G. P. SHIVAPRAKASH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to be a trust established in the year 1983, with the avowed object of "promoting education in the field of technology, education, medicine to the needy public including the students of weaker sections of the society". Since the year 1986, the petitioner has been making attempts to start a dental college by obtaining affiliation to the second respondent university. The petitioner has not succeeded so far in its pursuit to obtain affiliation to the second respondent university which would enable it to establish a dental college. ( 2 ) THIS is the third writ petition presented by the petitioner in this regard. writ petition No. 7837 of 1991, was filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the state government and the Bangalore university to consider its application for grant of permission/affiliation to start dental college. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court by order dated 3-6-1992. From the said Order, copy of which is marked as annexure-a, it appears that the petitioner had made an application on 30th october, 1986 to the second respondent university seeking permission/affiliation for starting a dental college at kolar for the academic year 1987-88. According to the petitioner, the said application was not taken up for consideration by the authorities concerned and therefore the aforesaid writ petition was filed. This court disposed off the said writ petition after recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents were to consider any fresh application that would be filed by the petitioner for grant of permission and affiliation to start dental college for the academic year 1992-93. This court issued a direction in the said writ petition to the respondents to consider any such fresh application that would be filed by the petitioner. This court further directed that the petitioner has to make such application within one week from the date of the order and the respondents should treat the same as a fresh application, and consider it in accordance with law expeditiously. ( 3 ) IN terms of the aforesaid Order, according to the petitioner, an application was filed within one week of the said order. ( 3 ) IN terms of the aforesaid Order, according to the petitioner, an application was filed within one week of the said order. However, since no order was passed by the respondents on the said application, another writ petition No. 29400 of 1992, was filed seeking a similar direction to the respondents to grant permission/affiliation to the petitioner to start the dental college for the academic year 1992-93. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court on 10-11-1992, directing the respondents to dispose of the application of "the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from today". In the said order it was also observed "if for any reason the respondents are not in a position to consider the application within the time stated, the application of the petitioner shall be considered for the next academic year and on processing such application the respondents shall dispose of the same as held by this court in nitte education trust v state of Karnataka, 1992 (3) kar. L. j. 160 : ILR 1992 kar. 2049". Against the said order of the learned single judge, the petitioner preferred writ appeal No. 2355 of 1992. The said writ appeal was disposed of on 4-12-1992, in the following terms:"in this case it is not in dispute that the local enquiry committee constituted under the statute of the Karnataka state universities act has submitted a report to the university that the dental college proposed by the appellant-institution may be permitted to be started as it satisfies all the norms. The report has been accepted by the senate and it has been sent to the state government. The matter is now pending before the state government. Thus, the state government has to give its approval for starting the dental college. In the meanwhile, the central government has issued the dentists (Amendment) ordinance, 1992, with effect from 27th august, 1992. Therefore, it is submitted by Sri gupta, learned government Advocate that as the appellant by petitioners are required to take the prior permission of the central government for establishing and opening a new course of study in dentistry, the state government cannot do anything in the matter. Therefore, it is submitted by Sri gupta, learned government Advocate that as the appellant by petitioners are required to take the prior permission of the central government for establishing and opening a new course of study in dentistry, the state government cannot do anything in the matter. Section 10-a, as inserted by the dentists (Amendment) ordinance, 1992 in the Dentists Act, 1948 provides for obtaining prior permission of the central government, in accordance with the Provisions of that Section for establishing and opening a new or higher course of study and training for the award of any recognised dentist qualification etc. In this regard it is relevant to notice that for the purpose of granting permission by the central government the requirement of the state law has to be complied with. Therefore, even to seek prior permission of the central government by the appellants-petitioners, they have to first obtain the permission from the state government. Then only the application will be complete in all respects and it will enable the central government to consider it under Section 10-a of the Dentists Act, 1948. Therefore, the submission made by the learned government Advocate that the appellant-petitioner has to first obtain the prior permission of the central government before it seeks permission from the state government cannot be accepted. But, it is true that even after the state government grants the permission, the appellant-petitioner cannot establish and start the dental college without obtaining the prior permission from the central government which can be granted only if the state government grants it permission. Therefore, for the central government to consider the application of the appellant for establishing and opening a dental college, the state government has to first grant its permission. Accordingly, we modify the order of the learned