ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. SHRI PRINCE SHIVAJI MARATHA BOARDING HOUSE’S COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE & ORS.

p. 508 Copy page pinpoint

A position of law, that the challenge of the appellant with reference to the Regulation in question and claim of AICTE that the appellant University should seek and obtain prior approval of AICTE to start a department or commence a new course or programme in technical education does not mean that they have no obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid B down by AICTE for the purpose of ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards.”

44Copy pinpoint44. In the case of Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council of Technical Education and C Others22, the dispute was between private colleges, including certain colleges affiliated to Bharathidasan University on one side and AICTE on the other, broadly on the same question which engaged this Court in the case of Bhartidasan University. In this decision, referring to certain portions of the judgment of this Court in the case of D Parshvanath Charitable Trust (supra), it was held:- “52. The italicised portions from the said decision in Parshvanath Charitable Trust case [Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2013) 3 SCC 385] referred to supra would make it clear that the AICTE Act does not contain any evidence of an intention to belittle and destroy the authority or autonomy of other statutory bodies which they are assigned to perform. Further, the AICTE Act does not intend to be an authority either superior or to supervise or control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon the said universities merely for the reason that it is laying down certain teaching standards in technical education or programmes formulated in any of the department or units. It is evident that while enacting the AICTE Act, Parliament was fully alive to the existence of the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 particularly, the said provisions extracted above. Therefore, the definition of G “technical institution” in Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act which authorises AICTE to do certain things, special care has consciously and deliberately been taken to make specific mention of university, wherever and whenever AICTE alone was expected to interact with a university and its departments as well 22 H (2013) 8 SCC 271

p. 509 Copy page pinpoint

BOARDING HOUSE’S COLLEGE. OF ARCH. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]

as constituent institutions and units. It was held after analysing the provision of Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the AICTE Act that the role of the inspection conferred upon AICTE vis-à-vis universities is limited to the purpose of ensuring proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system so as to conform to the standards laid down by it with no further or direct control over such universities or scope for any direct action except bringing it to the notice of UGC. In that background, this Court in Bharathidasan University case [Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2001) 8 SCC 676] made it very clear by making the observation that it has examined the scope of the enactment as to whether the AICTE Act prevails over the UGC Act or the fact of competent entries fall in List I Entry 66 vis-à- vis List III Entry 25 of Schedule VII of the Constitution.

53. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of Bharathidasan University case [Bharathidasan D University v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2001) 8 SCC 676] which are extracted above makes it very clear that this Court has exempted universities, its colleges, constituent institutions and units from seeking prior approval from AICTE. Also, from the reading of paras 19 and 20 E of Parshvanath Charitable Trust case [Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2013) 3 SCC 385] it is made clear after careful scanning of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis universities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of providing guidance and has no authority empowering it to issue or enforce any sanctions by itself.

54. It is rightly pointed out from the affidavit filed by UGC as directed by this Court in these cases on the question of affiliated colleges to the university, that the affidavit is very mechanical and it has simply and gratuitously without foundation, added as technical institutions including affiliated colleges without any legal foundation. Paras 13, 14, 15 and 19 of the affidavit filed by UGC and the assertion made in Para 23 is without any factual foundation, which reads as under: H

p. 510 Copy page pinpoint

A “That it is further submitted that affiliated colleges are distinct and different than the constituent colleges. Thus, it cannot be said that constituent colleges also include affiliated colleges.” Further, the assertion of UGC as rightly pointed out by Dr Dhavan in the written submission filed on behalf of the appellant B in CA No. 1145 of 2004 that the claim that UGC does not have any provision to grant approval of technical institution, is facile as it has already been laid down by this Court that the AICTE norms can be applied to the affiliated colleges through UGC. It can only advise UGC for formulating the standards of education and other aspects to UGC. In view of the law laid down in C Bharathidasan University [Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2001) 8 SCC 676] and Parshvanath Charitable Trust [Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2013) 3 SCC 385] cases, the learned Senior Counsel Dr Dhavan has rightly submitted for rejection of the affidavit of UGC, which we have to accept as the same is without any factual foundation and also contrary to the intent and object of the Act.”

