JUDGMENT V. Ratnam, C. J—The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following main reliefs, viz : (i) that the respondent No. 2 may be directed to conduct the first year Annual Examinations of three years General Nursing Course of the Students of Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institute and Hospital, Pathankot, to be conducted in last week of October, 1993 ; (ii) That the respondent No. 2 may be directed to conduct the said Examination in the above said Institute or in the alternative in some other Institute by giving sufficient advance notice to the Institute ; (iii) That the respondent No. 2 may be directed to declare the result of the said examination ; (iv) That the respondent No. 2 may be directed to hold regular examinations in future for all the courses in accordance with the guidelines and instructions of Indian Nursing Council from time to time. 2. In so far as reliefs No. 1 to 3 prayed for by the petitioner and set out above are concerned, the petitioner cannot be given any relief at this stage with reference to the first year Annual Examination in October, 1993 and other related reliefs No. 2 and 3 above, as that examination had been held long back and the results had also been declared. What survives, therefore, for consideration, is relief No. 4. in regard to the holding of the regular examinations in future. The availability of that relief to the petitioner would depend upon whether any recognition had been accorded to the Institute said to be run by the petitioner by the proper authorities in that regard, as one which can impart instructions in Nursing conforming to the several academic requirements and laboratory needs etc. for imparting such instructions. It would, therefore, be necessary to make a reference to the provisions in the relevant enactment dealing with—Nursing in so far as State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned. By an Act called the Himachal Pradesh Nursus Registration Act, 1977, (Act No. 15 of 1978) thereinafter called as the Act provision made was for the registration of—Nurses, Health visitor, auxiliary nurse-midwife, and dai and the Act extends to the whole of Himachal Pradesh. Section 2 of the Act, defines among others, the word Council as meaning the Himachal Pradesh Nursus Registration Council, established under section 3. Section 2 of the Act, defines among others, the word Council as meaning the Himachal Pradesh Nursus Registration Council, established under section 3. Section 3 of the Act envisages the establishment and constitution of a Council known as "The Himachal Pradesh Nurses Registration Council for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Council shall consist of members as detailed in section 3 (2) of the Act. Section 3 (3) of the Act refers to the Council as a body corporate with the name, Himachal Pradesh Nurses Registration Council, having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall sue and be sued by the said name. Section 15 of the Act enables the Council to appoint a Registrar with the previous approval of the State Government. The duties of the Registrar have been enumerated under section 16 and one of such duties is to act as a Secretary to the Council. Section 17 of the Act provides for regulations to be made by the Council for all or any of the purposes set out therein and most of the regulations relate only to internal matters of the Council. Section 23 of the Act empowers the Council, after previous publication, to make bylaws. Under section 23 (a) of the Act, the council is empowered to prescribe the course of training of, and—qualification for the registration of nurses, health-visitors, midwives, auxiliary nurse, midwives, nurse-dais, trained dais or dais and to provide for the recognition of Institution competent to give such training. Sub-clause (g) of section 23 confers powers on the Council to psescribe the fee for affiliation of institutions recognised as training schools for nurses. Pursuant to section 3 of the Act, a Council had been constituted for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and that is not in dispute. From the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it follows that the Council established under section 3 of the Act has been enabled to make bye-laws to provide for recognition of institution competent to give training. Though it is not clear whether the Council in the exercise of its powers under section 23 of the Act, had made bye-laws to provide for recognition of institution competent to give such training, there cannot be and indeed there was no dispute that the Council has the power either to grant or refuse affiliation/recognition with or without condition. Though it is not clear whether the Council in the exercise of its powers under section 23 of the Act, had made bye-laws to provide for recognition of institution competent to give such training, there cannot be and indeed there was no dispute that the Council has the power either to grant or refuse affiliation/recognition with or without condition. The stand of the petitioner has also been that the Council had recognised and granted affiliation to the institute run by him, though, that had been seriously disputed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and this shall be adverted to in some detail later. 3. In the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it now becomes necessary to refer to the factual background in which the petitioner has prayed for relief No. 4, set out earlier. According to the petitioner, Gandhi Memorial Medical—Training Institute and Hospital, Pathankot, has been imparting training for basic courses in Nursing of three years duration comprised of two years theory and practice in general nursing and one year of community Health Nursing and Midwifery and that the institute has a hospital attached to it, besides other facilities like X-rays, E. C. C etc. Referring to the provisions of Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, the petitioner claimed that the nursing institute run by him fulfilled al! the requirements and the regulations framed by the Indian Nursing Council and had also applied for the affiliation to the Registrar, H. P. Nursing Council, Shimla, in August, 1992 and also approached the Indian Nursing Council to permit the institute run by the petitioner to impart—training in General Nursing. The petitioner maintained that the Indian Nursing Council allowed—Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institute to start the General Nursing Training as a special case, directing the institute to secure the approval of the State Nursing Council for affiliation. The petitioner also stated that the Himachal Pradesh State Nursing Council was directed to inspect the institute run by petitioner and submit— a report to the Indian Nursing Council with respect to the fulfilment of the requirements by the institute as laid down by the Indian Nursing Council. The communication dated 15-9-1992 stated to have been sent by one Mr. The petitioner also stated that the Himachal Pradesh State Nursing Council was directed to inspect the institute run by petitioner and submit— a report to the Indian Nursing Council with respect to the fulfilment of the requirements by the institute as laid down by the Indian Nursing Council. The communication dated 15-9-1992 stated to have been sent by one Mr. A. S. Verma, Assistant Secretary, to the petitioner at Pathankot was also attached to the writ petition as Annexure P-l. Subsequently according to the petitioner, pursuant to the letter Annexure P-l, the second respondent carried out an inspection between 20-10-1992 and 24-10-1992 and submitted a report to the third respondent as per Annexure P-2 dated 24-10-1992. The institute run by the petitioner, according to him, as per report, fulfilled all the requirements according to the syllabus of Indian Nursing Council. The report also, according to the petitioner, did not have any objection for according approval for the institute and give affiliation to it. The petitioner also stated that on 23-9-1992, a letter was addressed to the second respondent referring to the permission granted and requested that the affiliation forms be sent and also to intimate the amount of affiliation fee. The petitioner claimed that the institute also deposited the fee required for the affiliation purpose and that on 9-12-1992 a direction was given by the third respondent, Indian Nursing Council, to the second respondent to register the institute run by the petitioner with the State Council and accord affiliation/recognition. Pursuant to this, according to the petitioner, the second respondent, registered the institute with the Himachal Pradesh Nurses Registration Council as per letter dated 21-12-1992 (Annexure P-5) and directed the petitioner to deposit rupees one thousand in regard to which the petitioner stated that the amount of Rs. 1,000 had already been sent. To establish that the institute run by the petitioner had also been accorded recognition/affiliation, the petitioner also relied upon a letter dated 27-3-1993, sent by Mrs. R. D. Verma, to the Secretary to the third respondent to the effect that the institute run by the petitioner at Pathankot, is also one of the recognised Nursing Training Institutes. To establish that the institute run by the petitioner had also been accorded recognition/affiliation, the petitioner also relied upon a letter dated 27-3-1993, sent by Mrs. R. D. Verma, to the Secretary to the third respondent to the effect that the institute run by the petitioner at Pathankot, is also one of the recognised Nursing Training Institutes. The petitioner further stated that students were admitted to the first year with permission from the Indian Nursing Council and when the institute run by the petitioner wrote a letter to send the examination-forms for the first year examination to enable 27 students to appear in the examination, and also intimated that the examination forms would be submitted with late fee, the second respondent refused to accede to that and even after the petitioner had met the concerned officials, the students were not permitted to take the examination and despite a letter addressed by the third respondent to permit the students to take the examination, that was not so done and even thereafter the petitioner made representation repeatedly, but they were of no avail. The petitioner thus claimed that he had no other alternative except to approach this Court praying for the reliefs set out earlier, as the institute had been duly recognised/affiliated and had also fulfilled all the requirements and standards prescribed. It is also necessary at this stage to notice that by an order dated 19-10-1993 a direction was issued that the respondents should conduct special annual examination with respect to 27 students. However, the first respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 681 of 94. By judgment dated 7-2-1994, the Supreme Court took the view that the order passed by the High Court dated 19-10-1993 was wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained and ultimately set aside that older. In the course of those proceedings, the third respondent filed a counter before the Supreme Court in which it was stated that the order of the High Court was not erroneous, in any manner, and that it is open to an institute functioning outside a State to secure recognition/affiliation by Council within that State. Some instances were also referred to. In the course of those proceedings, the third respondent filed a counter before the Supreme Court in which it was stated that the order of the High Court was not erroneous, in any manner, and that it is open to an institute functioning outside a State to secure recognition/affiliation by Council within that State. Some instances were also referred to. Referring to the inspection made by the Assistant Director -cum-Registrar, Mrs R. D. Verma (since retired) it was stated that she was competent to conduct the inspection and recommend affiliation/recognition and recognition was granted in accordance with section 10 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947. Though in the course of the proceedings before the Supreme Court such a stand was taken by the third respondent, in the course of the present proceedings, the third respondent, though served, did not file any reply, either supporting or in opposition to the claim of the petitioner. 4. In the reply filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, they stated that the Act extends to whole of the Himachal Pradesh, whereas the institute of the petitioner is located outside the territory of Himachal Pradesh and he cannot, therefore, ask for recognition/affiliation. It was also stated that Mrs. R. D. Verma, who was then Assistant Director-cum-Registrar, H. P. Nurses Registration Council, Shimla—sent a report of inspection of the institute of the petitioner to the Additional Secretary of the third respondent and in that latter it had also been stated that the institute had been inspected between 20-10-1992 to 24-10-1992. In regard to this, respondents No. 1 and 2 stated that most of the record including papers relating to the institute of the petitioner remained in the custody of Mrs. R. D. Verma and even at the time of her relinquishing charge on superannuation, the papers were not handed over and despite a letter from the Director of Health Services to hand over the charge, she did not comply with the directions, which necessitated respondents No. 1 and 2 to register a case against her for keeping official records unauthorisedly. Despite this, according to respondents No. 1 and 2, Mrs. R. D. Verma had not handed over the papers/record and respondents No. I and 2, therefore, stated that they had no knowledge of the contents of the correspondence stated to have been exchanged by Mrs. Despite this, according to respondents No. 1 and 2, Mrs. R. D. Verma had not handed over the papers/record and respondents No. I and 2, therefore, stated that they had no knowledge of the contents of the correspondence stated to have been exchanged by Mrs. R. D. Verma with the petitioner institute and the third respondent. In regard to the permission granted by the Indian Nursing Council, respondents No. 1 and 2 stated that the Council might have allowed the petitioner to start a General Nursing T.aining about which they did not have any knowledge and that the Indian Nursing Council gives permission to any institute on the recommendation of the State Government and Nursing Council of the State, as seen, from the letter dated 3-1M 992, addressed by the Assistant Secretary (Admn.) Indian Nursing Council to the Assistant Director Health Services-cum Registrar, H, P. Nurses Registration Council, with a copy endorsed to the Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Respondents No. 1 and 2 categorically stated that the petitioner had failed to produce any material to establish the securing of affiliation/recognition from the H. P. Nurses Registration Council or permission to start and run the classes. With reference to the institute run by the petitioner, respondents No. 1 and 2 had also addressed a communication to the third respondent informing that their office had no information about the inspection of the institution and the subsequent recognition given by Smt. R. D. Verma and that any action taken by her was only in her personal capacity, as there was absolutely no record