single judge and direct the state government to consider the application of the appellant- petitioner on the basis of the report made by the local enquiry committee which is approved by the senate and forwarded by the Bangalore university to it, and intimate its decision before the end of december, 1992. Accordingly, we modify the order of the learned single judge and direct the state government to consider the application of the appellant- petitioner on the basis of the report made by the local enquiry committee which is approved by the senate and forwarded by the Bangalore university to it, and intimate its decision before the end of december, 1992. " ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the government has passed the impugned Order, copy of which is marked as Annexure-L. It could be seen therefrom that the special enquiry committee constituted by the university to consider the grant of affiliation had made the following observations: (1) there is no proper approach road to the college; (2) only a few books on the subject of dental science are available; (3) fully equipped library has notbeen established; (4) fully equipped laboratory and dental equipments are not available in the college; and (5) the teaching and non-teaching staff have not been appointed. The government has also observed that the petitioner has not indicated the availability of clinical facility for training the students which is part of the curriculum. ( 5 ) BESIDES the above, the government has taken into consideration "theneed for dental college in Bangalore in view of the fact that several dental colleges, including the government dental college, have already been accorded affiliation by the state government". The government has noted that the total intake for the 1st year bds course in the 16 private dental colleges in Bangalore city is 750. Keeping in view the above factors, the government has rejected the application of the petitioner. ( 6 ) SRI s. Vijayashanker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is totally arbitrary. He emphasised that the university in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 53 of the Karnataka state universities Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the act', had directed a local inquiry made by competent persons authorised by the syndicate and had submitted a favourable report for establishment of a dental college by the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that in the light of the recommendation of the university it is not open for the government to arbitrarily reject the recommendation of the university on grounds that there is no proper approach road and the library and laboratory are not fully equipped. The learned counsel submitted that in the light of the recommendation of the university it is not open for the government to arbitrarily reject the recommendation of the university on grounds that there is no proper approach road and the library and laboratory are not fully equipped. The learned counsel urged that under the Provisions of Section 53 of the Act, what is of importance is that the management of the proposed college shall be under a regularly constituted governing body and the strength and qualifications of the teaching staff and the conditions governing their tenure of office are - such as to make due provision for the courses of instruction, teaching or training to be undertaken by the college; and that the buildings in which the college is to be located are suitable; and that provision has to be made in conformity with the ordinances for the residence in the college or in lodgings approved by the college for the students not residing with their parents or guardians and for the supervision and welfare of the students; and that due provision has been made or will be made for a library. He pointed out that several of the requirements under the aforesaid Section has to be fulfilled by the applicant-institution after the grant of affiliation and not at the time when the application is made seeking application. The learned counsel submitted that the financial resources of the petitioner is such that there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner would be in a position to fulfill all the requirements in terms of Section 53 of the act. The learned counsel contended that as a matter of fact the affiliation granted to several institutions by the respondent-university has always been subject to fulfilment of certain conditions mentioned in Section 53 of the act. The learned counsel submitted that the government could not have rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that there is no need for another dental college in Bangalore since it is proposed to be established near hebbal in the city of Bangalore. According to the counsel, the fact that there are already 17 dental colleges, including the government dental college, in the city of Bangalore, is a totally irrelevant consideration. According to the counsel, the fact that there are already 17 dental colleges, including the government dental college, in the city of Bangalore, is a totally irrelevant consideration. The learned counsel pointed out that in the contempt of court proceedings ccc No. 56 of 1993, initiated by the petitioner for non compliance of the directions issued by this court in writ appeal No. 2355 of 1992, the submission of the learned advocate-general has been recorded. A copy of the order passed by this court in the aforesaid contempt of court case is marked as Annexure-K. It is recorded therein as follows:"3, the learned advocate-general submits that in the light of the direction issued by this court on 4th december, 1992, in writ appeal No. 2355 of 1992, the policy decision of the state government that no dental college would be allowed to be established in the year 1993-94, will be subject to the court directions; therefore, that policy decision does not cover the case on hand. In addition to this, it is also submitted in the additional counter affidavit that the application of the complainant will be considered expeditiously for grant of permission to start dental college for the academic year 1993-94, without reference to any policy decision of the state government. " ( 7 ) THE learned counsel submitted that in view of the submission made by the learned advocate-general in the contempt of court case, the government could not have taken into consideration the need factor for permitting the petitioner to start the dental college near hebbal in the city of Bangalore. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel pleaded that if the petitioner has satisfied the other requirements of Section 53 of the Act, the government cannot reject the application. In this regard the petitioner has produced several government orders granting affiliation to several institutions for starting dental colleges at Bangalore. They are marked as annexures e, el to e6, f, f1 and f2. In each of the these orders granting affiliation, ihe government has directed affiliation subject to several conditions. ( 9 ) THE salient features of the government orders found in the aforesaid annexures are set out below for the purpose of appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is arbitrary. ( 9 ) THE salient features of the government orders found in the aforesaid annexures are set out below for the purpose of appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is arbitrary. I. Annexure-E : the government order dated 27-6-1992, according sanction to k. l. e. society to start new dental college at Bangalore, with an intake of 40 seats during the academic year 1992-93. The said order is subject to the following conditions:" (1) they should shift to the new campus at least within two year's time; (2) the principal and the faculty to be appointed as per the norms of the dental council of india; (3) arrangements have to be made to train the students in clinical as per dental council of India norms; (4) dental council of india, approval should be obtained immediately. "ii. Annexure - e1 : government order dated 4-7-1992, according sanction to moogabigai charitable and educational trust, Bangalore, for starting dental college during the academic year 1992-93, with an intake of 40 seats, subject to the following conditions :" (I) that the institution should take immediate action to obtain the approval of Bangalore university for affiliation; (ii) that the institution should take immediate action to obtain the approval from the dental council of india, New Delhi; (iii) that the institution will not seek any assistance from the state government for running the dental college; (iv) they must have their own building in next two year's time with adequate facilities for laboratories, libraries, class rooms, equipments and adequate teachers in various subjects; (v) they must get the clinical facilities at the earliest and intimate to university and the government as to where they will be wanting the clinical facilities; and (vi) they should be prepared to abide by and fulfil whatever any other conditions are laid down by the university and the government as and when it found necessary / expedite to impose. "iii. "iii. Annexure - e2 : government order dated 18-7-1992, according sanction to rifah-ul-muslimeen educational trust to start a dental college at Mysore during the academic year 1992-93, with an intake of 40 seats, subject to the following conditions :" (I) that the institution should take immediate action to obtain the approval of the Mysore university for affiliation ; (ii) that the institution should take immediate action to obtain the approval from the dental council of india, New Delhi; (iii)that the institution will not seek any assistance from the state government for running the dental college; (iv) they must have their own building in the next two year's time with adequate facilities for laboratories, libraries, class rooms, equipments and adequate teachers in various subjects as per the norms of the dental council of india; (v) they must get the clinical facilities at the earliest and intimate to university and the government as to where they will be wanting the clinical facilities; and (vi) they should be prepared to abide by and fulfil whatever and other conditions are laid down by the university and the government as and when it found necessary/expedite to impose. "iv. Annexure-f. Government order dated 25-7-1992, according sanction to amrith educational cultural society, Bangalore to start dental college at Bangalore, during the academic year 1992-93, with an intake of 40 seats subject to the following conditions :" (I) that the institution should take immediate action to obtain the approval of the Bangalore university for affiliation; (ii) that the institution should take immediate action to obtain the approval from the dental council of india, New Delhi; (iii) that the institution will not seek any assistance from the state government for running the dental college; (iv) they must have their own building in the next two year's time with adequate facilities for laboratories, class rooms, equipments and adequate teachers in various subjects as per the norms of the dental council of india; (v) they must get the clinical facilities at the earliest and intimate to university and the government as to where they will be wanting the clinical facilities; and (vi) they should be prepared to abide by and fulfil whatever and other conditions laid down by the university and the government as and when it found necessary. " ( 10 ) THE conditions imposed by the government in respect of the aforesaid institutions while according sanction for starting of dental colleges clearly indicate that the government at no point of time expected any of the institutions to fulfil all the requirements under the Provisions of Section 53 of the act. The aforesaid government orders fully support the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the imposition made on behalf of the petitioner that the imposition of the conditions by the government at the time of granting affiliation has always been the practice and the institution concerned is expected, after obtaining affiliation, to secure in full the necessary requirements for a full-fledged dental college. ( 11 ) AS an illustration the learned counsel invited my attention inparticular to the grant of affiliation to amrith educational and cultural society to start dental college at Bangalore. From the copies of the several documents produced by the petitioner and also the documents filed