45Copy pinpoint45. Learned counsel appearing for different institutions in this set of appeals have broadly supported the arguments advanced on behalf of CoA. Learned counsel for the Muslim Educational Association [the appellant in SLP(C) No.28121 of 2018] has assailed the decision of the Calicut University refusing to give affiliation to the said institution. Reference has been made to regulation 15(3) of the Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulation, 2015, which gives 3 years to provide the building for different infrastructural facilities for a college coming within the ambit of the said Act. In fact, it has been argued on behalf of the said institution that the University could not demand AICTE approval and within the State of Kerala, there were many institutions imparting architectural education solely on the basis of recognition granted under the 1972 Act.

46Copy pinpoint46. In the case of Bharathidasan University (supra), this Court found that in the 1987 Act, there is a distinction made by the legislature between a technical institution per se and certain other kinds of institutions over which some other kind of monitoring or supervision is there by properly constituted universities. That would be apparent from H the definition of technical institution under the 1987 Act. Sections 10

p. 511 Copy page pinpoint

BOARDING HOUSE’S COLLEGE. OF ARCH. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]

(k) and (m) of the 1987 Act also specifically deal with technical institution. Thus the 1987 Act recognises the distinguishing feature of a technical institution not being a university. The Council constituted under it has supervisory and monitoring power over technical institutions not being a university imparting courses in technical education. This was one of the main reasoning as to why it was found by this Court in the case of Bharathidasan University (supra) that the said university would remain out of the regulatory ambit of the AICTE. Broadly the same logic was followed in the other authority, Association of Management of Private Colleges (supra). The case of Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others (supra), was distinguished in this decision and the relevant paragraphs in that regard have been referred to earlier in this judgment. None of the authorities cited on behalf of the AICTE, however, deals with a situation where there is a pre-existing Central legislation dealing with overlapping power on the same subject coming within the definition of “technical education”. D

47Copy pinpoint47. CoA in these appeals wants to establish its pre-dominance on the ground that the 1972 Act is a special Act and AICTE’s stand on the other hand is that the 1987 Act having come to the statue book on a later date, the provisions thereof ought to prevail when the same are in conflict with an earlier statute. As a proposition of law, we accept E AICTE’s stand that there need not be complete identity in the subject- matters of the two rival statutes being tested in the yardstick of point of time of their commencement of operation. Again, as a proposition of law, the principle of law canvassed by the rival bodies are accepted tools of construction. But they require application having regard to the specific circumstances of a given case. It is not an absolute proposition of law that a later Act would always prevail over the former in the event there are clashing provisions even if there is no express provision of repeal. In the case of Ajoy Kumar Banerjee (supra), it was held, referring to Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition:- “39. From the text and the decisions, four tests are deducible and these are :(i) the Legislature has the undoubted right to alter a law already promulgated through subsequent legislation, (ii) A special law may be altered, abrogated or repealed by a later general law by an express provision, (iii) A later general law will override a prior special law if the two are so repugnant to each H

p. 512 Copy page pinpoint

A other that they cannot co-exist even though no express provision in that behalf is found in the general law, and (iv) It is only in the absence of a provision to the contrary and of a clear inconsistency that a special law will remain wholly unaffected by a later general law.”

48Copy pinpoint48. We shall examine now as to whether the 1972 Act fits the description of a special legislation so as to prevail over a subsequent enactment covering its field or area of operation. A special law implies a statute covering a particular subject specifically. The subject of conflict in the present proceedings is architectural education. The 1972 Act C however does not solely deal with architectural education. The Act intends to control or regulate the profession of architects. It has two main features, one part dealing with regulating the profession of architect and the other part regulating architectural education. Significant portion of the statute deals with formation of the CoA but the function of that body is essentially to regulate and monitor the other two areas of this statue. So far as effect of recognition is concerned, Section 17 of the 1972 Act stipulates:- “17. Effect of recognition.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, but subject to the provisions of this Act, any recognised qualification shall be a sufficient qualification for enrolment in the register.”

