1. All these writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order as the issue raised in these writ petitions is one and the same.
2. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel, and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel, for Sri Tarun G. Reddy, counsel for the petitioners;
Government Pleader for Education appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.Nos.12812 and 12869 of 2019 and respondent Nos.2 and 4 in
W.P.Nos.18231, 18234 and 18236 of 2020; Sri V. Ramchander Goud, Standing Counsel for 1st respondent in W.P.Nos.12812 and 12869 of 2019 and
18231 and 18234 of 2020, Sri Dr. Muddu Vijay, Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P.Nos.12812 and 12869 of 2019 and respondent No.3 in
W.P.Nos.18231, 18234 and 18236 of 2020 and Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, counsel for impleaded respondents.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.18231 of 2020 are discussed hereunder:
(a) W.P.No.18231 of 2020 is filed seeking the following relief:
“.. to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
a) declaring the proceedings dated 07.05.2019 issued by the 4th respondent vide File No.CTE-AC2/ACAD/85/2019-ACADEMIC-I thereby
withdrawing the NOC dated 24.03.2019 granted for change of location of the Petitioner Institution from Parvathapur, Uppal, Hyderabad to H.No.43-
731/10, S.P. Nagar, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Medchal District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same; (b) declaring the action of
the 1st respondent University in not allowing the change of location of the 2nd petitioner Institution as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and set
aside the same; (c) consequently, direct the 1st and 4th respondents to grant permission/NOC for changing of location of the 2nd petitioner Institution
from Parvathapur, Uppal, Hyderabad to H.No.43-731/10, S.P.Nagar, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Medchal District for the Academic Year 2020-21 and (d)
and pass such order or other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.â€
(b) It has been contended by the petitioners that they have established educational Institutions at various places, and the State Government and the 1st
respondent University were pleased to grant affiliation to the educational Institutions of the petitioners. It is stated that owing to various issues, the
petitioners wanted to shift their Colleges in order to provide better facilities to the students. As per the Rules, the 4th respondent - Commissioner of
Technical Education is the competent authority to issue NOC for shifting of the Colleges. The petitioners have approached the 4th respondent and the
4th respondent was pleased to issue NOC dated 24.03.2019 for shifting of the educational Institutions of the petitioners to new places. In pursuance of
the said NOC issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioners have approached the 3rd respondent â€" All India Council for Technical Education and the
3rd respondent was pleased to ratify the shifting of the petitioners’ educational Institutions. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached the 1st
respondent University for granting necessary permission to shift their Institutions. The grievance of the petitioners is that vide impugned proceedings
dated 07.05.2019, the 4th respondent, without giving any opportunity, has cancelled the earlier NOC issued by him in favour of the petitioners.
4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per G.O.Rt.No.25 dated 11.07.2014, the competent authority to issue NOC for shifting of Colleges is
the Commissioner of Technical Education (for short, ‘the Commissioner’), but subsequently, the State Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.48
dated 26.04.2019, wherein the power delegated to the Commissioner for issue of NOC for shifting of the Institutions vide G.O.Rt.No.25 dated
11.07.2014, was withdrawn. Counsel further contended that after withdrawing the power delegated to the Commissioner for issue of NOC for shifting
of the Colleges, the Commissioner himself has cancelled the NOCs issued in favour of the petitioners vide impugned proceedings. Counsel also
contended that at the time of passing the impugned proceedings, the Commissioner is not the competent authority either to grant NOC or to cancel
NOC, therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside on this short point. Counsel further submitted that when once the Commissioner
has the power to issue NOC for shifting of the Colleges and, in exercise of such power, he has issued NOCs dated 24.03.2019 in favour of the
petitioners, the same authority i.e., the Commissioner cannot cancel the NOCs earlier issued by him, as he becomes functus officio after issuing
NOCs dated 24.03.2019 in favour of the petitioners. Counsel further contended that the petitioners are shifting their educational Institutions only in the
interest of students in order to provide better facilities, therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside and the 1st respondent University
be directed to grant necessary recognition and permission to run the educational Institutions without reference to the impugned proceedings.
5. Government Pleader for Education appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.Nos.12812 and 12869 of 2019 and respondent Nos.2 and 4 in
W.P.Nos.18231, 18234 and 18236 of 2020 had contended that the State Government has rejected the cases of the petitioners vide memo dated
23.04.2019 and the Commissioner has only communicated the orders of the State Government vide impugned proceedings, therefore, the
Commissioner has rightly cancelled the NOCs earlier issued by him in favour of the petitioners, as such, there are no merits and the writ petitions are
liable to be dismissed. Government Pleader further contended that as per G.O.Rt.No.25 dated 11.07.2014, the Commissioner is the competent
authority to issue NOC only in respect of shifting of Colleges from one locality to another locality, but not in respect of shifting of Colleges in the entire
state, therefore, NOCs earlier issued in favour of the petitioners are contrary to G.O.Rt.No.25 dated 11.07.2014 and that is the reason for the
Commissioner to issue the impugned proceedings cancelling the NOCs issued in favour of the petitioners, therefore, on this ground also, the writ
petitions are liable to be dismissed.
6. Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent University contended that since the petitioners were not having valid NOC from the State
Government, the 1st respondent University has not granted recognition and permission to the petitioners’ educational Institutions. However, if the
petitioners’ educational Institutions fulfill the norms, then the 1st respondent University would grant recognition and affiliation to the educational
Institutions run by the petitioners.
7. Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents, submitted that if shifting of educational Institutions of the petitioners is
permitted, then unhealthy competition would arise among the educational Institutions and it will cause lot of imbalance among the educational
Institutions. It is further contended that the State Government has rejected the cases of the petitioners vide memo dated 23.04.2019 and if at all the
petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they must challenge the said memo, therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition.
8. Sri Dr. Muddu Vijay, counsel for respondent No.3, has contended that approval was granted to the educational Institutions run by the petitioners for
the academic years 2020-21 and 2021-22.
9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that when once the
Commissioner of Technical Education has issued NOCs dated 24.03.2019 in favour of the petitioners in accordance with Rules, he cannot sit in appeal
over his own order and pass the impugned proceedings, as he becomes functus officio and has no power to review his own orders. Therefore, the
Commissioner of Technical Education cannot cancel the NOCs earlier issued by him. On this short legal point, the impugned proceedings are liable to
be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. It is needless to state that the 1st respondent University shall consider the cases of the petitioners for
grant of necessary permission.
10. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
