Hyderabad: Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society did not get any interim relief on Tuesday from the Telangana High Court with regard to AICTE approvals from the next academic year.
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao was not inclined to issue interim stay orders on the single judge’s orders dated November 7, which upheld the AICTE decision to not grant approval or extension of approval to the courses in the educational institutions.
The AICTE, in 2017, had not allowed affiliation or extension of approval on the ground that the Sultan-Ul-Uloom Society and the colleges run by it could not submit ownership or title of the land on which the colleges were being run on a 24.1-acre site at Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad (known as Mount Pleasant building). It also did not get building permissions and occupancy certificates (OCs) for the buildings from the municipal authorities. The decision of the AICTE was upheld by the single judge earlier this month.
Challenging the single judge`s orders, the society, the Muffakham Jah College of Engineering, Amjad Ali Khan college of Business Administration and the Sultan-Ul-Uloom College of Pharmacy had filed separate appeals before the division bench. The institutions had requested setting aside the single judge order or at least a stay on them till the final hearing of the appeals.
The division bench was of the view that there was no immediate threat or harm to the institutions due to the single judge order. Further, the court pointed out that the single judge had made it clear that the students of the ongoing academic years would not be affected.
Senior counsel Kondam Vivek Reddy representing the AICTE, explained that as per Clause 6 of the AICTE Regulations 2016, the condition was that the promoter society/trust/company shall have the required land and lawful possession with clear title in the name of the promoter.
This was not the case with the Sultan-Ul-Uloom Society. Moreover, there were several civil cases pending on the land and other private parties were claiming a part of it. This was a clear violation of the AICTE norms, senior counsel argued.
It was further submitted that as per Clause 4.9 of the AICTE Regulations, all technical institutions shall fulfil the norms as specified in the approval process handbook and produce documents showing ownership of land/building as per Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy appearing for the society and the educational institutions, submitted that though it had no sale deed over the land, it had an agreement of sale and was in long-standing possession.
However, the division bench gave liberty to the society and the educational institutions to approach the court if any coercive steps were taken by the AICTE based on the single judge orders.