49Copy pinpoint49. The 1987 Act deals with technical education and in particular the methodology for approval technical institutions and their monitoring. The dispute has arisen in these proceedings as architecture has been included with other subjects in the definition of “technical education” [Section 2 (g)]. Dr. Dhavan wants us, in effect, to exclude the subject of architecture from the said definition clause while construing the applicability of the Regulations for approval of a technical institution and its subsequent monitoring. He has referred to the opening sentence of Section 2 of the 1987 Act, which contains the definitions and reads:- G “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires..” Such context, according to him can be external, outside the specific statute and includes other subsisting legislations. Before we deal with this submission, we shall refer to certain other key features of the H two enactments.

p. 513 Copy page pinpoint

BOARDING HOUSE’S COLLEGE. OF ARCH. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]

50Copy pinpoint50. The provisions of 1987 Act have not been immunised by a A non-obstante clause like the one employed in Section 17 of the 1972 Act. Having regard to the scheme and provisions of these two statutes, ex-facie it is difficult to label either of them as special law or general law. The 1987 Act has certain features of a special law being devoted to setting up, supervision and monitoring of institutions imparting B technical education. But the said statute does not cover technical education imparted by all types of institutions. The exceptions have been clearly mentioned in Section 2(h) of the act and explained in the cases of Bharathidasan University (supra) and Association of Management of private colleges (supra). So far as the 1972 Act is concerned, its application is not confined to architecture education alone. C This enactment contemplates establishing the Council of Architecture, recognizing degrees and diplomas in architecture and regulating the profession of architects. But there is inter-link between architecture education and registration of architects, on which aspect we shall dilate later in this judgment. D

51Copy pinpoint51. Under both the statutes there are overlapping areas under which the respective Councils could make Regulations. Though these Acts, by themselves, do not come into direct conflict the inconsistencies have surfaced in implementing the power given to the Councils constituted under the respective enactments. AICTE contends that the later statute ought to prevail and as a corollary the regulations framed under the later statute should prevail. CoA wants its power to eclipse AICTE’s dominant role as a regulator in relation to architectural education on the strength of the 1972 Act being a special Act. The three regulations under the 1987 Act which have been brought to our notice do not directly lay down any specific norm or standard which ought to be followed. Such norms appear to have been set by the AICTE in pursuance of the aforesaid regulations. The two Regulations of 1994 do not lay down specifically such norms. The 2016 regulations has provision for Approval Process Hand Book which may be published from time to time laying down the manner in which approval shall be given.

52Copy pinpoint52. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Another (supra), conflict was between State Legislations, being Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Madras University Act 1923 and the provisions of 1987 Act. In this judgment it was, inter-alia, held :- H

p. 514 Copy page pinpoint

A “30. A comparison of the Central Act and the University Act will show that as far as the institutions imparting technical education are concerned, there is a conflict between and overlapping of the functions of the Council and the University. Under Section 10 of the Central Act, it is the Council which is entrusted with the power, particularly, to allocate and disburse grants, to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems incorporating norms and mechanisms for maintaining accountability of the technical institutions, laying down norms and standards for courses, curricula, staff pattern, staff qualifications, assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition fee and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions or introducing new courses or programmes, to lay down norms or granting autonomy to technical institutions, providing guidelines for admission of students, inspecting or causing to inspect colleges, for withholding or discontinuing of grants in respect of courses and programmes, declaring institutions at various levels and types fit to receive grants, advising the Commission constituted under the Act for declaring technical educational institutions as deemed universities, setting up of National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation on the basis of guidelines and standards specified and to make recommendations to it or to the Council or the Commission or other bodies under the Act regarding recognition or de-recognition of the institution or the programme conducted by it. Thus, so far as these matters are concerned, in the case of the institutes imparting technical education, it is not the University Act and the University but it is the Central Act and the Council created under it which will have the jurisdiction. To that extent, after the coming into operation of the Central Act, the provisions of the University Act will be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges like the engineering colleges. As has been pointed out earlier, the Central G Act has been enacted by Parliament under Entry 66 of List I to coordinate and determine the standards of technical institutions as well as under Entry 25 of List III. The provisions of the University Act regarding affiliation of technical colleges like the engineering colleges and the conditions for grant and continuation H of such affiliation by the University shall, however, remain