by the respondent-university under memo dated 10-8-1993, which were filed by the university as directed by this court, the following factors emerge regarding the grant of affiliation to amrith educational and cultural society, Bangalore for starting a new dental college for the academic year 1992-93. ( 12 ) THE application of this society was received by the university on 17th september, 1991. The said application is in its letter-head and not in any particular format. It is in the form of a letter. In the letter it is merely stated that the society has got all the necessary infrastructure for starting the college and that the necessary furniture,, equipments, library, building and finance are readily available for starting the college. The local inquiry committee has visited the premises where the dental college was intended to be started on 17-1-1992. The committee has noted that the society intends to start the dental college in a building at kumara park. The committee has stated that it is in a three bed room house and that it was totally unsuitable to start a dental college. The committee has also recorded that the society possesses 2 acres of land near yeshwanthpur and that the land near yeshwanthpur was totally unsuitable for construction of a college building in view of the fact that high tension electric lines are drawn over the land. The committee has also recorded that the society possesses 2 acres of land near yeshwanthpur and that the land near yeshwanthpur was totally unsuitable for construction of a college building in view of the fact that high tension electric lines are drawn over the land. After noticing the other factors including its financial position, the committee has concluded that the basic infrastructure is not adequate and therefore the committee would not recommend starting of a new dental college by the society. The report of the local inquiry committee along with the resolution dated 12-3-1992, of the academic council of the university and the resolution of the syndicate dated 30-3-1992, have been forwarded by the university under its letter dated 10-4-1992, to the secretary to the government, health and family welfare department. Subsequently, the government by its order dated 25-7- 1992, has permitted the said amrith educational and cultural society to start dental college at Bangalore during the academic year 1992-93, with an intake of 40 seats. This is done by the government despite the report of the university not to grant affiliation. The government order sanctioning affiliation to the said society is subject to the following conditions :" (I) that the institution should take immediate action to obtain the approval of the Bangalore university for affiliation; (ii) that the institution should take immediate action to obtain the approval from the dental council of india, New Delhi; (iii) that the institution will not seek any assistance from the state government for running the dental college; (iv) they must have their own building in the next two year's time with adequate facilities for laboratories, class rooms, equipments and adequate teachers in various subjects as per the norms of the dental council of india; (v) they must get the clinical facilities at the earliest and intimate to university and the government as to where they will be wanting the clinical facilities; and (vi) they should be prepared to abide by and fulfil whatever and other conditions laid down by the university and the government as and when it found necessary. " ( 13 ) PURSUANT to the government Order, it appears that the respondent-university did not act immediately and no order was issued by the university regarding affiliation in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 53 of the act. " ( 13 ) PURSUANT to the government Order, it appears that the respondent-university did not act immediately and no order was issued by the university regarding affiliation in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 53 of the act. ( 14 ) FROM the documents produced by the university, it appears that another special committee constituted by the university regarding grant of affiliation to start new dental college by the aforesaid society visited the premises on 22-9-1992, where the dental college was intended to be started. The special committee again found that the basic infrastructure was totally inadequate to start the dental college during the academic year 1992-93. As regards the building where the society proposed to start the college, the committee found that it was in a rented building on lease for two years situated in the 1st and 2nd floor "in a thickly populated area of wilson garden which is not at all suitable to conduct the classes in a peaceful manner. " the committee noted that neither the class rooms nor the laboratories are provided in the building and that certain partitions are being put up by using plywood partition material. Even in respect of library and hostel facility the committee found that the provision made was totally inadequate. In the circumstances, the committee again refused to recommend grant of affiliation to the dental college proposed to be started by the said society. The report of the local inquiry committee has been approved by the committee of the academic council at its meeting held on 12-10-1992, ( 15 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, it appears that the said society has given several representations to the university emphasising that the government has already passed an order dated 25-7-1992, directing grant of affiliation to start dental college by the said society during the academic year 1992-93, and that it has already admitted several students in view of the aforesaid government order. The respondent-university by letter dated 9-11-1992, addressed to the secretary of the said society has clearly stated that the university is not inclined on the basis of the report of the university authorities to grant affiliation and therefore application of the said society has been rejected. In the said letter, it is clearly indicated that the society is prohibited from making admission to the 1st year bds course during the academic year 1992-93. In the said letter, it is clearly indicated that the society is prohibited