Judgment : The prayer in the writ petition was originally for the issue of a writ of mandamus, to direct the second respondent to grant affiliation to the Jayaram College of Engineering under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, (A.I.C.T.E.). The prayer has since been amended in W.M.P. No.16532 of 1994. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the second respondent to consider the application for the grant of affiliation for the year 1994-95 after making an inspection of the premises and without insisting on the prior permission of the State Government. 2. The petitioner-Trust was established in the year 1991. It is said to be a charitable and philanthropic trust for promoting the cause of education, the progress of the Rural people and the growth of Industrial and Technical Education. They filed an application on 21. 1993 before the third respondent seeking approval for the opening of an Engineering College with an intake of 60 students in three branches for the academic year 1993-94. The third respondent is the appropriate authority under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. Writ Petition No.17323 of 1993 was filed to compel the Council to pass orders on the application dated 21. 1993. Finally, the third, respondent granted approval on 14. 1994 for the academic year 1994-95 subject to certain conditions. Thereafter the petition filed an application on 210. 1993 to the second respondent seeking affiliation of the courses. According to the petitioner, the second respondent is insisting on a permission being granted by the State Government. The stand of the second respondent is totally unwarranted in view of the judgment of this Court in Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institutions v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1989 Writ L.R. 62. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The stand of the second respondent/ University has to be culled out from as many as three counter-affidavits the first filed on May, 1994, the second on 7. 1994 and the third on 27. 1994. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The stand of the second respondent/ University has to be culled out from as many as three counter-affidavits the first filed on May, 1994, the second on 7. 1994 and the third on 27. 1994. In the first counter-affidavit, it is stated that the application of the petitioner is premature and inasmuch as the approval had been granted only for the academic year 1994-95 there was no question of granting piece meal affiliation because affiliation means for the entire course as laid down by this Court in Noorul Islam Educational Trust v. Government of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1991 Mad. 141. Secondly, it is stated that the petitioner has yet to provide the infrastructural facilities. In the. second counter affidavit, it is stated that the Registrar had omitted to raise certain important grounds. In this counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner can if at all ask for consideration of his application and not for grant of affiliation. This is probably the reason why amendment was sought for by the petitioner. It is then stated that the University is adopting the conditions prescribed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.429, dated 14. 1984 while granting affiliation to a College. The University then says, “Apparently, the A.I.C.T.E. is awaiting the report of the Government of Tamil Nadu before actual order of approval is issued to the petitioner.” Again the counter-affidavit says, “Therefore, it is necessary for the petitioner to obtain a clearance certificate from the Government of Tamil Nadu for having satisfied with the conditions and norms prescribed by A.I.C.T.E. for this University to consider the application for affiliation. It is then contended that since the approval was granted only on 14. 1994 the question of affiliation can arise only for the academic year 1995-96. The counter-affidavit proceeds to say that the A.I.C.T.E. could not have granted a limited/temporary approval for the year 1994-95. The procedure for affiliation is said to be found in statutes 27 and 28 of Chapter XII issued under the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981. The third counter-affidavit was necessitated because the petitioner had filed an affidavit saying that in respect of certain institutions the second respondent had indeed granted temporary affiliation and there is no reason why the same should not be extended to the petitioner trust. The third counter-affidavit was necessitated because the petitioner had filed an affidavit saying that in respect of certain institutions the second respondent had indeed granted temporary affiliation and there is no reason why the same should not be extended to the petitioner trust. The counter-affidavit on this aspect says that it is true that the second respondent gave provisional affiliation for three institutions. It is stated that one of them alone is governed by A.I.C.T.E. Act. The concluding portion of this counter-affidavit lets the cat out of the bag. "Thus in all above cases, the University considered the colleges for affiliation, only on receipt of Government’s prior approval. There is not even a single instance in which the University had considered an institution for affiliation without the prior approval from the State Government. This is an established practice which is strictly adhered to by the University." 4. I am able to see considerable amount of confusion in the minds of the second respondent with reference to its powers, based on the several judgments of this Court as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P., A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178. It is however, clear from the counter-affidavits that the second respondent is obscessed by the thought that without the approval of the Government, they should not take any steps on the question of affiliation. It is rather surprising to note than the counter affidavit filed on 27. 1994, a portion of which I have quoted above, runs directly contrary to the judgments of this Court in Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institutions v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1989 Writ L.R. 62 and in Noorul Islam Educational Trust v. Government of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1991 Mad. 141. A responsible organisation like the second respondent should bestow more attention to the sworn statements made before court. In fact a reading of all the three counter-affidavits filed by the second respondent only shows that they have no inclination at all to consider the application of the petitioner. They have no clear stand in view of the judgments cited above. The Supreme Court has also pointed out the respective roles of the recognising authority and the affiliation authority in Unni Krishnan’s case. They have no clear stand in view of the judgments cited above. The Supreme Court has also pointed out the respective roles of the recognising authority and the affiliation authority in Unni Krishnan’s case. I am unable to see why the respective authorities should not limit and restrict their respective powers to the provisions of law contained in the respective powers to the provisions of law contained in the respective enactments. The question of approval and the period of approval is the headache of the A.I.C.T.E. When an application is presented to the University for affiliation their duty is only to proceed in accordance with the Statutes 27 and 28 of Chapter XII, issued under the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981. The second respondent is not unaware of its duty because the said provisions are referred to in the counter-affidavit dated 7. 1994. Their duty is only to call for information if necessary, or to proceed with the inspection of the premises by appointing a proper committee. If the A.I.C.T.E. has made a mistake in granting affiliation only for one year 1994-95 it does not mean that the second respondent should not consider the request for affiliation. 5. The second respondent repeatedly relies on the first clause of the approval of the A.I.C.T.E. dated 14. 1994, which calls upon the petitioner to provide for adequate infrastructural facility. That is a matter concerning A.I.C.T.E. and the University need not refer to the same. This is because in the very same letter A.I.C.T.E. indicates the action that will be taken in case of non-compliance with the conditions. The University being an independent statutory body should act in accordance with the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 instead of waiting for the other authorities like A.I.C.T.E. and the Government to pass orders. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, inasmuch as approval was granted by A.I.C.T.E. only for the year 1994-95, the University has necessarily got to consider the question of affiliation, for that year. That the University has granted such provisional affiliation in other cases is crystal clear from the third counter affidavit dated 27. 1994. Therefore, the refusal to consider the case of the petitioner is a clear act of discrimination. Either the university must say that the application seeking affiliation is rejected for any valid ground or they should proceed to consider the application in a manner known to law. 1994. Therefore, the refusal to consider the case of the petitioner is a clear act of discrimination. Either the university must say that the application seeking affiliation is rejected for any valid ground or they should proceed to consider the application in a manner known to law. They cannot adopt an attitude which keeps the petitioner always guessing as to the actual stand of the University. The University must know as to what are its requirements before the grant of affiliation. They are more concerned with the quality of teaching, the syllabi, and the standards of examination before the award of the degrees. May be, the question of technical training that has to be given to the students in an Engineering College is a matter for verification by the University. The time has come for delineating powers of the respective authorities so that one authority will not trespass into the activities and powers of the other authorities. Much has been said in this connection in Unni Krishnan’s case, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178 by the Apex Court. 6. I am satisfied that the second respondent has failed in its duty in not taking any positive action in the matter of grant of affiliation to the subject college in accordance with the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 and the statutes above referred to. As a first step they could have atleast directed a committee to inspect the institution. At the same time I must point out that the grant of affiliation cannot be taken for granted. The University has to consider all the aspects of the case before granting affiliation. Therefore, having regard to the stand taken by the respondents, I propose to give the following directions in the writ petition instead of the prayer sought for: (1) The second respondent will initiate action for the grant of affiliation by appointing necessary committee for inspecting the institution within six weeks from today. (2) The second respondent shall not insist upon any prior approval by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the grant to affiliation. (3) Depending upon the report of the inspection committee, the second respondent shall take further action in accordance with the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There will however, be no order as to costs.