Heard Mr. PK Goswami, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. PK Biswas, the learned Asstt. SG., who appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. NC Paul, the learned Govt. Advocate, who appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.6 and 7. Extra copies be served. The petitioners to take steps for service of notice on respondents No.8, 9, 10 and 11 by registered post. The petitioners may take additional steps on respondent No.10 by courier also.

Issue notice of motion returnable in six weeks.

The petitioner No.1 is the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysis of India University, Tripura (herein after referred to as `ICFAI University’) which is a private University constituted under a legislation of the Tripura Government under the name and style as Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University, Tripura Act, 2004 (herein after referred to as `the Act of 2004). The petitioner No.2 is the Registrar of ICFAI University. In pursuance to the Act of 2004 on 15.7.2004 a sanction has been made under Section 4(2) of the Act for establishment of the University.

Mr. Goswami, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the University Grants Commission (for short `UGC’) by notification dated 1.11.2006 has notified the ICFAI University as a private University and the said University has been included in the list of Universities maintained by the UGC under Section 2(1) of the UGC Act, 1956. It is further submitted that the Parliament has enacted the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as `the AICTE Act, 1987) for proper planning and co-ordinate development of technical education throughout India as well as for promotion of qualitative improvement of such technical education. In pursuance to the AICTE Act, 1987, a Regulation in the name and style of AICTE Regulation for Entry and Operation of Foreign Universities in India imparting technical education, 2005 (for short `Regulation, 2005’) has been notified.

Under the terms of the aforesaid Regulation, 2005, no Foreign University/Institute can be established/can operate its educational activity in India leading to award Degree/Diploma without express permission/approval of the AICTE Council (herein after referred to as `the Council’). Procedure for registration of Foreign Universities has been incorporated in the Regulation, 2005 and it is further provided that no franchise system shall be allowed under the Regulation, 2005. The Regulation also provides that Foreign Universities/Institutes, already operating in India are required to seek fresh approval of the Council within six months from the date of issuance of the notification notifying the Regulation. The Regulation, 2005 further provides that against Foreign University/Institute, which fall to comply with the requirement of the Regulation, 2005 as noticed above, the AICTE after giving reasonable opportunity to such Institution/University, may take such action including withdrawal of registration and also forbid such Foreign University/Institute from operating within India. Actions under the Penal Code and other relevant laws are also contemplated against Foreign Universities/Institutions operating in breach of the conditions incorporated under the Regulation, 2005.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No.10, the CFA Institute of Charlottesville. United States of America through its collaborator, respondent No.11 the Indian Association of Investment Professions is operating its educational program for students of India without obtaining registration under the Regulation, 2005. It is further submitted that the said respondent No.10 and 11 have also launched campaign against the petitioners through the print media alleging unauthorized use of trademark of respondents 10 and 11. It is also submitted by Mr. Goswami, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the application of the respondent No.10 for registration of trademark as `CFA’ has not been considered and allowed in England and by an order dated 31.10.2006, the application of the respondent No.10 Institute has been rejected by the Registrar of Trademark, UK.

If the allegations made by the petitioners are correct then the functioning of respondents No.10 and 11 in Indian soil, without being registered under the provisions of the Regulation of 2005, is impermissible in law. They are also not entitled to give Diplomas and Degrees as no Foreign University/Institute are permitted to operate in India without being registered under the Regulation, 2005. The further contention made by the petitioners is that the appropriate authorities under the AICTE Act, 1987 and the Regulation 2005 despite being made aware of the activities of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have not taken any action as required by law and have shirked their statutory responsibilities.

Having regard to the aforesaid position, it is considered appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to examine the veracity of the allegations brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioners against respondents No.10 and 11. The statutory authorities are obliged to take such action as are contemplated by the Regulation, 2005 in respect of Foreign Universities/Institutions operating in India in breach of the Regulation 2005.

As a grievance has been made about the authorities failing to discharge their functions it is considered appropriate to direct the authorities namely the respondents No.9 and 1 to take such action, as may be required in terms of the provisions of the Regulation, 2005.

Pendency of the writ petition before this Court shall not be a bar for the respondent authorities to take such action as may be considered appropriate in the matter.

Mr. Biswas the learned Asstt. SG shall obtain necessary instructions and inform this Court about the action taken by the concerned respondents in terms of the above order.

Post it after six weeks.