Education Promotion Society For India&Or vs. Union Of India

ITEM NO.104 COURT NO. 7 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 89 OF 2011 JAIPURIA INST.OF MGT.& ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDU.&ORS Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for interim Relief) WITH W.P(C) NO. 90 of 2011 (With appln.(s) for stay and office report) W.P(C) NO. 92 of 2011 (With appln.(s) for stay office report) W.P(C) NO. 219 of 2011 (With appln.(s) for stay, permission to place additional documents on record, permission to file additional documents and office report) T.P.(C) NO. 510 of 2011 (With appln.(s) for stay and office report) T.P.(C) NO. 511 of 2011 (With appln.(s) for stay and office report) T.P.(C) NO. 514 of 2011 (With appln.(s) for stay and office report) SLP(C) NO. 15584 of 2011 (With office report) Date: 10/07/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv. WP 89 Mr. Vinay Garg Adv. Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Agarawal, Adv. WP 90 Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. C.V. Francis, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv. Mr. S. Jindal, Adv. WP 92 Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayan, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv. for Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Adv. WP 219 Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Adv. Mrs. N. Beri, Adv. Mr. M.P.S. Tomar, Adv. TP 510,511,514 Mr. Navin Prakash, Adv. SLP 15584 Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Adv. WP 325 Mr. Romy Chacko, Adv. For Respondent(s) for AICTE) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,Sr.Adv.

'

Mr. Amitesh Kumr,Adv. Mr. Ravi Kant, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Sharma,Adv. Ms. Sansriti Pathak,Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash, Adv. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Adv. Mr. Romy Chacko, Adv. Mr. Varun Mudgal, Adv.

(State of Rajasthan) Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav,Adv. For Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan ,Adv

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

W.P. (C) No. 219 of 2011:

Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn in terms of signed order. REMAINING MATTERS:

We have heard Mr K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 90 and 92 of 2011, Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 89 of 2011 and Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 - AICTE.

The interim order passed by this Court initially on March 17, 2011, modified by the subsequent order dated July 26, 2011 and reiterated in respect of admissions for Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM) 2012-2013 vide order dated March 1, 2012 shall also govern PGDM admissions for the year 2013-2014.

The PGDM Institutions are directed to comply with, if not complied so far, the direction given by this Court in the order dated March 17, 2011 that each college shall submit a declaration to AICTE and the State Government disclosing the sources from which they will be drawing the students and the percentages, if any, earmarked for such source within four weeks from today. In default, the above order shall not be applicable to the defaulter institutions.

I.A. No. 3 in W.P. No. 92 of 2011 stand disposed of accordingly.

|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) |

|Court Master | |Court Master |

[SIGNED ORDER IN W.P. (C) NO. 219 OF 2011 IS PLACED ON THE FILE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 219 OF 2011

EXCEL INST. OF MANAGEMENT & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL Respondent(s) EDUCATION

O R D E R

Ms. Sandhya Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that she has instructions to withdraw Writ Petition. 2. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. 3. In view of dismissal of Writ Petition as withdrawn, pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands dismissed.

......................J. (R.M. LODHA)

NEW DELHI; ......................J. JULY 10, 2012 (ANIL R. DAVE)