CWP-13087 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Achievers Welfare Society, Ateli Mandi, District Mohindergarh Union of India and others CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Articles 2 quashing of referred to against the petitioner’s further orders or until the petitioner submits a renewed lease obtaining legal possession and the petitioner has been proscribed from admitting fresh trainees. 2. lis in hand 13087-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Achievers Welfare Society, Ateli Mandi, District Mohindergarh V/s Union of India and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Chawla, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3-UOI. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryan for respondent Nos.4 to 6. ***** SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE The petition in hand is a c Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India quashing of order dated 02.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’), whereby the de against the petitioner’s institute has been dire further orders or until the petitioner submits a renewed lease obtaining legal possession and the petitioner has been proscribed from admitting fresh trainees. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant f in hand reads, thus: -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13087-2025 Date of Decision: 27.05.2025 Achievers Welfare Society, Ateli Mandi, District Mohindergarh ....Petitioner ....Respondents JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL , Advocate for the petitioners. nil Chawla, Senior Panel Counsel UOI. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana ***** is a civil writ petition preferred under 7 of the Constitution of India praying, in essence, order dated 02.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2 (hereinafter ’), whereby the de-affiliation proceedings institute has been directed to be kept in abeyance till further orders or until the petitioner submits a renewed lease deed after obtaining legal possession and the petitioner has been proscribed from essential details, the relevant factual milieu of the 025 Petitioners JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE preferred under for order dated 02.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2 (hereinafter ceedings cted to be kept in abeyance till after obtaining legal possession and the petitioner has been proscribed from of the AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.27 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13087 (i) Industrial Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as in District Mohin entered into educational institute. The said lease deed dated 21.08.2009 (hereinafter referred to as expired in the August, 2019. (ii) in question affiliation norms for running germane under: (iii) the admitted case pleaded before this Court, respondent No.7 did not renew the same. (iv) which resulted into a civil suit petition preferred by respondent No.7 13087-2025 The petitioner, a registered society, is stated to be running a dustrial Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as istrict Mohindergarh, Haryana. The petitioner, for this purpose, had into a lease-agreement with respondent No.7 for establishing an educational institute. The said lease deed dated 21.08.2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘lease deed in question’) was for a period of 10 expired in the August, 2019. The petitioner has pleaded that it has been r in question, without any demur, since the year 2015 affiliation norms for running an ITI, relevant clause whereof to lis in hand (hereinafter referred to as Sr.No. Processes 2.5.1 Applicant shall upload documents on web portal like Approved Building Plan, Documents showing ownership of Plot and Building or Registered lease deed. Resolution by the applicant as mentioned in Annexure-2 as per latest NCVT norms. The lease deed in question expired in the year the admitted case pleaded before this Court, respondent No.7 did not renew the same. Dispute(s) arose between the which resulted into a civil suit being filed by the petitioner and an eviction preferred by respondent No.7 (herein) -2- The petitioner, a registered society, is stated to be running a dustrial Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as ‘institute in question’ . The petitioner, for this purpose, had agreement with respondent No.7 for establishing an educational institute. The said lease deed dated 21.08.2009 (hereinafter was for a period of 10 years, which pleaded that it has been running the institute ur, since the year 2015 in terms of the ITI, relevant clause whereof which is (hereinafter referred to as ‘Clause 2.5.1’) reads as Actor/Responsibility Timelines Applicant shall upload documents on web portal like Approved Building showing ownership of Plot and Building or Registered lease deed. Resolution by the applicant as mentioned 2 as per latest Applicant Within 60 calendar days after receipt LOI expired in the year 2019 and, as per the admitted case pleaded before this Court, respondent No.7 did not renew Dispute(s) arose between the petitioner and respondent No.7, being filed by the petitioner and an eviction (herein) under the relevant tenancy The petitioner, a registered society, is stated to be running an ‘institute in question’) . The petitioner, for this purpose, had agreement with respondent No.7 for establishing an educational institute. The said lease deed dated 21.08.2009 (hereinafter which institute in terms of the which is reads as Timelines calendar days after receipt , as per the admitted case pleaded before this Court, respondent No.7 did not renew and respondent No.7, being filed by the petitioner and an eviction under the relevant tenancy AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.27 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13087 law i.e. Haryana Urban (Contro referred to as (v) respondent No.3 rec vide communication dated 22.07.202 approach this the same. This Court vide order dated 08.01.2025, dispos petition with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to it. (vi) this Court, res propelled filing of the instant petition. for receiving 3. learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as also had caused appearance on the strength of advance notice. Since this Court has proceeded to not deem it appropriate to issue notice to respondent No.7. 