1. By the present petition, the Petitioner Trust which runs a College of Architecture by name Dr. Baliram Hiray College of Architecture challenges show cause notice dated 16th October 2022 as well as order dated 25th October 2022 by which the intake capacity for the academic year 2022-23 is shown as ‘Zero’ for 2 year full-time Master of Architecture (Project Management) degree course.

2. Mr. Kanetkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner College submits that the entire action is malafide. He submitted that on three earlier occasions show cause notices were issued and similar final orders were passed and this Court on all the occasions have stayed the actions.

3. Mr. Bobde, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 submitted that a decision of an academic body or expert body has to be given full weightage and the said decision should not be lightly brushed aside or interfered in writ jurisdiction.

4. Perusal of the exhibits annexed to the petition shows that first show cause notice is dated 27th June 2018. In the first show cause notice, inter-alia, the following ground is mentioned:

“The Executive Committee, after going through the same, has observed deficiencies related to faculty in Architecture and/or physical and academic infrastructure facilities in the conduct of said course at your institution, mainly outlined below:

- Faculty is deficient. Associate Professor 1 less.

- Proper segregation of facilities for B. Arch & M. Arch is needed.”

5. Reply dated 30th June 2018 to the said show cause notice states that the said institute is more than 24 years old and the intake capacity of 20 students for the course of M.Arch (Project Management) for the said institute has been in place for last several years. It is stated that they have sufficient faculty as well as sufficient segregation of facilities and infrastructure available for UG and PG courses.

6. This Court by order dated 6th August 2018 passed in Writ Petition No.8468 of 2018 held that there is availability of sufficient faculty and proper infrastructure and directed that intake capacity be corrected as ‘20’ instead of ‘Zero’.

7. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 issued another show cause notice for the academic year 2021-22 dated 25th October 2021. The said show cause notice mentions deficiency relating to faculty and deficiency relating to infrastructure in the following manner :

“A. Deficiency related to Faculty :

1. Deficiency of 1 Professor and 2 Associate Professors.

2. Four full-time faculty members are shared in UG and PG, hence not counted in PG course.

3. Principal though appointed in the year 2019 but still not approved by the University nor got ratified from the COA.

4. Most of the faculty members have not got ratified from the COA through its nominee.

5. Salary of the faculty members is not according to UGC Pay Scales. Salary is not even as per 5th Pay Commission.

B. Deficiency related to Infrastructure :

1. The built-up space for the PG course has been shared with UG course.

2. The Occupancy Certificate of the recently completed 4th and 5th floors which are in use has not been obtained.

3. Out of the total built-up area in use, one-third area is yet to receive Occupancy Certificate.

4. Many of the total infrastructure and facilities such as Library, staff rooms/cabins etc. are shared with UG (B. Arch. Course) which are deficient for UG course itself.

5. There is no independent Computer Center.

6. There was lot of debris lying around due to ongoing construction work.”

The College submitted detailed reply dated 28th October 2021 to the above referred show cause notice and final order has been passed on 29th November 2021.

8. In the meanwhile, after receipt of the show cause notice the Petitioner College filed Writ Petition No.7425 of 2021 and as and by way of ad-interim relief, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed to display the intake capacity of 20 students against the present Petitioner for M.Arch. (Project Management) for the academic year 2021-22.

9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 15th December 2021 passed in Writ Petition No.7425 of 2021 while confirming above ad-interim relief has observed as follows:

“27. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 could not dispute that the alleged deficiencies pointed out by the respondent no.3 for the academic year 2018-19 and 2021- 22 are almost identical. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 also did not dispute that despite all such alleged deficiencies pointed out by the respondent no.3 in the show cause notice and confirmed in the impugned order, in last several years, the result of the students passing the said M.Arch. Course is almost 100%. There was no impact on the education imparted to the students because of alleged shortage of any lecturer.

28. In our prima facie view, the action initiated by the respondent no.3 against the petitioners again by alleging similar deficiencies which are considered and not accepted by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, clearly indicates the continuous harassment of the petitioner institution by the respondent no.3. This harassment is noticed by this Court even while passing the interim order while considering the writ petition arising out of B.Arch. Course. Though the respondent no.3 had proposed to reduce intake capacity of the petitioner from 160 students to 120 students in the show cause notice, on the website, the said capacity was shown as 0. This Court has made strong observations against the respondent no.3 in our earlier interim order. On the last date, Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 pointed out that there are numbers of students who have opted for M.Arch. Course in the petitioner College.” (Emphasis added)

10. Today also Mr. Bobde, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 could not show that the grounds mentioned in earlier show cause notices and the present show cause notice is different. In the present show cause notice which is dated 16th October 2022, the following grounds are raised :

“- The Core Faculty exclusively for PG course is non-existent.

- There is deficiency of 1 Professor and the Post is kept vacant by the institution.

- All the faculty members i.e. 3 Associates Professors and 3 Assistant Professors, shown for PG course are shared with UG course. Inspectors have reported that Associates Professors, shared with B. Arch. course are taking 15-16 hours per week for B. Arch course. The core Faculty members already teaching B. Arch. course cannot be considered core faculty for M. Arch. Course.

- The area of Administrative Areas, staff rooms, construction yard and number of toilets are less.

- The salary paid to faculty members is not as per UGC/ Government norms.

- The Occupancy Certificate of the building with additional construction is not submitted by the institution. The institution had informed to the Council at the time of seeking approval for session 2021-2022 that it applied for Occupancy Certificate last year for construction of additional 4th and 5th floors of its building. However, till date the institution has failed to submit Occupancy Certificate to the Council.