from making admission to the 1st year bds course during the academic year 1992-93. Again by another letter dated 5-1-1993, addressed to the vice-chancellor of the respondent-university the said society has repeated its request for affiliation on the basis of the government order dated 25-7-1992. It appears from the proceedings of the meeting of the syndicate of the university held on 13-1-1993, that the subject of grant of affiliation to the aforesaid dental college was discussed at the instance of a particular member and the vice-chancellor opined that the matter has already been rejected by the local inquiry committee and the academic council and hence the question of grant of affiliation to the said dental college cannot be considered again. However, the syndicate of the university passed a resolution at its 155th, meeting held on 11-3-1993, to constitute a special local inquiry committee to consider the application of the said society for starting of new dental college during the year 1992-93. This is evident from the notification of the university dated 30-3-1993. The said special local inquiry committee constituted pursuant to the resolution of the syndicate expressed its opinion that the institution proposed to be started by the society has just enough facilities to conduct theory and laboratory classes for 1st year bds course. After noticing several other factors this local inquiry committee has recommended the grant of fresh affiliation to the society to start the dental college for the year 1992-93. Pursuant to the above recommendation the syndicate at its 157th meeting held on 7-5-1993, resolved to grant affiliation to the said society to start a new dental college for the academic year 1992-93. Immediately thereafter a notification dated 20-5-1993, has been issued by the university granting affiliation to the said society for starting of new dental college in the name of 'maruti college of dental sciences and research centre, wilson garden, Bangalore - 560027" to leach bds (bachelor of dental surgery) course of Bangalore university, during the academic year 1992-93, with an intake of 40 scats subject to the following conditions:"1. That the institution should take immediate action to obtain the approval from the dental council of india, New Delhi. 2. The institution should appoint qualified permanent principal and teaching staff as per dci norms immediately. 3. That the institution should take immediate action to obtain the approval from the dental council of india, New Delhi. 2. The institution should appoint qualified permanent principal and teaching staff as per dci norms immediately. 3. That the institution should satisfy the committee of experts in the concerned subjects at least four weeks before the commencement of examination with regard to the facilities made available for conduct of practical examination as well as theory. 4. The institution should satisfy a committee consisting of experts as to whether the facilities for i year bds classes are made available for the year 1993-94, and also for conduct of ii year bds classes concurrently. 5. Before starting ii year, the management should seek renewal of affiliation. 6. They must get the clinical facilities at the earliest and intimate to university and the government as to where they will provide the clinical facilities. 7. They must have their own building in the next two year's time with adequate facilities for laboratories, class rooms, equipments and adequate teachers in various subjects as per the norms of the dental council of india. 8. That the institution will not seek any assistance from the state government for running the dental college. 9. The college shall abide by the rules/regulations/statutes of the university and 10. They should be prepared to abide by and fulfil whatever and other conditions laid down by the university and the government as and when it found necessary. " ( 16 ) THE manner in which amrilh educational and cultural society hasmanaged to obtain affiliation to its dental college, as borne out from the records produced by the university, amply justifies the scathing criticism of the learned counsel that neither the university nor the government entrusted with the responsible task of granting affiliation to institutions to impart education, is concerned in maintaining academic standards and often times affiliation is granted for extraneous reasons in utter disregard of the Provisions of the act. He submitted that more often affiliation is granted to the undeserving rather than the deserving, making a sham of our educational system. ( 17 ) SINCE grant of affiliation to the dental college established by amritheducational and cultural society is not under challenge in this petition, i do not wish to digress any further having understood the modus operandi for securing affiliation. ( 17 ) SINCE grant of affiliation to the dental college established by amritheducational and cultural society is not under challenge in this petition, i do not wish to digress any further having understood the modus operandi for securing affiliation. This digression was necessary to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner society has been singled out for discriminatory treatment by the first respondent despite the recommendations of the second respondent university. ( 18 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the state, relying on the Provisions of sub-section (10) of Section 53 of the Act, it is staled that no institution can admit students in anticipation of affiliation to any university and therefore the assertion of the petitioner that it has already admitted the students and is running the college does not deserve any consideration. The fact that the local inquiry committee constituted by the university had inspected the premises of the petitioner and had given a green signal to the petitioner to admit the students is of no avail. Certain facts asserted by the petitioner regarding the provision for purchase of land/purchase of books, construction of building and vehicle and payment of salary to the staff of the institution and making of provision for clinical facilities and laboratory etc. Are also denied. ( 19 ) IN the statement of objections the grant of affiliation to certain dentalcolleges