4. term of the lease of the premises wherein the functioning has expired in August, 2019, yet the petitioner continues to have lawful possession thereof in terms of protection being afforded under the relevant tenancy law i.e. urged that the civil litigatio Rent Act is pending between 13087-2025 Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Haryana Rent Act’). On account of complaint(s) made by respondent No.7, respondent No.3 recommended for de-affiliation of the vide communication dated 22.07.2021, which impelled the petitioner to approach this Court by way of writ petition (CWP . This Court vide order dated 08.01.2025, dispos petition with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to it. It is in the wake of the above order dated 08.01.2025 passed by this Court, respondent No.2 has passed the propelled filing of the instant petition. It is in this factual backdrop that the receiving consideration at the hands of this Court. When the petition in hand learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as also had caused appearance on the strength of advance notice. Since this Court proceeded to adjudicate upon the petition in hand not deem it appropriate to issue notice to respondent No.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has term of the lease of the premises wherein the functioning has expired in August, 2019, yet the petitioner continues to have lawful possession thereof in terms of protection being afforded under the relevant tenancy law i.e. Haryana Rent Act urged that the civil litigation as also the eviction petition under the is pending between the petitioner and respondent No.7 and, thus, at -3- l of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter On account of complaint(s) made by respondent No.7, affiliation of the institute in question 1, which impelled the petitioner to ourt by way of writ petition (CWP-17730-2021) challenging . This Court vide order dated 08.01.2025, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to it. It is in the wake of the above order dated 08.01.2025 passed by pondent No.2 has passed the impugned order which has It is in this factual backdrop that the petition in hand came up s of this Court. was taken up for limine hearing, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as also for respondent Nos.4 to 6 had caused appearance on the strength of advance notice. Since this Court petition in hand, at limine stage, we did not deem it appropriate to issue notice to respondent No.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that, though the term of the lease of the premises wherein the institute in question functioning has expired in August, 2019, yet the petitioner continues to have lawful possession thereof in terms of protection being afforded under the Haryana Rent Act, 1973. Learned counsel has eviction petition under the Haryana petitioner and respondent No.7 and, thus, at l of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter On account of complaint(s) made by respondent No.7, institute in question 1, which impelled the petitioner to challenging ed of the said writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to it. It is in the wake of the above order dated 08.01.2025 passed by which has ame up hearing, respondent Nos.4 to 6 had caused appearance on the strength of advance notice. Since this Court we did argued that, though the in question is functioning has expired in August, 2019, yet the petitioner continues to have lawful possession thereof in terms of protection being afforded under the ned counsel has Haryana petitioner and respondent No.7 and, thus, at AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.27 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13087 this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner does not fulfill the related requirement as has iterated that, into the institute in question resulting in unbearable financial l institute in question who are already admitted to the affected and their career may be hand is entreated for. 5. relying upon institute regarding functioning or requisite condition(s) for r institute in question year 2019. Learned counsel has, thus, been passed keeping in view the mandatory nature envisaged in students. 5.1. respondent Nos.1 to 3 are order pertaining to de respondents. petition in hand is 13087-2025 this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner does not fulfill the related requirement as contained in terms of has iterated that, as long as the impugned order institute in question not being able to admit fresh students resulting in unbearable financial loss which may even lead to closu institute in question. It has been urged that who are already admitted to the institute in question affected and their career may be jeopardized On the strength of these submissions, grant of the is entreated for. Learned counsel appearing for respondent relying upon Clause 2.5.1, has argued that the requirements regarding ownership of the land and building on which it is functioning or existence of a valid registered lease deed in its favour is a requisite condition(s) for running an ITI, which has not been met by the institute in question, as the lease deed for the premises year 2019. Learned counsel has, thus, urged that the been passed keeping in view the mandatory nature envisaged in Clause 2.5.1 for running an students. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 has urged that pondent Nos.1 to 3 are the prime contesting respondents as the pertaining to de-affiliation etc. has been passed by the said respondents. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the writ petition in hand is canvassed for. -4- this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner does not fulfill the premises in terms of Clause 2.5.1. Learned counsel impugned order is in force, it would result not being able to admit fresh students and oss which may even lead to closure of the . It has been urged that in such a case even the students institute in question will be adversely jeopardized. On the strength of these submissions, grant of the petition in unsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, while has argued that the requirements at the end of an ownership of the land and building on which it is existence of a valid registered lease deed in its favour is a pre ITI, which has not been met by the , as the lease deed for the premises has expired in the urged that the impugned order been passed keeping in view the mandatory nature of requirements n ITI as also for the welfare of the Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 has urged that prime contesting respondents as the impugned affiliation etc. has been passed by the said On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the writ premises Learned counsel would result and of the in such a case even the students will be adversely ition in Nos.1 to 3, while at the end of an ownership of the land and building on which it is pre- ITI, which has not been met by the as expired in the impugned order has requirements as ITI as also for the welfare of the Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 has urged that impugned affiliation etc. has been passed by the said On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the writ AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.27 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13087 6. perused the 7. is as to whether against the or till the petitioner submits a renewed lease deed after obtaining legal possession from the concerned Court & debarring the from admitting fresh trainees; deserves to be qua 8. bare perusal of the said clause reflects that one of the pertinent condition(s) to seek affiliation for ITI is a valid ownership for plot and building where such institute is to fun common ground between the rival parties that the petitioner a valid lease deed, as required under wherein after the said lease deed was not renewed respondent No.7. into a fresh lease deed in hand. The petitioner is raising its case primarily on the fact that it has attained the status of a statutory tenant and, thus, cannot be evicted except in accordance with the applicable tenancy law i.e. 9. are registered lessee need not be gone into by this Court in great detail. Suffice to say, there is difference two concept Clause 2.5.1 institute is sought to be run or 13087-2025 We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the paper-book. The prime issue that arises for is as to whether the impugned order; whereby the de against the institute in question have been kept in abeyance till further orders or till the petitioner submits a renewed lease deed after obtaining legal possession from the concerned Court & debarring the from admitting fresh trainees; deserves to be qua The fulcrum of the lis in hand revolves around bare perusal of the said clause reflects that one of the pertinent condition(s) to seek affiliation for ITI is a valid ownership for plot and building where such institute is to function or registered lease deed of such premises. It is common ground between the rival parties that the petitioner a valid lease deed, as required under wherein after the said lease deed was not renewed respondent No.7. The causes(s) for which into a fresh lease deed is not relevant for the adjudication The petitioner is raising its case primarily on the fact that it has ned the status of a statutory tenant and, thus, cannot be evicted except in accordance with the applicable tenancy law i.e. The nuances of difference between a statutory tenant vis are registered lessee need not be gone into by this Court in great detail. Suffice to say, there is difference nay, substantial difference between the concepts and consequences arising t Clause 2.5.1 is either of ownership of the plot and building institute is sought to be run or a registered lease deed in respect thereof. -5- We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have The prime issue that arises for cogitation in the petition in hand whereby the de-affiliation proceedings been kept in abeyance till further orders or till the petitioner submits a renewed lease deed after obtaining legal possession from the concerned Court & debarring the institute in question from admitting fresh trainees; deserves to be quashed. in hand revolves around Clause 2.5.1. A bare perusal of the said clause reflects that one of the pertinent condition(s) to seek affiliation for ITI is a valid ownership for plot and building where registered lease deed of such premises. It is common ground between the rival parties that the petitioner-society did have a valid lease deed, as required under Clause 2.5.1 uptill August, 2019 wherein after the said lease deed was not renewed at the instance of The causes(s) for which respondent No.7 did not enter not relevant for the adjudication of the writ petition The petitioner is raising its case primarily on the fact that it has ned the status of a statutory tenant and, thus, cannot be evicted except in accordance with the applicable tenancy law i.e. Haryana Rent Act. The nuances of difference between a statutory tenant vis-à- are registered lessee need not be gone into by this Court in great detail. substantial difference between the and consequences arising therefrom. The requirement of ownership of the plot and building where the registered lease deed in respect thereof. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have petition in hand affiliation proceedings been kept in abeyance till further orders or till the petitioner submits a renewed lease deed after obtaining legal institute in question . A bare perusal of the said clause reflects that one of the pertinent condition(s) to seek affiliation for ITI is a valid ownership for plot and building where registered lease deed of such premises. It is a society did have uptill August, 2019 at the instance of not enter writ petition The petitioner is raising its case primarily on the fact that it has ned the status of a statutory tenant and, thus, cannot be evicted except in -vis are registered lessee need not be gone into by this Court in great detail. substantial difference between these The requirement of where the registered lease deed in respect thereof. AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.27 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13087 Where the competent regulatory authority, duly constituted and empowered to oversee the administration of the relevant course, has laid down specific conditions governing the grant of affiliations to institutions, it is incumbent upon such institutions to scrupulously adhere to those stipulations, which assume the character of bindi manifestation of the regulatory wisdom vested in the said authority, must be accorded due deference and cannot be lightly disregarded. It is a cardinal tenet of law that where the competent authority, empowered for a specialised field has exercised its powers within the bounds of its jurisdiction, the writ court ought not to interfere with such rules or prescriptions in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the C arbitrariness, or violation of Fundamental Rights. laid to the veracity of validity or vires of the wisdom or policy underlying such regulatory prescription, nor can it substitute its own views for that of the expert body entrusted with such functions. This Court, in ci usurping the domain of regulatory authority, for it is well settled that matters of policy & academic governance lie beyond the ken of judicial review, except on limited grounds of illegality or constitutio so as to warrant interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. On the contrary, we find that the of the trainees 13087-2025 Where the competent regulatory authority, duly constituted and empowered ersee the administration of the relevant course, has laid down specific conditions governing the grant of affiliations to institutions, it is incumbent upon such institutions to scrupulously adhere to those stipulations, which assume the character of binding statutory rules. These conditions, being a manifestation of the regulatory wisdom vested in the said authority, must be accorded due deference and cannot be lightly disregarded. It is a cardinal tenet of law that where the competent authority, empowered for a specialised field has exercised its powers within the bounds of its jurisdiction, the writ court ought not to interfere with such rules or prescriptions in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, save in cases of palpable illegality, manifest arbitrariness, or violation of Fundamental Rights. At this juncture, it is worth noticing that no challenge has been to the veracity of Clause 2.5.1. In the absence of any challenge to the validity or vires of Clause 2.5.1 itself, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom or policy underlying such regulatory prescription, nor can it substitute its own views for that of the expert body entrusted with such functions. This Court, in circumstances as the present one, must refrain from usurping the domain of regulatory authority, for it is well settled that matters of policy & academic governance lie beyond the ken of judicial review, except on limited grounds of illegality or constitutio No jurisdictional error has been pointed in the so as to warrant interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. On the contrary, we find that the impugned order of the trainees whose admission is sought -6- Where the competent regulatory authority, duly constituted and empowered ersee the administration of the relevant course, has laid down specific conditions governing the grant of affiliations to institutions, it is incumbent upon such institutions to scrupulously adhere to those stipulations, which ng statutory rules. These conditions, being a manifestation of the regulatory wisdom vested in the said authority, must be accorded due deference and cannot be lightly disregarded. It is a cardinal tenet of law that where the competent authority, empowered to frame rules for a specialised field has exercised its powers within the bounds of its jurisdiction, the writ court ought not to interfere with such rules or prescriptions in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under onstitution, save in cases of palpable illegality, manifest arbitrariness, or violation of Fundamental Rights. At this juncture, it is worth noticing that no challenge has been In the absence of any challenge to the this Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom or policy underlying such regulatory prescription, nor can it substitute its own views for that of the expert body entrusted with such rcumstances as the present