whatever to suggest that Mrs. Verma had brought the matter to the notice of the Himachal Pradesh Nurses Registration Council. Consistent with this letter, respondents No. 1 and 2 put forward the plea that any action taken by Smt. Verma in regard to the institute run by the petitioner must have been only in her personal capacity and not on behalf of the Council. It was also stated that the petitioner had failed to produce any document to establish that he had been permitted by the H P Nurses Registration Council to run the General Nurses Training Course. It was also stated that the petitioner had failed to produce any document to establish that he had been permitted by the H P Nurses Registration Council to run the General Nurses Training Course. Referring to the return of the examination forms, it was stated that as the institution of the petitioner was not recognised and registered with the H. P. Nurses Registration Council, the forms had been returned and the affiliation fee and the admission fee had all been returned. Respondents No. 1 and 2 thus maintained that as the appropriate authority to accord recognition/ affiliation had not granted the same to the institution run by the petitioner, it cannot be stated to have been properly accorded recognition/affilition and it was also stated that the Council functioning within the territory of Himachal Pradesh cannot also accord recognition to an institution in Pathankot in Punjab. Respondents No. 1 and 2 also stated that the petitioner was repeatedly informed that the examination cannot be conducted by the H. P. Nurses Registration Council for want of valid and proper affiliation/recognition by H. P. State Nurses Registration Council and the location of the institute of the petitioner being outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. The alleged affiliation/recognition stated to have been granted by Mrs. R. D Verma—at the instance of the third respondent was characterised to be invalid and the non-holding of the examination was justified on this ground. Respondents No. 1 and 2 also referred in the circumstance that earlier, the petitioner was running Manoj Nursing Training Institute and Hospital which was recognised by the Punjab Nurses Registration Council upto 30-11-1989 and that on receipt of some complaints and the holding of an enquiry and submission of a report, the recognition/affiliation granted was withdrawn by the Punjab Nurses Registration Council and the petitioner merely changed the name of the institution in order to get recognition/affiliation from the H. P. Nurses Registration Council and that Council is not competent to grant affiliation/ recognition to an institute located outside the territory of Himachal Pradesh. 5. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, it was reiterated that the institute run by the petitioner was granted recognition/affiliation properly and that the acts of the Registrar of H. P. Nurses Registration Council were quite in order. 5. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, it was reiterated that the institute run by the petitioner was granted recognition/affiliation properly and that the acts of the Registrar of H. P. Nurses Registration Council were quite in order. An attempt was also made to make it appear that Manoj Nursing Training Institute and Hospital earlier run was at different location within the municipal limits of Pathankot, while the present institution is located at a distance of 4 k. ms. away from the municipal limits and in new building and, therefore, closure of Manoj Nursing Institute had nothing to do with the commencement of another Nursing Institute by the petitioner. In a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, Annexures RA to RC, with reference to the antecedents of the institution run by the petitioner earlier and also the irregularity of the proceedings in regard to the recognition of the institution run by the petitioner, by the third respondent, have been placed on record and a reference to them will also be made in the course of the judgment. This was, no doubt, objected to by the petitioner in reply to the supplementary affidavit, where it was stated that the facts sought to be established by Annexures RA to RC were not relevant for the present purposes. 6. From the statutory provisions earlier referred to, it is clear that only the Council constituted under section 3 of the Act can provide for recognition of the institution competent to give Nursus Training. In this case, it is seen that the petitioner has not been able to place before the Court any proceedings or communication according sanction/affiliation to the institution run by the petitioner, by the H. P. Nurses Registration Council, constituted under section 3 of the Act. In its absence, any amount of recommendation or even recognition by other bodies or individuals, will not enable the institution run by the petitioner to claim that it had been accorded affiliation/re cognition by an authority competent to do so, under the provision of the Act. The whole thrust of the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the third respondent and the Registrar of