including amrith educational and cultural society, Bangalore, is not denied. ( 20 ) RELYING on the Provisions contained in Section 10-a (2) of the dentistact, 1948, it is contended by the respondents that unless the previous permission of the central government has been obtained in terms of the Provisions of the said act no college would be started by any organization. It is also stated that the government has rejected the application of the petitioner on several grounds including the grounds that there is no need for one more dental college in Bangalore in as much as there are already 17 dental colleges in Bangalore. It is also stated that the government has rejected the application of the petitioner on several grounds including the grounds that there is no need for one more dental college in Bangalore in as much as there are already 17 dental colleges in Bangalore. ( 21 ) IN the statement of objections, it is denied - that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is based on any policy decision of the state government, as contended by the petitioner but on the ground provided in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act, that there is no need for one more dental college in the area in which the petitioner intends to establish the college. ( 22 ) THE learned advocate-general appearing for the state submitted that under the Provisions of Section 10 - a of the Dentist Act, 1948 (after amendment of 1992), the petitioner cannot seek affiliation to the university without obtaining prior permission of the central government. He urged that since the petitioner has not obtained permission from the central government under the Provisions of the aforesaid Act, the application of the petitioner seeking affiliation is premature, and on that ground alone this petition is liable to be rejected. This question whether an application seeking affiliation to establish a dental college, should in the first instance obtain permission of the central government as per the Provisions of the Dentist Act, 1948 has been considered by a division bench of this court in its judgment dated 4-12-1992, in writ appeal No. 2355 of 1992, between the same parties, copy of which is marked as Annexure - h. I have already reproduced at para 3 supra the relevant part of the judgment on this question. Therefore, this aspect of the matter is no more open to examination in this writ petition. ( 23 ) THE learned Advocate - general next submitted that the application of the petitioner seeking affiliation, though in the first instance was made in the year 1986, the same is of no relevance now, in view of the stand taken by the petitioner in W. P. No. 7837 of 1991, that it would be satisfied if the fresh application to be made by it is considered by the respondents. Accordingly the petitioner having made another application following the order dated 3-6-1992, in writ petition No. 7837 of 1991, cannot now contend that its application was the earliest in point of time and that too at a time when there was not even one private denta! College in Bangalore. Therefore, the learned advocate-general contended rejecting the application also on the ground that there exists today 16 private dental colleges is fully justified since there is no need for another dental college. ( 24 ) THE learned advocate-general submitted that the government being the final authority, under sub-section (5) of Section 53 of the Act, to make recommenda lions for the grant of the application for affiliation, or any part thereof or refuse the application or any part thereof and that the university is oblige to issue orders accordingly, has rejected the application, despite the recommendation of the university authorities taking into consideration relevant factors provided in Section 53 of the Act, including the need to establish one more dental college in Bangalore. ( 25 ) THE question is not so much the extent of power of the government under the statute but whether that power has been exercised reasonably and in accordance with the directions issued by this court in writ petition No. 2355 of 1992, Annexure-H. This court in the said appeal after noticing that the local inquiry committee constituted under the statute had submitted a report to the university recommending that the dental college proposed by the petitioner may be permitted to be started as it satisfies all the norms and that the said report had been accepted by the senate has observed: "the matter is now pending before the state government. Thus, the state government has to give its approval for starting the dental college. " (emphasis supplied) ( 26 ) THE division bench in the said appeal while modifying the order of the learned single judge, Annexure-G , has further stated thus:"accordingly, we modify the order of the learned single judge and direct the state government to consider the application of the appellant-petitioner oh the basis of the report made by the local enquiry committee which is approved by the senate and forwarded by the Bangalore university to it, and intimate its decision before the end of december, 1992. " (emphasis supplied) ( 27 ) THE learned advocate-general urged that the state government has taken into consideration the deficiencies pointed out by the local inquiry committee in its report, anncxure-d, viz; (1) no proper approach road to the college; (2) no properly equipped library and laboratory; (3) the teaching and non-teaching staff have not been appointed; and (4) that the petitioner has not indicated the availability of clinical facility. It is not as if these deficiencies have notbeen considered by the local inquiry committee. Even after noticing these deficiencies, the committee has recommended grant of permission to start the college. ( 28 ) ANOTHER ground for refusing permission is the question of need for starting another dental college in Bangalore. The submission of the learned advocate-general that the statement made on behalf of the government as recorded in the order in ccc No. 56 of 1993, Annexure-K , that the application of the petitioner will be considered de hors the policy decision of the government not to permit establishment of any more dental colleges, is not related to the question of need cannot be accepted. The policy decision of the government not to permit any more dental colleges could only be because there were too many dental colleges already and there was no need to permit any more dental colleges. Having given assurance to this court in the aforesaid contempt of court case that the application of the petitioner will be considered disregarding the policy decision, it is not now open for the government to say that there is no need to permit another dental college in Bangalore on the ground that there are already 17 dental colleges here. ( 29 ) FROM the records produced by the petitioner, it appears that the organisation has sufficient funds to set right the deficiencies, pointed out by the local inquiry committee. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel submitted that as on today the institution cannot be found fault with on any of the grounds pointed out by the local inquiry committee. ( 30 ) NO group, as a group, should be more zealous defenders of the integrity of academic standards than the faculties of our universities. Their opinion in this regard car. not be discarded without compelling reasons. Left to themselves, I am sure the faculties of our institutions strive for academic excellence. ( 30 ) NO group, as a group, should be more zealous defenders of the integrity of academic standards than the faculties of our universities. Their opinion in this regard car. not be discarded without compelling reasons. Left to themselves, I am sure the faculties of our institutions strive for academic excellence. Unfortunately, they are so often subjected to extraneous pressures and it is true some of them do succumb to such pressures. ( 31 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the conduct of the state government in granting affiliation to institutions which were lacking in basic infrastructure and against the recommendation of the university on the one hand, and refusing affiliation to institutions having all the basic infrastructure and the potentiality to develop the same and recommended by the university for grant of affiliation on the other hand, was wholly discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the constitution. In this regard the learned counsel relied on a division bench ruling in this court in Bangalore university v vidya ganapathi education society and another, 1982 (2) kar. L. j, 217. At para 18 this court has ruled thus:"18. In the statement of objections, it is not the case of the state government that those other five colleges to which it granted invalid affiliation and subsequently validated such affiliation under the ordinance, were in any way different from the college of the education society. When it granted affiliation for those other five colleges, its refusal to grant affiliation to the college of the education society, was wholly discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the constitution. The plea of the state government in its statement of objections that the granting of affiliation to other five colleges by the state government and the validation there of by means of an ordinance, could not confer on the education society a right to claim affiliation to its college, ignores the state's constitutional obligation not to discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. It was open to the state to refuse affiliation to all the colleges on the ground of non-fulfilment of conditions and requirements for granting affiliation. But, it cannot be heard to say that it was open to the state government to grant affiliation for such colleges which it chose and to refuse affiliation to other colleges which it did not so choose. Such action is plainly arbitrary and discriminatory. But, it cannot be heard to say that it was open to the state government to grant affiliation for such colleges which it chose and to refuse affiliation to other colleges which it did not so choose. Such action is plainly arbitrary and discriminatory. Perhaps, being aware of the unsustainability of its action, the government has not chosen to appeal from the common order of the learned single judge. " ( 32 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, i hold that the impugned order of the government is discriminatory and not in accordance with the Provisions of Section 53 of the act. ( 33 ) TAKING into consideration all the circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as an today, the institution cannot be found fault with on any of the grounds pointed out by the local inquiry committee in its report, Annexure-D , i make the following order : (1) the impugned order No. Hfw 166 mme 1992, dated 10-3-1993, contained in Annexure-L is quashed. Consequently the order dated 15-3-1993 of the second respondent contained in Annexure 'm' is set aside. (2) the second respondent-university is directed to constitute a special inquiry committee within 15 days here of to ascertain whether the institution in question is presently having the necessary infrastructure and has since set right some of the shortcomings pointed out in the report made by the previous local inquiry committee: if not whether the institution in question is capable of attaining the desired requirements and standards; (3) the additional report of the said committee, which would be an integral part of the report of the previous local inquiry committee, shall be submitted by the registrar of the second respondent university to the state government within one month hereof; (4) the first respondent will reconsider the whole issue of grant of affiliation on the basis of the aforesaid reports submitted by the registrar of the university. If the reports recommend grant of affiliation, the first respondent shall make its recommendation as provided in sub-section (5) of Section 53, for grant of the affiliation of the petitioner for affiliation, without taking into consideration the "need factor", and the second respondent university shall issue orders accordingly. The first respondent shall pass appropriate order within one month from the date of receipt of the report from the university. (5) no costs. The first respondent shall pass appropriate order within one month from the date of receipt of the report from the university. (5) no costs. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .