| the aicte act1987 was an act to provide for the establishment of all india council for technical education with a view to the proper planning and coordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith. sub cl 10 of regulation 8 states that the decision of the council shall be communicated to the state government concerned or the ugc as the case may be the concerned university or the state board the regional office and the applicant before 30th april in case the application was made before the preceding 31st december. as stated earlier the above provisions of the aicte act came up for consideration in state of tamil nadu vs adhiyaman educational amp research institute tamil nadu case. in the above matter the state of tamil nadu granted permission to all private managements to start private engineering colleges without financial commitment to government but subject to conditions. at that time the aicte act was not on the statute book. the government of tamil nadu granted permission to the trust for the academic year 1987 88 to start an engineering college. s 10 of the madras university act1923 dealt with various matters including granting approval for starting new technical institutionsand that so far as these matters were concerned. 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 force of the central act the provisions of the university act will be deemed to have become unenforceable. because of s 10k of the central act which vested the powers of granting approval in the council the t n act of 1976 and the university act1923 could not deal with any questions of approval for establishment of technical institutions. all that was necessary was that under the regulations the aicte council had to consult them. in the tamil nadu case s 10k of the aicte act was referred to and the power of approval for establishing a technical institution was considered in our opinion even if there was a state law in the state of kerala which required the approval of the state government for establishing technical institutions such a law would have been repugnant to the aicte act and void to that extent as held in the tamil nadu case. sub cl 1 of cl 9 of the kerala university first statute required verification of the facilities that may exist for starting the new colleges course. the commission was to inspect the site verify the title deeds as regards the proprietary right of the management over the land and buildings if any offered building accommodation provided if any assets of the management constitution of the registered body and all other relevant matters. sub cl 2 of cl 9 of kerala university first statute stated that the affiliation shall depend upon the fulfilment by the management of all the conditions for the satisfactory establishment and maintenance of the proposed institutional courses of studies and on the reports of inspection by the commission or commissions which the university may appoint for the purpose. the procedure for obtaining the affiliation and any conditions which could be imposed by the university could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the central act. the university could not therefore in any event have sought for approval of the state government. the state government in its counter then gave the names of the existing colleges and their location. the court observed that there was widespread student prospects against starting new colleges and it was necessary to be cautious in the matter of starting new engineering colleges. government could not initially take a decision on the appellant 's affiliation because of elections and that matter being one of major policy the government had subsequently taken a policy decision not to sanction any affiliation to such colleges either in the private sector or in the public sector for this year. in thirwnuruga kirupan and variyar thavathiru sundara swamigal medical education amp charitable trust v state of tamil nadu amp others1996 3 scc 15 1996 indlaw sc 858which was a case relating to medical education and which also related to the effect of a central law upon a law made by the state under entry 25 list iii it was held that the essentiality certificate can not be withheld by the state government on any policy consideration because the policy in the matter of establishment of a new medical college now vests with the central government alone. after an approval was granted by the aicte or if the state felt that some conditions attached to the permission and required by the aicte to be complied with were not complied with then the state government could always write to the aicte to enable the latter to take appropriate action. the only requirement as per the statute 97 was for the university to obtain the views of the state government obtaining the views of the state government as already stated did not amount to obtaining its approval. procedure and conditions for affiliation could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the central act in particular s 10k of the regulation and the university could not seek approval of government. the university was also one of the agencies consulted by the council of the aicte under regulation 8. once that was over and approval was granted by the aicte if there was any default on the part of the college in compliance with the conditions of approval the only remedy for the university was to bring those facts to the notice of the aicte so that the latter could take appropriate action. the approval of the aicte was sufficient. the direction to the mahatma gandhi university to consider the application of the appellant for final affiliation or continuance of affiliation is confirmed and this is to be done on the basis of the approval granted by the aicte or any other relevant factors in the university act or its statutes which are not inconsistent with the aicte act or its regulations. |