H. P. Nurses Registration Council have exchanged correspondence with reference to the according of recognition/affiliation to the institute started and run by the petitioner and that would suffice. The whole thrust of the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the third respondent and the Registrar of H. P. Nurses Registration Council have exchanged correspondence with reference to the according of recognition/affiliation to the institute started and run by the petitioner and that would suffice. No doubt, there has been some correspondence, but we are unable to appreciate the role played by Mrs. R. D. Verma against whom respondents No. 1 and 2 were also obliged to lodge a police complaint, regarding retention of official record, particularly relating to the Institute of the petitioner, even after superannuation No material has been placed to show that Mrs. R. D. Verma, was, in any manner, authorised by the Council either to initiate steps for according recognition/affiliation to the institute run by the petitioner or even to make an inspection. The third respondent has directed Mrs. R. D. Verma to make an inspection for the purpose of according affiliation/recognition, while the only authority concerned, namely, the H. P. Nurses Registration Council, had not asked her to do so. The reliance placed by the petitioner upon the correspondence between the third respondent and Mrs. R. D. Verma cannot, in our view, help the petitioner, for, even as per Annexure P-l, dated 15-9-1992, the third respondent had allowed the petitioner to start the General Nursing Training as a special case. What authority the third respondent had in that regard is not very clear. Added to that, the third respondent had also indicated that the approval of the State Nursing Council would be necessary and the H. P. Nurses Registration Council is directed to inspect the institute. According of approval by the H. P. Nurses Registration Council is a matter to be dealt with by that Council and not by any other Council and the direction given by the third respondent to inspect and submit a report and do other things is, therefore, not at all in order. The submission of the report under Annexure P.-2 is also, therefore, not of any importance, as such inspection and submission of report had been brought about by an authority, who had nothing whatever to do with the question of affiliation/recognition Annexure P-4 dated 9-12-1992, is very interesting. The submission of the report under Annexure P.-2 is also, therefore, not of any importance, as such inspection and submission of report had been brought about by an authority, who had nothing whatever to do with the question of affiliation/recognition Annexure P-4 dated 9-12-1992, is very interesting. By that, the third respondent instructs the Registrar of H. P. Nurses Registration Council to register the institute run by the petitioner with the Council and also give affiliation/recognition. Obviously, the direction by the third respondent could not have been given, as it had no authority or power whatever to do so. In response to Annexure P-4, Mrs. R. D. Verma addressed a communication to the Director Medical Superintendent, Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institute, Pathankot (Punjab), (Petitioner) to the effect that as per instruction of the third respondent, the institute of the petitioner is registered with the H. P, Nurses Registration Council and a sum of Rs. 1,000 should be deposited on account of registration fee. The petitioner under Annexure P-6 promptly informed Mrs. R. D. Verma that a cheque for Rs. 1,000 had already been sent and a request has also been made that in the list of registered Nursing Training Institutes that may be sent to the third respondent, the name of the Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institute and Hospital, should also be included. Accordingly, in Annexure P-8, it is seen that in a communication addressed to the third respondent, the name of Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institute and Hospital, Pathankot, has been included as a recognised Nursing Training Institute. It is obvious from the manner in which the correspondence had been exchanged between the third respondent, Mrs. R. D. Verma and the petitioner that they have completely by passed the H. P. Nursus Registration Council, which is the only authority which was competent to consider and grant affiliation/recognition and had proceeded to make it appear as if institute had been recognised/affiliated and, therefore, entitled to admit students and to compel the holding of the examinations. This is not all. This is not all. From Annexure RA, it is seen that even as late as September, 1993, respondents 1 and 2 addressed a letter to the third respondent stating that they have no information of the inspection of the institution and the subsequent recognition given by Smt. R. D. Verma and that whole thing had been done by her only in her personal capacity, as there was no record to support that. This letter also indicates that respondents 1 and 2 were kept completely in the dark by the third respondent and Mrs. R. D. Verma and they had