p. 515 Copy page pinpoint

BOARDING HOUSE’S COLLEGE. OF ARCH. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]

operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the University A for grant and continuance of affiliation will have to be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Council in respect of matters entrusted to it under Section 10 of the Central Act.”

53Copy pinpoint53. The case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited B (supra) also gives primacy to the AICTE on the question of necessity for an engineering college to obtain approval from the AICTE. In this case, question arose on the point as to whether engineering degree courses operated by colleges could be conducted by open universities through distance learning mode in absence of approval by the AICTE. C This case and the case of Parshvnath Charitable Trust and Others (supra) have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. These authorities cited on behalf of the AICTE however do not deal with conflict arising from two Regulations framed under two Central statutes, both conferring regulatory powers over a particular subject in the field of technical education on two different statutory bodies. The ratio of the decision in the case of Bharathidasan University (supra), expanded by the two Judge Bench judgment in the case of Association of Management of Private Colleges (supra) have been cited in support of CoA’s contention that the 1972 Act should be treated as a special statute and Regulations framed thereunder should override those framed under the 1987 Act.

54Copy pinpoint54. For the sole reason of there being overlapping subjects, Courts straightaway may not get into an exercise to find out if one statute intends to eclipse the other. But in the present set of appeals, intention of the legislature to override one by the other can be examined by analyzing the provisions of the two statutes. The duty of the regulatory bodies in a situation of this nature would be to come out with a unified regime, which this Court expected in the case of Municipal Council, Palia (supra). The two regulatory bodies in the field of architectural education however have not taken this approach and on the other hand have engaged themselves in a dispute over turf-control. In such a G situation, under normal circumstances attempt should be made first at reconciliation of the competing statutory instruments. If that exercise fails, then the aim would be to find out what is the dominant purpose or principal subject-matter of a particular statute and then construe the conflicting provisions of the respective Regulations to match the H

p. 516 Copy page pinpoint

A dominant statutory purpose. In the case of L.I.C. Vs. D.J. Bahadur (supra), it has been observed by a three Judge Bench of this Court: - “52. In determining whether a statute is a special or a general one, the focus must be on the principal subject-matter plus the particular perspective. For certain purposes, an Act may be B general and for certain other purposes it may be special and we cannot blur distinctions when dealing with finer points of law. In law, we have a cosmos of relativity, not absolutes-so too in life.”

55Copy pinpoint55. On the subject of implied repeal, the course to be followed by the Court has been explained in the well-known text “Principles of C Statutory Interpretation”, by Justice G.P. Singh (14th Edition). We give below the following quotation from page 737 of this text:- “There is a presumption against a repeal by implication; and the reason of this rule is based on the theory that the Legislature while enacting a law has complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject-matter, and therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provision, it gives out an intention not to repeal the existing legislation. When the new Act contains a repealing section mentioning the Acts which it expressly repeals, the presumption against implied repeal of other laws is further strengthened on the principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Further, the presumption will be comparatively strong in case of virtually contemporaneous Acts. The continuance of existing legislation, in the absence of an express provision of repeal, being presumed, the burden to show that there has been a repeal by implication lies on the party asserting the same. The F presumption is, however, rebutted and a repeal is inferred by necessary implication when the provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Act ‘that the two cannot stand together’. But, if the two may be read together and some application may be made of the words in the earlier Act, a repeal will not be inferred.” G

