.2012 to 31.08.2012. it was extended up to 30.09.2012. Students who passed in the NATA were admitted by the College in anticipation of grant of intake of 80 students. Later on,

The Council held an inspection on 03.08.2012 and by a letter dated 03.09.2012 communicated to the Petitioners that approval granted to admit only 40 students for the academic year 2012-13. The aforesaid letter was received by the Petitioners on 10.09.2012, however, by the time, the College had admitted 72 students.

The College filed an application befbre the University on

17.09.2012 informing them, it has admitted 72 students, but it has been granted approval for intake of40 students only. The College also wrote a letter on 18.09.2012 to the Council pointing out certain objections in the enquiry report and requesting ittopermitintakeof72students instead of 40, as the students have already been admitted. When nothing was done on the applications and the University announced the first semester examination, the present writ petition was filed.

We have heard Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel Petitioners; Shri Rakesh Shroati and Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, counsel forthe University. The notices were issued to the Council by ordinary process, as 9. well as by registered post, however, no one has put up appearance on its behalf. Considering that the first semester examination of the University is 10. to begin on 20.12.2012, it would be appropriate to decide the writ petition finally. The College was permitted intake of 80 students for three 11. preceding academicyears namely, 2009-10, 2010-11 and2011-12. The online admission by the Council was held on 15.03.2012 till 30.09.2012. the order was Though the inspection was held on 03.08.2012, yet passed on 03.09.2012 which was received by the College on 10.09.2012 permitting the intake of only 40 students. it was also mentioned that the College could apply again after removing the defects. In this letter,

The College has already sent letter dated 21.09.2012 to the Council raising certain objections to the inspection and with a request to permit the intake of 72 students, who have already been admitted by the College. The Council has sent a letter on 12.11.2012 to the College stating therein that no decision could be taken on their representation on the ground that a writ petition has already been filed. Considering the fact that 32 extra students have already been 13. admitted before the Collegereceived the order of the Council granting approval to intake of only 40 students and the College has already made to reconsider a representation on 21.09.2012 to the Council decision, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction that the Council may consider the representation dated 21.09.2012 at an early date, if possible, withina week from the date of receipt of a certified copy ofthis order. In case the Council permits the intake of 72 students for this year, in that event, they may be permitted by the University to appear in the first semester examination which is going to be scheduled on 20.12.2012.

We make it clear that, so far as the next academic session is concerned, the College will admit the students only to the limit permitted by the Council. ^!-."'' t^