one, must refrain from usurping the domain of regulatory authority, for it is well settled that matters of policy & academic governance lie beyond the ken of judicial review, except on limited grounds of illegality or constitutional infirmity. No jurisdictional error has been pointed in the impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. On the impugned order works out in favour of the welfare sought to be made by the institute in Where the competent regulatory authority, duly constituted and empowered ersee the administration of the relevant course, has laid down specific conditions governing the grant of affiliations to institutions, it is incumbent upon such institutions to scrupulously adhere to those stipulations, which ng statutory rules. These conditions, being a manifestation of the regulatory wisdom vested in the said authority, must be accorded due deference and cannot be lightly disregarded. It is a cardinal to frame rules for a specialised field has exercised its powers within the bounds of its jurisdiction, the writ court ought not to interfere with such rules or prescriptions in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under onstitution, save in cases of palpable illegality, manifest At this juncture, it is worth noticing that no challenge has been In the absence of any challenge to the this Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom or policy underlying such regulatory prescription, nor can it substitute its own views for that of the expert body entrusted with such rcumstances as the present one, must refrain from usurping the domain of regulatory authority, for it is well settled that matters of policy & academic governance lie beyond the ken of judicial review, impugned order, so as to warrant interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. On the works out in favour of the welfare institute in AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.27 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13087 question since their admission may land their career in judicial experience of this Court that the gr in question emanating from a registered sale deed, as mandated by inevitably precipitate a grave and avoidable misfortune. In the regrettable eventuality of the petitioner rights over the premises, the dire consequences would fall, not upon the institute in question unsuspecting trainees professional aspirations, would entrust their futures to the promises of the institute in question. admissions imperiled and their academic progressi uncertainty, all through no fault or duty of this Court, as the vulnerable, to ensure that no student is subjected to such an ordeal. 10. dismissed. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE May 27, 202 Naveen/Ajay 13087-2025 since their admission to an institute not having requisite premises may land their career in doldrums. It is within the sagacious contemplation& judicial experience of this Court that the gr in question—where it stands bereft of any subsisting leasehold right emanating from a registered sale deed, as mandated by inevitably precipitate a grave and avoidable misfortune. In the regrettable ntuality of the petitioner-society’s failure to secure lawful leasehold rights over the premises, the dire consequences would fall, not upon the institute in question or the petitioner-society, but rather upon the innocent & unsuspecting trainees — young minds who, in pursuit of their academic and professional aspirations, would entrust their futures to the promises of the institute in question. It is these trainees who would be left rudderless, their admissions imperiled and their academic progressi uncertainty, all through no fault or omission duty of this Court, as the sentinel on the qui vive vulnerable, to ensure that no student is subjected to such an ordeal. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, the dismissed. No order as to costs. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -7- institute not having requisite premises It is within the sagacious contemplation& judicial experience of this Court that the grant of indulgence to the institute where it stands bereft of any subsisting leasehold right emanating from a registered sale deed, as mandated by Clause 2.5.1—would inevitably precipitate a grave and avoidable misfortune. In the regrettable society’s failure to secure lawful leasehold rights over the premises, the dire consequences would fall, not upon the society, but rather upon the innocent & young minds who, in pursuit of their academic and professional aspirations, would entrust their futures to the promises of the It is these trainees who would be left rudderless, their admissions imperiled and their academic progression cast into an abyss of omission of their own. It is the solemn sentinel on the qui vive for the rights of the most vulnerable, to ensure that no student is subjected to such an ordeal. ratiocination, the petition in hand (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE Yes/No Yes/No institute not having requisite premises It is within the sagacious contemplation& institute where it stands bereft of any subsisting leasehold right would inevitably precipitate a grave and avoidable misfortune. In the regrettable society’s failure to secure lawful leasehold rights over the premises, the dire consequences would fall, not upon the society, but rather upon the innocent & young minds who, in pursuit of their academic and professional aspirations, would entrust their futures to the promises of the It is these trainees who would be left rudderless, their on cast into an abyss of It is the solemn for the rights of the most petition in hand is AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.27 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document