56Copy pinpoint56. Having regard to the disputes involved in each of these appeals, proper course for us would be to find out the decision of which of these two regulatory bodies ought to prevail. For this purpose, it is necessary to ascertain the dominant purpose of the two legislations covering the field of architectural education. Section 10 of the 1987 H Act mandates the AICTE to undertake the duties on the subjects

p. 517 Copy page pinpoint

BOARDING HOUSE’S COLLEGE. OF ARCH. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]

specified therein. But it has already been held by two Benches of this A Court comprising of two Judges each in the cases of Bharathidasan University (supra) and Association of Management of Private Colleges (supra) that a university or its affiliate colleges could run courses in technical education without approval of the AICTE.

57Copy pinpoint57. The process of recognition and effect thereof are more expansive under the 1972 Act. All “authorities” require recognition by the Central Government to conduct any degree or diploma course in architecture education to qualify for being recognised qualification. The CoA under the said Act plays a key role in the process of recognition. There is no exclusion or exemption of any institution from undergoing such recognition process except the subsisting ones at the time the Act became operational. The CoA has also wide monitoring power under Section 18 and 19 of the Act of every authority which grants recognized qualification under the said Act.

58Copy pinpoint58. Moreover, Section 17 of the said Act is armed with a non- D obstante clause. The implication of the said clause in Section 17 of the 1972 Act is that to be on the register of architects in India, recognized qualification would be sufficient. There is no provision under the 1972 Act or in any Rule thereunder which would entitle a person trained from an AICTE approved technical institution in architecture to describe himself as an architect or get himself registered as such without E recognised qualification under the 1972 Act. This would be apparent from the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, which stipulates:- “35. Effect of registration.—(1) Any reference in any law for the time being in force to an architect shall be deemed to be a reference to an architect registered under this Act. F (2) After the expiry of two years from the date appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 24, a person who is registered in the register shall get preference for appointment as an architect under the Central or State Government or in any other local body or institution which is supported or aided from the public or local G funds or in any recognised by the Central or State Government.” Sub-section (2) of the said provision is not of much relevance for adjudication of the subject dispute. The scheme of the Act thus demonstrates that lack of recognized qualification under the 1972 Act would in substance disentitle a person from being registered as an H

p. 518 Copy page pinpoint

A architect. He would not be able to legally represent himself as an architect in India. This being the statutory mandate, CoA’s role in the process of recognition of qualification of an architect cannot be said to have been obliterated by the 1987 Act. It is a fact that 1987 Act is primarily concerned with setting-up and running of a technical institution and not with regulating the professions of individuals qualifying from B such institutions. But under the 1972 Act, conducting a course on architectural education and regulating the profession of architect are statutorily interwoven. Recognition of degrees or diplomas in architecture cannot be amputated from the said Act and held to have been replaced by the 1987 Act. That would render the 1972 enactment unworkable. C

59Copy pinpoint59. The third distinguishing element of the 1972 Act is that the CoA is not the ultimate decision-making authority but it is the Central Government in relation to process of recognition of degree or diploma in architectural education or withdrawal thereof. Such decision is required to be taken after consultation with the CoA. But since CoA D has been conferred with power to make regulations in relation to, inter- alia, recognition norms and monitoring of institutions imparting architectural education, CoA’s role in such process is critical. The approval power of AICTE is direct. But in the event AICTE’s norms come into conflict with that of CoA, any report or representation the E CoA may make to the Central Government would be dependent upon the decision of the Central Government. The Central Government’s decision, taken under the provisions of the 1972 Act in such a case would obviously prevail, the latter being an authority superior to both the Councils constituted under the two statutes.

60Copy pinpoint60. AICTE is exercising its power to regulate institutions imparting architectural education on the strength of definition of technical education, which has been defined to mean programmes of education, research and training in architecture. The duty of the AICTE to regulate “technical education” is derived from the provisions of Section 10 of the 1987 Act. It has been contended on behalf of the CoA, referring to the provisions of Section 2 of the 1987 Act, that the context of regulating architecture education requires exclusion of the expression “architecture” from the definition of technical education. In the case of Pushpa Devi and others (supra), it has been held that it is permissible for the Court to refer to “internal and external context” while giving meaning to a definition contained in the interpretation clause of

p. 519 Copy page pinpoint

BOARDING HOUSE’S COLLEGE. OF ARCH. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]

a statue. In this decision, it was observed that a word exhaustively A expressed in the definition can have different meanings in different parts of a statute. Broadly, the same principle of construction has been adopted in the cases of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. and Another (supra) and Whirlpool Corporation (supra). In the case of K.V. Muthu (supra), it has been held:- B “12. Where the definition or expression, as in the instant case, is preceded by the words “unless the context otherwise requires,” the said definition set out in the section is to be applied and given effect to but this rule, which is the normal rule may be departed from if there be something in the context to show that the definition could not be applied.”

61Copy pinpoint61. So far as these appeals are concerned, to altogether exclude architecture from the purview of AICTE, that expression, i.e. architecture would have to be dropped from the definition of technical education. In our opinion, if the issue is examined in the external context, which in this case would be the provisions of 1972 Act, such a course would be inevitable. In the event AICTE’s stand is to be accepted and CoA’s role is eliminated from the recognition process of architectural qualification, then a person having a degree or diploma from an AICTE approved institution only would in effect not be entitled to enrollment in the register of architects and would not be able to represent himself as an architect. Secondly, in view of the decisions of this Court in the cases of Bharatidasan University (supra) and Association of Management of Private Colleges (supra), there would be two parallel authorities regulating architectural education. CoA would regulate universities and affiliated colleges imparting such education while F AICTE would supervise rest of the institutions. Moreover, the authority of Central Government to recognize qualifications in architecture education would stand obliterated by a body, AICTE and that too in respect of certain categories of technical institutions only.

62Copy pinpoint62. The authorities we have referred to are for the proposition G that a meaning different to what is ascribed in the definition clause can be given to a word in different parts of a statute if the context so demands. The subject-dispute involved in these appeals requires omission of the word architecture from the definition of technical education. Such a course, in our opinion, is also a permissible tool of construction to prevent absurd or unworkable results flowing from a H

p. 520 Copy page pinpoint

A statute. Here we reproduce the following passage from “Bennion on Statutory Interpretation” by F A R Bennion, Fifth Edition published by Lexis Nexis (at page 972). “ Strained construction We have the authority of Lord Reid for the statement that, to avoid an unworkable result, a strained B construction may be justified even where the enactment is not grammatically ambiguous. Lord Reid said that cases where it has properly been held that one word can be struck out of a statute and another substituted include the case where without such substitution the provision would be unworkable.”

63Copy pinpoint63. We are of the opinion that in respect of the provisions of Section 2 (g) of the 1987 Act, the definition of “technical education” would have to be given such a construction and the word “architecture” should be treated to have been inapplicable in cases where the AICTE imports its regulatory framework for institutions undertaking technical education. There would however be no substitution because the context would not demand it. This construction of the definition clause is necessary as the external context requires it to prevent an unworkable outcome in implementation of the 1987 Act. The principle of implied repeal cannot apply so far as the provisions relating to architecture education is concerned, on the basis of the 1987 Act having become operational. One of the dominant purposes of the 1972 Act is recognition of qualifications on architecture. The registration of an architect is dependent upon acquisition of such recognised qualification. The said Act cannot be held to have been repealed by implication for the sole reason of inclusion of the word “architecture” in the definition of technical education. AICTE has failed to discharge its onus to establish the said provisions of the 1972 Act was repealed by implication.

64Copy pinpoint64. We accordingly hold that so far as recognition of degrees and diplomas of architecture education is concerned, the 1972 Act shall prevail. AICTE will not be entitled to impose any regulatory measure in connection with the degrees and diplomas in the subject of architecture. Norms and Regulations set by CoA and other specified authorities under the 1972 Act would have to be followed by an institution imparting education for degrees and diplomas in architecture.