- Total built-up area available with the institution for conduct of B.Arch. and M. Arch. Course is only 2876 sq.m. as against the total requirement of 5250 sq. m. as per COA Norms (i.e. 5000 sq. m. for B. Arch. and 250 sq. m. for M. Arch.) since the area of the 4th and 5th floor measuring 1470.29 sq.m. has been awaiting Occupancy Certificate since 2021 and cannot be considered approved built-up space ready for occupation. Presently, the total valid built-up area of the institution, duly sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, is only about 2876 sq.m. which is not sufficient even for conduct of the existing B. Arch. Course.

- Therefore, a separate built-up area of 250 sq.m. as required by COA Norms, for imparting M. Arch. course is not available with the institution since the existing built-up area being used for PG course is already a part of the built-up area of 2876 sq.m. being used by institution for B. Arch. course.”

11. Mr. Kanetkar, learned counsel submitted that as far as requirement of separate built-up area of 250 sq. meters is concerned, the same is available and as far as faculty members are concerned, sufficient faculty as per norms of Council are available. In any case, what is significant to note is that, as per the revised academic calendar of events for approval process of architecture course for the academic session 2022-23 issued by Respondent No.3 which is at page 163 application for extension of approval by the existing institution are to be submitted by 21st February 2022. The said institutions are to be inspected from 11th July 2022 to 14th August 2022 and last date for communicating approval/ refusal is 7th October 2022. Mr. Kanetkar states that such application is filed in January 2022 i.e. well in advance before the last date of submitting application. Mr. Bobde, fairly admitted that there was delay in carrying out the inspection and the same was carried out in September 2022 much later than the schedule of 11th July 2022 to 14th August 2022.

12. State Common Entrance Test (CET) Cell of Maharashtra State issued admission notice for M.Arch. for academic year 2022-23 on 22nd September 2022. As per notice dated 22nd September 2022 display of the final merit lists of Maharashtra State/All India candidates on website shall be on 5th October 2022 and display of provisional category wise seats (Seat Matrix) for CAP Round I was to be published on 5th October 2022.

13. Accordingly on 5th October 2022 the State CET Cell published a list of Provisional Seat Matrix for CAP Round-I for admission to full-time Post Graduate Technical Courses in Architecture (M.Arch) for the academic year 2022-23. In the said list, the name of Petitioner’s College is not mentioned as by that time, nothing was informed to the Petitioner about the approval or rejection. This conduct of the Respondent No.3 in delaying decision regarding extension of approval prima facie supports the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.3 is acting malafidely.

14. In view of the above position, the Petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.12211 of 2022 and this Court recorded a statement of the Respondent No.3 that show cause notice had already been issued and final decision would be taken on or before 25th October 2022. Accordingly, on 25th October 2022, extension for approval was denied by showing intake capacity as ‘Zero’ of the Petitioner’s College as set out hereinabove.

15. The factual position on record clearly shows that on same grounds show cause notices were issued and final orders were passed on three occasions and this Court on several occasions is required to grant relief in favour of the Petitioner. It is significant to note that a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 15th December 2021 passed in Writ Petition No.7425 of 2021 clearly recorded that the learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.3 could not dispute the alleged deficiencies pointed out by Respondent No.3 for the academic year 2018-19 and 2021-22 are almost identical. It is also mentioned in the said order that despite of all such alleged deficiencies as alleged by the Respondent No.3 in the show cause notice and in the final orders in last several years, the result of the students passing in said M.Arch. course from the Petitioner Institution is almost 100%. Thus, it is recorded that there was no impact on the quality of education imparted on the students in view of the alleged shortage. It is recorded that the conduct of the Respondent No.3 shows that the Petitioner Institution is continuously harassed. As we have noticed that similar grounds are raised in the present show cause notice, prima facie show cause notice and the final order has been passed to harass Petitioner Institution.

16. The main grounds raised in show cause notice is inadequate faculty and infrastructure. Mr. Kanetkar pointed out reply dated 20th October 2022 which mentions that the Petitioner College has Seventy Two faculty members and Eleven full-time faculty members are engaged to conduct M.Arch. Course. In reply, it is mentioned that the building space available in the College is 4346.06 sq. meters. It has also been mentioned in the reply that area of more than 250 sq. meters is used for imparting education to M.Arch. students and two classrooms for 20 M.Arch. students are earmarked exclusively. Perusal of the impugned order dated 25th October 2022 do not show that extensive reply filed by the Petitioner has been taken into consideration.

17. Mr. Bobde submitted that granting interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e) will have an effect of allowing the entire petition. However, we have recorded the reasons for granting interim relief. It has been consistently observed by this Court in orders passed in earlier petitions that the actions of Respondent No.3 have been taken to harass the Petitioner College. In view of this, we see no impediment in granting interim relief in this writ petition.

18. For the above reasons, we pass the following order :

ORDER

(i) There shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e);

(ii) In so far as the prayer clause (e) is concerned, we direct the Respondent nos.2, 3 and 5 to display the intake capacity of 20 students against the name of the Petitioner College for the first year M.Arch for the academic year 2022-23 and to permit the Petitioner to admit 20 students in the Centralized Admission Process (CAP) for admission to the first year M.Arch. course for the academic year 2022-23;

(iii) It is however, made it clear that admission of these 20 students would be subject to the further orders as may be passed in this petition;

(iv) The respondent no.5 shall indicate the operative part of this order on its website immediately;

(v) The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order;

(vi) Place this writ petition on board along with Writ Petition No.7425 of 2021 and Writ Petition No.7750 of 2021 for hearing and final disposal on 16th January 2023.