THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANANW.A.No

W.A.No.3640 of 2025PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order made in W.P.No.33710 of 2025 dated 22.09.2025 passed by this Court.For Appellants :Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate General for Mr.U.BaranidharanFor Respondents:Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government PleaderJUDGMENT(JUDGMENT MADE BY V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)The appellants were the respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition, the first respondent was the writ petitioner, and the second and third respondents are the respondents 2 and 4 respectively in the writ petition.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks in the writ petition.3. W.P.No.33710 of 2025 was presented by the writ petitioner seeking to quash the order of the first respondent dated 31.07.2025 and the consequential order dated 28.08.2025 and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant affiliation to the petitioner college for the academic year 2025-2026.Page 2 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3640 of 20254. The petitioner has been running a college since the year 2002. It secured approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’) for the academic year 2002-2003. The respondents had also granted it affiliation for the very academic year. AICTE granted approval to the petitioner for the academic year 2025-2026 on 20.03.2025. The petitioner filed an application to the Directorate Center for Affiliation of Institutions, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai -600 025, seeking extension of affiliation. This application was made on 28.11.2024.5. The third respondent send an inspection Committee to petitioner College on 19.02.2025. The inspection team noted certain defects. This was informed to the petitioner by the Anna University on 17.06.2025. The petitioner in compliance thereof, uploaded all the requisite details on 27.06.2025. On 09.07.2025, the first respondent issued a show cause notice, which was received by the petitioner, on 15.07.2025. The petitioner immediately uploaded the compliance report, on to the website of the respondents. Yet again, the first respondent issued a second deficiency notice. The petitioner informed the compliance on 17.07.2025. This was followed by another deficiency note on 17.07.2025, which was yet again responded by the petitioner, giving all the details on the very same day. Page 3 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3640 of 20256. In the mean time, Engineering counselling was conducted, pursuant to which 9 students were allotted to the petitioner on 31.07.2025 and 51 students for lateral entry category were also allotted. Through the consortium of private colleges, the petitioner admitted 42 students under Lateral Entry, 56 students in first year Engineering Courses and 85 students in the MBA courses. By an order dated 31.07.2025, the first respondent informed the petitioner on 03.08.2025, that as deficiency exists in the petitioner college, it is suspending the petitioner’s programmes for the academic year 2025-26. 7. Upon becoming aware of the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31428 of 2025 stating that the petitioner had complied with all the requirements and it is the respondents, who had not verified the same. This court by an order dated 19.08.2025, directed the first respondent to go through the documents of the petitioner, which have already been submitted as well as any other additional documents that the petitioner would submit on 22.08.2025, grant him personal hearing on 25.08.2025 and thereafter, pass appropriate orders.Page 4 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3640 of 20258. The petitioner states that, in compliance with the order of this Court, the Principal appeared, before the first respondent, with the physical copies of the documents as well as the compliance reports uploaded on the web portal of the first respondent on 22.08.2025. The Principal of the petitioner institution also attended the enquiry. Thereafter, an order came to be passed on 28.08.2025, wherein it was recorded that the petitioner college though had fulfilled the minimum criteria in respect of 7 UG programmes and one MBA programme, the first respondent cannot revoke the order of suspension on the ground that the deadline fixed by the Supreme Court i.e., 14.08.2025, had expired. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition.9. This court entertained the writ petition. The respondents went by way of a counter. In the counter, the respondents accepted that the deficiency notes were issued and that, the petitioner had filed a writ petition as aforesaid. The counter set forth a tabular column showing the courses as well as the remarks. For ready reference, it is extracted hereunder:Sl.No.Name of the ProgrammeIntake sought (2025-26)DeficientComponent(s)Remarks1B.E.Civil Engineering30Minimum Criteria satisfied2B.E. Computer 60Minimum Criteria satisfiedPage 5 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3640 of 2025Science and Engineering3B.E. Computer Science and Engineering (Cyber Security)30Minimum Criteria satisfied4B.E. Electrical and Electronics Engineering30Minimum Criteria satisfied5B.E.Electronics and Communication Engineering60Minimum Criteria satisfied6B.E.Machanical Engineering60Minimum Criteria satisfied7B.Tech, Artificial Intelligence and Data Science60Minimum Criteria satisfied8M.B.A. Master of Business Administration90Minimum Criteria satisfied9M.E. CAD/CAM18Professor or Associate Professor with PhD qualification not available Overall faculty/facilities not sufficientMinimum Criteria not satisfied10M.E. Computer Science and Engineering18Professor or Associate Professor with PhD qualification not available11M.E. VLSI Design1810. The counter reiterated the stand that, the Supreme Court had fixed the deadline for grant of affiliation as 14.08.2025 and since Page 6 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3640 of 2025the request for revocation of suspension was made thereafter, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition.11. With the pleadings have been completed, the learned Single Judge took up the writ for disposal.12. The learned Judge came to a conclusion that, when this court had passed an order on 21.08.2025, the respondents had not brought to the knowledge of the court regarding the cut-off date of 14.08.2025 and further that, as the petitioner has satisfied the minimum criteria in respect of 7 Bachelor of Engineering Programmes and one Master of Business Administration Programme, the impugned order is quashed, insofar as the said 7 UG and one MBA course alone. Consequently, he allowed the writ petition insofar as these courses are concerned and dismissed the writ petition with respect to the remaining programmes.13. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal.14. We heard Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General, for Mr.U.Baranidharan for the Appellants, and Page 7 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3640 of 2025Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader for the second respondent.15. Mr.J.Ravindran urged that, in view of the cut-off date for affiliation have been fixed by the Supreme Court as 14.08.2025, the respondents are helpless and therefore, cannot revoke the suspension. He pleads that the orders dated 31.07.2025 and 21.08.2025 were based on the expert committee’s reports and not on the basis of the subjective consideration of the respondents. He further pleaded that, since the eligibility norms had not been met by the writ petitioner, it goes to the root of the claim for affiliation, and hence, the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.16. The judgment of the Supreme Court that the learned Additional Advocate General relied upon is Parshavanath Charitable Trust and Others v. All India Council for Tech. Edu and Others in Civil Appeal No.9048 of 2012 dated 13.12.2012. This judgment had prescribed a fixed time schedule for the academic calender. As per this judgment, the last date for granting or receiving to grant approval by AICTE is 30th April of every year. The last date for refusing approval by the University was one month thereafter, i.e., on 31st May.Page 8 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3640 of 202517. A perusal of the Academic calendar issued by AICTE enclosed in the type set of papers shows that for this academic calendar, the schedule as drawn up by the Supreme Court was not strictly followed. AICTE had fixed the last date for granting approval by it as 11.04.2025 for the applications received on or before 31.03.2025 and the last date for grant of affiliation by the University as 14.08.2025.18. At the outset, we should point out that, in the facts of the present case, AICTE has already granted approval to the petitioner College as early as on 20.03.2025. The petitioner had made an application in November 2024. Even assuming that March of 2025 is taken as the point of time from which the respondents should have consider the application, the respondents had commenced the process of verification only in May 2025. By the time, the impugned order had come to be passed, the petitioner had already uploaded the details on to the official website of the respondents stating that there are no deficiencies in the college. Hence, the delay at the hands of the University cannot be fastened upon the writ petitioner.19. Apart from this fact, the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.31428 of 2025 was after hearing the writ petitioner as well the Page 9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3640 of 2025respondents therein. The respondents never brought to the notice of this Court on 21.08.2025 that the last date of 14.08.2025 had passed on and therefore, the application of the petitioner cannot be considered. On the contrary, the respondents accepted that they will consider the documents already submitted by the petitioner and any additional documents that the petitioner might submit on 22.08.2025 and pass orders within a period of seven days from therefrom. The respondents further agreed that they will give a 30-minute personal hearing on 25.08.2025 at 11.00 am. Having led this Court to pass an order stating that the respondents will consider the application of the petitioner, it is too late in the day for the respondents to contend that the petitioner’s application would not be considered as the date fixed by AICTE had expired.20. At the risk of repetition, we should point out that the order was passed by this on 21.08.2025 which was after 14.08.2025. Hence, it is too late for the respondents to turn around and throw technical objections at the petitioner.21. Furthermore, it is not as if the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition or permitted the petitioner college to run the courses which have not fulfilled the requirements of the respondents. Page 10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3640 of 2025The tabular column extracted above was furnished by the respondents themselves. A perusal of the same shows that out of 11 courses, the petitioner had fulfilled necessary requirements for 7 Under Graduate Programmes and one Master of Business Administration Programme. 22. Once the requirements of the respondents have been met, it is not open to the respondents to urge that, they would still not revoke the suspension, which had been passed without reference to the compliance report uploaded by the petitioner much earlier. It is not the case of the respondents that, the compliance report had been made after the due date of 14.08.2025. The petitioner had been repeatedly uploading the documents on the website of the respondents to show that it is in compliance with the directions given by AICTE as well as by the University. 23. Another significant factor that looms larger in this case is that, the petitioner institution was permitted to admit students for the Academic Year 2025-26 pursuant to the counselling conducted by the State of Tamil Nadu and the consortium of private colleges.24. The learned Single Judge, in our considered view, has taken a pragmatic approach by allowing the writ petition in respect of the Page 11 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3640 of 2025courses which the petitioner has ensured compliance, and has dismissed the writ petition for the three courses where the petitioner has not met the minimum requirements. We do not find any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned and balanced order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.R.S.K. J., V.L.N. J., 03.12.2025nlNeutral Citation : Yes/NoPage 12 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3640 of 2025 R.SURESH KUMAR, J.ANDV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN. J.nlW.A.No.3640 of 202503.12.2025Page 13 of 13