65Copy pinpoint65. Now we shall turn to the individual appeals – (a) We sustain the judgment of the Bombay High Court H forming subject-matter of Appeal No.364 of 2005. The

p. 521 Copy page pinpoint

BOARDING HOUSE’S COLLEGE. OF ARCH. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]

appeal of the All India Council of Technical Education A is dismissed. (b) Three appeals arose from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench delivered on 2nd February, 2011 in W.P. No. 315 of 2011. These are Civil Appeal No……./2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.5400/ B 2011), Civil Appeal No……/2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.8443/2011) and Civil Appeal No……/2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.20460/2011). Rajeev Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalyalay is the appellant in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 5400/2011. It wants compliance of the CoA norms and invalidation of the C directive requiring it to grant temporary affiliation by the High Court without CoA’s approval. The appellant in the second Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP(C)No.8443/2011) is the institution, Bharatiya Vidya Mandir Shiksha Samiti. It has questioned the necessity of obtaining CoA’s D approval or the requirement of compliance with the conditions set by them. It wants compliance of AICTE norms to be treated as adequate. For the reasons explained earlier in this judgment, we dismiss the appeal of Bharatiya Vidya Mandir Shiksha Samiti. The High Court has directed in the judgment under appeal compliance of the conditions communicated by the CoA. The academic session involved is 2010-2011. This Court at the notice stage in the university’s appeal [SLP(C)No.5400 of 2011] granted interim stay of the order of the High Court. Subsequently, there were admissions from time to time with interim directions of this Court. We accordingly dispose of this appeal of the Rajeev Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya with direction that the process of recognition contained in the 1972 Act ought to be implemented in respect of the subject institution before any further admission takes place. But so far as admissions already undertaken in terms of interim orders of this Court, we direct that such admissions ought not be disturbed. We direct so, as we find the High Court itself had directed compliance of CoA norms in the judgment under appeal and compliance of H

p. 522 Copy page pinpoint

A building requirements set by CoA was to be effected within one year. Thus, in our opinion, CoA norms were substantially directed to be complied with. We also make it clear that the AICTE would not have any regulatory control over the concerned institution so far as architecture education is concerned. We are of the opinion that in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.20460 of 2011 that CoA ought to have been impleaded as a party respondent in the said writ petition. We are also of the opinion that decision of the High Court to issue the directions contained in the judgment under appeal in absence of CoA being added in the array of respondents was erroneous. But we do not issue any independent direction as these appeals were heard together as batch matters and the grievances of the CoA have been addressed to in our judgment. Having held that the 1972 Act shall prevail on the question of recognition of degrees and diplomas in architecture education, we dispose of this appeal of the CoA in the above terms. (c) The Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No. 17005 of 2016 and SLP(C)No.17006 of 2016 have been instituted by the AICTE against a common judgment of the E Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.110 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No. 112 of 2013. The dispute in these matters relate to the question of obtaining mandatory approval from the AICTE for running course on architecture. The former appeal arose out of contradictory directives issued by AICTE and CoA over admission of two students beyond the intake capacity. The observation of the Karnataka High Court in a common judgment has been that the controversies would be subject to the outcome of the appeal arising out of the Bench decision of the Bombay High Court. That is the first appeal we have dealt with in this judgment. We accordingly dispose of these two appeals in terms of our decision contained in the preceding sub-paragraph (a). AICTE would not have any power to impose its regulatory measures on the concerned institution so far as architecture education is concerned.

p. 523 Copy page pinpoint

BOARDING HOUSE’S COLLEGE. OF ARCH. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]

(d) The decision of the Kerala High Court in the Civil Appeal A arising out of SLP(C)No. 28121 of 2018 is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The institution involved in this appeal shall be entitled to operate with recognition obtained under the 1972 Act.

66Copy pinpoint66. All interim orders passed in these appeals shall stand dissolved. B All connected applications shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of. C