manoeuvred to secure the so called recognition/affiliation at the instance of third respondent and not through the concerned Council, which is the only authority, which can deal with the request for affiliation/recognition. Again under Annexure RB while returning the examination forms of the candidates, the petitioner had been very clearly informed by respondents No. 1 and 2 that there are no records available in the Directorate regarding the inspection and also the location of the Institution whether in Punjab or in Himachal Pradesh and that affiliation to institution outside Himachal Pradesh, is not granted. Annexure RC is a communication addressed by the Registrar of Punjab Nurses Registration Council to the Assistant Director of Health Services-cum-Registrar, H. P. Nurses Registration Council, Shimla. That communication is revealing. Therein it had been stated that Manoj Nursing Training Institute Dalhousie Road, Pathankot and Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institute and Hospital, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot are one and the same institution which are run by the petitioner, who has changed the name with a view to mislead the innocent people and also the H. P. Nurses Registration Council. The communication proceeded to state that Manoj Nursing Training Institute was recognised by the Punjab Nurses Registration Council till 30-11-1989 and on receipt of complaint by students and parents, an enquiry was made through the Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, who submitted a report and a copy thereof was also enclosed The letter further stated that the petitioner filed CWP No. 6678 of 1990 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the report of the Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur and the Court had directed that the institution should be de-recognised before 30-11-1989 and the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab and another should re-examine the matter regarding the grant of recognition/ affiliation to that institution. The question of cancellation of the licences of Dr. Goverdhan Datt Sharma, petitioner, and his wife were also directed to be considered. Besides, it had also been stated that the licence of G. D. Sharma had been cancelled by the Punjab Medical Council and further proceedings taken by him challenging the same were not successful. The communication wound up by saying that the institution of the petitioner is functioning within the State of Punjab and no other Council other than Punjab Nurses Council can deal with its recognition/affiliation and that the H. P. Nurses Registration Council is incompetent to grant recognition/affiliation to any institution within the State of Punjab. That there have been some irregularities in the so called grant of affiliation/ recognition to the institute run by the petitioner is also made out by Annexure RA to the supplementary affidavit by respondents No. 1 and 2. The Registrar of Punjab Nurses Registration Council had addressed a communication to the President of the third respondent to the effect that with reference to the proceedings circulated to the members for the meeting of the Council on 17-2-1994—item No. 32 relating to the question of recognition of Gandhi Memorial Institute and Training Hospital, Pathankot affiliated with H. P. Nurses Registration Council Shimla, had been prepared and circulated wrongly, as the Council did not resolve to write to H. P. Nursing Registration Council to inspect the institution but that it was decided to public a news item that this institute is not affiliated to any Council and no student should take admission in that institution. The letter has also charged the Assistant Secretary, Mr. A. S. Verma with manipulating the subjects for consideration and had requested the President to take immediate action. A copy of that letter had been forwarded to the second respondent as well as to Mr. A. S. Verma, Assistant Secretary of the third respondent. From the contents of" Annexure RA, it is obvious that in order to support what had been done pursuant to Annexures P-l, P-2, P-4 and P 5, the third respondent had even gone to the extent of manipulating the subjects for consideration at the meeting held on 17-2-1994 and this had naturally invited a protest from the Registrar of Punjab Nurses Registration Council. That is not all. That is not all. Annexure RB is a report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner in regard to the affairs of Manoj Nursing Training Institute, Pathankot. The scope of the enquiry was to look into the allegations levelled against Manoj Nursing Training Institute from the point of view of extortions, harassment and intimidation of the trainee nurses. At the time when the Inquiry Officer visited, the parents/guardians of nearly 21 complainants, whose names are also mentioned in the complaint, were present and the Inquiry Officer found that some labourers working on the construction site were directed to lie on the beds posing to be patients, at the behest of the petitioner and his wife. The Inquiry Officer also found that the students were forced to go home and bring Rs. 1,000 each as they failed to get admitted two patients and when the students wanted to rejoin, the petitioner and his wife insisted that the students should bring Rs. 15,000 as penalty. Likewise, the Inquiry Officer was informed that a sum of Rs. 15,000 was demanded from each trainee before issuing a certificate. Another student, whose cousin managed to get the training certificate issued from Chandigarh was made to pay Rs. 15,000 and on her failure to do so, she was not allowed to re-enter the hostel. It was also reported to the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner even attempted to flirt with them in the absence of his wife and also tried to entice them, even. According to the complainants, they were fined on flimsy grounds like speaking in Punjabi, washing clothes without prior permission, switching on the electric fan before 5 Oclock etc. etc. There were also numerous other complaints against the petitioner and his wife, in regard to demands, humiliation, levy of fines etc. After enquiring into all these complaints, the Inquiry Officer wound up his report by stating that "it is amply clear that Dr. G. D. Sharma and his wife are deliberately exploiting the helplessness of the girls who were undertaking training there in Manoj Nursing Training Institute. Once the parents/guardians are entrapped into the idea of making their daughters trained nurses and they get their daughters admitted in the institute after paying fat donations and signing bonds, the story of their mental, physical and financial exploitation at the hands of the doctor couple starts. Once the parents/guardians are entrapped into the idea of making their daughters trained nurses and they get their daughters admitted in the institute after paying fat donations and signing bonds, the story of their mental, physical and financial exploitation at the hands of the doctor couple starts. The hair raising facts stated by the under-training nurses are an eye opener for the society in which we live. Manoj Nursing Institute and other a like institutes, are a slur on our society. The girls are undergoing hell in the institute where they are living in perpetual fear of what more torture the next dawn would bring Slavery which ceased to exist a century back as is generally believed, is very much alive in the institute-thriving and flourishing. The century old slavery was physical—but the slavery found in this Institute is worse, it is not only physical but mental also. All the allegations levelled against the doctor couple are absolutely true. This Nursing Training Institute should be ordered to be closed and the girls who are undergoing training should be shifted to other institutes so that their career and the money already spent by their poor parents do not go waste and action taken against the doctor couple for mentally, physically and financially exploiting the trainee nurses". To this report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate, the original complaints were also enclosed. From the contents of the report referred to, it is obvious that all was not well with the Institute run by the petitioner under the name of Manoj Nursing Institute. If there had been irregularity, the report submitted would not have been what it was. Dis-satisfied with the report so submitted by the Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, the petitioner moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 6678 of 90. A Division Bench (vide Annexure RC) referring to the enquiry report of the Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, stated that the report warranted the registration of a criminal case and when the court was informed that a criminal case had already been registered, the court proceeded to state that as the petitioner had obtained an order from the Civil Court restraining the Indian Nursing Council and another from cancelling the registration/ affiliation, it was not necessary to do anything further, as the registration/ affiliation would be only till 30-11-1989 and no more. Even so, the Court stated that it was necessary to issue a direction to the Director, Health Services, Punjab and President of the Punjab State Nursing Council to re-examine the matter regarding the grant of registration/affiliation to the petitioner institute, keeping in view the report of the Additional District Magistrate and other relevant material and that a thorough probe would be imperative and unless and until fresh legist ration/affiliation is granted by Punjab State Nursing Council, the petitioner institute was debarred from running it, as such, or from conducting any courses in Nursing. In addition, the Court also directed the concerned authorities to consider the cancellation of the licence of Dr.. Goverdhan Datt Sharma and his wife Dr. Sandhya Sharma, keeping in view the said report of the Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur. From Annexure RD, it is evident that an enquiry was conducted as directed by the High Court and the licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the Punjab Medical Council and that was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court. It also appears from Annexure RD that even on behalf of the third respondent, it was accepted that the State Nursing Council is competent to grant ^recognition/affiliation to the institute. 7. Thus from the documents referred to earlier, it is seen that the petitioner has not obtained recognition/affiliation from the council constituted under section 3 of the Act but from others, which cannot be accepted to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act, particularly sub-clause (a) of section 23 of the Act. The reliance placed upon the correspondence exchanged between Mr. A S. Verma and Mrs R. D. Verma, does not, in any manner, advance the case of the petitioner, for, as pointed out earlier, the concerned Council had not, in any manner, authorised either an inspection of the institute run by the petitioner or even to consider the question of granting or refusing affiliation/recognition. A careful consideration of the correspondence leaves the Court with the impression that Mr. A. S. Verma and Mrs. A careful consideration of the correspondence leaves the Court with the impression that Mr. A. S. Verma and Mrs. R. D. Verma had, for reasons which are not very clear, thought fit to join hands in order to make it appear that the institution run by the petitioner had been inspected and also found to fulfil all the requirements justifying the grant of recognition/ affiliation, which was also directed to be given by the third respondent, when it had no authority or power to do so. The very inclusion of this subject relating to the petitioner as an item for consideration, had drawn protest on the ground that the item had been multipulated to be brought in and this also shows that after making it appear that the institute run by the petitioner had been inspected and found to satisfy all the requirements, and had also been granted recognition/affiliation, as one of the institutes under the H P. Nursing Registration Council, further efforts were made to put the seal of approval, by the third respondent and the petitioner, thereon. Again the antecedents of the petitioner and his wife are not at all satisfactory, as can be seen from the report of the Additional District Magistrate and the judgment of the High Court, referred to earlier. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court that the H. P. Nurses Registration Council had cleared the institution run by the petitioner for its recognition/affiliation Indeed, it could not have been so, for the reason that the Act under which such registration could be permitted, cannot have extra territorial operation, so as to include an institution, which is admittedly run in Pathankot in Punjab State. 8. Thus on a consideration of the facts emerging from a careful scrutiny of the records, it is clearly established that the petitioner has not made out his case that the institute run by him had been granted affiliation/recognition by the H. P. Nurses Registration Council, which is the only competent authority, exercising its powers under section 23 (a) of the Act, and the petitioner is, therefore, not in order in praying for the relief that the examination should be held regularly in future, in relation to an unrecognised and unaffiliated institute. 9. 9. It may also be noticed that the students now in this institution have filed CMP No. 502 of 94, to implead them as party respondents. Even that application has proceeded only on the footing that institute is duly recognised and affiliated and satisfies all the requirements and standards and it is, therefore, not in order to refuse holding of the examination. Earlier, a refererence had been made to the order passed by this Court on 19-10-1993 and it has been set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 681 of 94 on 7-2-1994. Thus even at the out set, the students had not been permitted to take the examination. They cannot now put forward any case of prejudice caused to them. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the students invited our attention to a few decisions of the Supreme Court to the effect that the case of the students should be viewed with sympathy and consideration. However, on the facts of this case and the manoeuvres and manipulations resorted to by the petitioner, Mr. A. S. Verma on behalf of the third respondent and Mrs. R. D. Verma, to make it appear that recognition/affiliation had been secured by the petitioner, the case of the students, which is identical to that of the petitioner, cannot be viewed differently. CMP No. 502 of 94, is, therefore, dismissed. 10. Thus the only relief in the circumstances now available to the petitioner and prayed for, cannot be granted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs of respondents No. 1 and 2. Counsels fee Rs. 3,000. This judgment is being signed and pronounced by one of us (A. L. Vaidya, J.) because the other member of the Bench, Honble V. Ratnam, C. J., is not available on his appointment as Governor, Himachal Pradesh, on 10th July, 1994, and demitting his office of C. J. on 31st July, 1994. However, in his capacity as C. J. his lordship has agreed to the judgment and consented to its pronouncement. Petition dismissed.