Lalurel Industrial Training Centre, Hanumakonda, repbyits v. The Commissioner of Employmet and Training, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Buildings

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting trainees to the petitioner institutions having permanent affiliation granted by the 4th respondent to the trades and units for the academic year 2007-2008 as arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and violation of Art. 19 21 of the Constitution of India and also principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to allot trainees by including their names in the list for the consequential year also and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAMESH BABU EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR WRIT PETITION NO : 19608 of 2008 Between:

1. Laurel Industrial Training Centre, Hanumakonda, rep. by its Principal K.Manikyam S/o. Prabhuswamy, R/o.H.No.4-6-30, Kumarpally, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

2. Victor Industrial Training Centre, Kazipet, rep. by its Principal Ch.Raghunath S/o. Bondaiah, R/o.Kothur, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

3. Lesley Industrial Training Centre, Warangal, rep. by its Principal Bhumyavarapu Rangaiah S/o.Narasaiah, R/o.H.No.22-8-268, Doctors' Colony, Warangal, Warangal District.

4. Lilian Industrial Training Centre, Mahabubabad, Warangal Dist., Rep. by its Principal/Correspondent S.Kumaraswamy S/o.Late Mallaiah, Aged about 63 years, R/o. Warangal, Warangal District.

5. Hazrat Industrial Training Centre, Hanumakonda, Rep. by the Principal K.Neelaiah S/o. Kathula Narasaiah, R/o.Hanumakonda, Warangal District. AND ..... PETITIONERS

1. The Commissioner of Employment and Training Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

2. The Principal, Government I.T.I. Warangal, Convenor, District Selection Committee, Warangal District.

3. The Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad.

4. National Council for Vocational Training, rep. by its Director General of Employment and Training, Government of India, Shrama Shakthi Bahavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. . ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting trainees to the petitioners institutions having permanent affiliation granted by the 4th respondent to the Trades and Units for the academic year 2008-2009 as arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and violation of Art. 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and also principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to allot trainees by including their names in the list for the consequential years also and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE WRIT PETITION NO : 24403 of 2008 Between: Lillian Industrial Training Center, Mahaboobabad, rep. by its Correspondent, S.Kumarasway, S/o. Late Mallaiah R/o.Hanumakonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND

1. The Commissioner of Employment & Training, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad - 63.

2. National Council for Vocational Training, Government of India, rep. by its Director General of Employment and Training, Shrama Shakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings No. D3/6452/2007, Dated 27.10.2008 in canceling the recognition of the petitioner institution as arbitrary, mala fide, illegal, irregular and violative of Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to allot trainees for all further academic years basing on permanent affiliation orders and pass such other and further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SUBBA RAO EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR WRIT PETITION NO : 24404 of 2008 Between: Hazrat Industrial Training Center, Hanumakonda, rep. by its Correspondent, S.Kumarasway, S/o. Late Mallaiah R/o.Hanumakonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND

1. The Commissioner of Employment & Training, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad - 63.

2. National Council for Vocational Training, Government of India, rep. by its Director General of Employment and Training, Shrama Shakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings No. D3/6452/2007, Dated 27.10.2008 in canceling the recognition of the petitioner institution as arbitrary, mala fide, illegal, irregular and violative of Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to allot trainees for all further academic years basing on permanent affiliation orders and pass such other and further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SUBBA RAO EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR WRIT PETITION NO : 24405 of 2008 Between: Victor Industrial Training Center, Kazipet, rep by its Correspondent, S. Kumaraswamy,S/o. Late Mallaiah R/o.Hanumakonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND

1. The Commissioner of Employment & Training, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad - 63.

2. National Council for Vocational Training, Government of India, rep. by its Director General of Employment and Training, Shrama Shakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings No. D3/6452/2007, Dated 27.10.2008 in canceling the recognition of the petitioner institution as arbitrary, mala fide, illegal, irregular and violative of Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to allot trainees for all further academic years basing on permanent affiliation orders and pass such other and further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SUBBA RAO EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR WRIT PETITION NO : 24629 of 2008 Between:

1. Lasley Industrial Training Centre, Warangal, rep by its Correspondent, S. Kumarswamy S/o. Late Mallaiah, R/o. Hanumakonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND

1. The Commissioner of Employmet and Training, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Bhavan,3rd Floor, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

2. National Council for Vocational Training Government of India, Rep. by its Director General of Employment and Training, Shrama Shakthi Bhavan Rafi Marg, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing proceedings No. D3/6452/2007 dt. 27-10-2008 in canceling the recognition of the petitioner institution as arbitrary, mala fide, illegal, irregular and violative of Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to allot trainees for all further academic years basing on permanent affiliation orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAMESH BABU EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR WRIT PETITION NO : 24633 of 2008 Between: Laurel Industrial Training Center Rep.by its Correspondent,S.Kumara Swamy, S/o.Late Mallaiah, R/o. Hanumakonda, Warangal Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND

1. The Commissioner of Employment & Training Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad - 63.

2. National Council for Vocational Training Rep. by its Director General of Employment & Training, Shrama Shakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings No. D3/6452/2007, dated 27-10-2008 in canceling the recognition of the petitioner institution as arbitrary, mala fide, illegal, irregular and violative of Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to allot trainees for all further academic years basing on permanent affiliation orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAMESH BABU EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.Nos.17766 of 2007, 19608, 24403, 24404, 24405, 24629 and 24633 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: This batch of writ petitions raised more than one substantial question of law, but however, for the present, I prefer to confine myself to only one question. The writ petitioners are all Institutions imparting training for industrial training courses. By an order passed 27-10-2008, the Commissioner Employment and Training at Hyderabad, cancelled the recognition of the respective Institutes. It is stated by him that the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, based on a report of the Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh, has recommended for cancellation of recognition to 5 Industrial Training Institutes on account of misappropriation of scholarship amount to the tune of more than Rs.63.16 lakhs committed during the years 1994 to 1997 by these institutes. Hence, a show cause notice has been issued to the Institutes on 09-06-2007 proposing to de-affiliate / blacklist the Institutes concerned. Each one of these Institutes have drawn a detailed explanation and submitted the same to the Commissioner of Employment and Training, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed. The issue has been concluded very tersely in the following manner: “The violated explanation Principal/Secretary/ Correspondent of ………………………….. convincing and satisfactory as the management provisions of G.O.Ms.No.90 Social Welfare (Edn.II) Dept. dt:30-7-2002. is ordered cancellation of recognition of ……………….. with immediate effect as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.90 Social Welfare (Edn.II) Dept. dt:30-7- 2002 based on the CID report.” Therefore, A mere look at this order discloses total lack of application of mind on the part of the Commissioner of Employment and Training, Hyderabad, for more than one reason. Firstly, the reasons for his coming to a conclusion that the explanation offered by the writ petitioner Institutes concerned, to be not convincing are never set out. The statement that the explanation offered is not convincing to the Commissioner, is a mere conclusion and not a reason by itself. Every conclusion must be rested upon reason and material. Lack of material would render the conclusion faulty, as on a loose soil a stable superstructure can hardly be constructed. Secondly, the Commissioner of Employment and Training, appears to be more preoccupied in his view that it is the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, recommendation for cancellation of recognition of the 5 Industrial Training Institutes, is to be effectively carried out rather than objectively considering as to whether any such requirement does exist or not. If the Commissioners of Employment and Training, Hyderabad, is not capable of acting independently without basing himself upon the dictates of Commissioner for the Social Welfare Department, then, he ought not to have proceeded further in the matter and, instead, ought to have remitted the entire exercise to be carried out by the Commissioner for Social Welfare. It is elementary that no independent agency can be dictated to by any other agency, whether superior or otherwise, for the purpose of taking a particular course of action. It is one thing to say that a particular course of action is needed to be initiatee and it is altogether a different thing to be dictated to as to the specified course of action. The impugned order does not bear out any such distinction. Nextly, it is alleged against the writ petitioner Institutes that they have misappropriated the scholarship amount to the tune of Rs.63.16 lakhs during the years 1994 to 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioners alleges that the total amount of scholarships released for the periods 1994 to 1997 to these five Institutes do not amount to Rs.63.16 lakhs at all and hence, the question of misappropriating such a sum would not arise. Finally, the Institutes have misappropriated the funds was an allegation leveled by the Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh. Neither the Commissioner for Social Welfare nor the Commissioner for Employment and Training, did bother to find out as to the material that has been gathered by the C.I.D., which can, prima facie, lend support to the view that these Institutes have misappropriated funds, as the Institutes assert that they are legitimately entitled to appropriate the tuition fee component released by the Social Welfare Department. Further, it is no longer open to the Police to level allegations first and then fail in their basic duty to prosecute the culprits promptly. It has been stated by the petitioners that charge sheet has been filed in the criminal court as long back as in the year 2002 and ever since then the cases are not being prosecuted. More importantly, the writ petitioners allege that the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department has gone on record by releasing a Press statement at the relevant point of time at Warangal that no misappropriation of the scholarship amounts, sanctioned by the Social Welfare Department, has taken place. In the face of such an official statement, one would fail to understand as to why the writ petitioners are being proceeded against. Be that as it may, the necessity to set out reasons by any Administrative Tribunal, which has been entrusted with the task of deciding a lis has been spelt out by the Supreme Court in MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1] , in the following words: State (7) …………. Out Constitution posits a welfare State, it is not defined, but its incidents are found in Chapters III and IV thereof, i.e., the Parts embodying rights and directive fundamental Policy principles respectively. “Welfare State” as conceived by our Constitution is a is prosperity, State where equality, freedoms and social justice. In the context of a welfare State, administrative tribunals have come to stay. Indeed, they are the necessary concomitants of a Welfare State. But functioning arbitrariness destroys the concept of a welfare State Self-discipline and supervision exclude or at any rate minimize arbitrariness. The lease a tribunal can do is to disclose its mind. disclosure The guarantees The condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimizes arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made; and it also enables an appellate or supervisory Court to keep the tribunals within bounds. A is a desirable reasoned order condition of judicial disposal.” consideration. compulsion itself. Instead of expressing any opinion on merits, I consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter for fresh consideration with the hope that a due and appropriate consideration would be bestowed with regard to the merits of the explanation offered by the writ petitioners, particularly, when the course of action finally adopted by the respondents has deferred from the course of action proposed in the show cause notice. I hope and trust that the benefits of the admission process, which is likely to commence shortly for the academic years 2009-10, would not be unjustly deprived to the writ petitioners. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed with costs. Consolidated hearing fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Note: Issue copy in 3 days. (bo) 29th June 2009 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ} [1] AIR 1966 SC 671