M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS group of W. Ps. can be conveniently disposed of through a common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners were originally granted permission to run a C. P. E. D. Course at Algacadi, Chitradurga Taluka, during the academic year 1985-86. According to them, after running for three years, the institution closed down in 1990 for want of students. They thereafter, contend that they shifted to Hubli in the year 1995-96 because there is a lot of demand for the running of such courses in that place. It is their case that the local authorities supported their efforts and that they have applied to the concerned authorities for formal permission to shift the institution to that place. Petitioners have also relied on the fact that they have applied to the Chief Minister of Karnataka to consider their request and they have produced the reply dt. 15-7-1995 from the Chief Minister of this State mentioning that the matter has been forwarded to the Education Secretary - 2 for examination and doing the needful. ( 3 ) THIS is one more case where this Court has come across references to M. L. As. and Ministers or the Chief Minister. This Court not only disapproves of any such oblique influences being used, but specifically deprecates this practice. This is an improper and wrong practice and a situation where the authority is being misused, the reason for it is that there are well defined rules and regulations made by the Education Department and by the Universities and what is sought to be done is that these rules are being by-passed by using political clout as has happened in the present case. In the view of this Court, even such representations are made, the elected representative must inform the person concerned that the application must be made to the prescribed authorities and that it will be considered on merits. This Court categorised the present situation as a wrong practice and requires to amplify as to why this is so. In the given instance, Annexure- 'c' to the petition is a letter from the Chief Minister of the State who is the highest authority of the Government. This Court categorised the present situation as a wrong practice and requires to amplify as to why this is so. In the given instance, Annexure- 'c' to the petition is a letter from the Chief Minister of the State who is the highest authority of the Government. When such a letter is received by the Education Secretary who is a subordinate officer of the Government, there is a lot of undue influence that carries along with this letter, but more importantly, irrespective of what the rules provide for, the subordinate officer will not be in a position to reject the application even if the petitioners are under- serving. What is even more damaging is that if at all the subordinate officer were to stand his ground and reject the application, that in keeping with the situation now prevalent, the officer concerned is bound to run into serious problems inevitably, with the politician concerned hitting back at him resulting in victimization, harassment and in all probability, transfer to some remote area which is regarded as a punishment station. The education field has been completely ruined thanks to political influence and it is for this reason that this Court must deprecate such efforts in the strongest of terms. ( 4 ) THE petitioners' learned advocate sought to submit that if there is valid ground such as the non-availability of the students, that the permission granted to the petitioners cannot be taken as having lapsed and that consequently, it is wrong on the part of the authorities to straight away categorise the petitioners as an unrecognised institution. He submits that this aspect of the matter is pending decision and that therefore, on the special facts of this case, the institution cannot straight away be bracketted in the category of unrecognised institutions. Since the decision is required to be taken by the National Council for Teachers Education Act and its Regional Committee at Bangalore, this Court refrains from making any observations with regard to this issue, because the grievance projected to the Court is that this point should have been decided and that it has not been done. Since the decision is required to be taken by the National Council for Teachers Education Act and its Regional Committee at Bangalore, this Court refrains from making any observations with regard to this issue, because the grievance projected to the Court is that this point should have been decided and that it has not been done. The petitioner No. 1 is permitted to file an application to the Regional Council which must be done within a period of latest by one month from today and the Regional Council shall, having regard to the urgency of the matter, take a decision within a period of four weeks. This time period is necessary because this Court has, by an interim order, permitted the exam fees to be accepted and the petitioners have been permitted in the special facts and circumstances of this case, to take the practical exam. The theory exams are due to commence on 2-5-1996 and therefore, it would be necessary that the Regional Committee indicates its decision prior to that date. If for any reason, the decision cannot be given some time before the commencement of the exam, it shall be open to the Regional Committee to consider the question as to whether it is inclined to permit the students to take the exams subject to whatever decision the Committee may take. It is only because of the unusual facts of this case, that these directions are being issued. ( 5 ) THE authorities point out that assuming without admitting, that the petitioners would have been within their rights to re-start their institution at the original place, that nothing can justify their having started it at Hubli. Learned Government Advocate submits that the institution at Hubli is clearly and completely unauthorised in so far as it is condition precedent even in the case of recognised institutions that prior permission of the concerned authorities must be obtained before shifting of the institution. The case of the authorities is that when an educational institution seeks to shift from one place to the other, that it is equally necessary for a re-examination of all factors including the question as to whether there is scope for such an institution in the new area. The case of the authorities is that when an educational institution seeks to shift from one place to the other, that it is equally necessary for a re-examination of all factors including the question as to whether there is scope for such an institution in the new area. They therefore, submit that in the absence of an examination of these factors and permission to recommence at the new area, that the petitioners are on par with an unauthorised institution in Hubli. This aspect of the matter also will have to be examined by the Regional Council and appropriate orders be passed thereon after hearing what the petitioners have to say in support of their case. ( 6 ) WITH these directions, this group of petitions to stand disposed of. It is clarified that the petitioners shall not admit any new students unless and until favourable orders are passed by the Regional Council and furthermore, that the petitioners-students shall not be permitted to take the theory exams unless and until the Council either passes final orders in their favour or permits them to do so through an interim order. ( 7 ) PETITION to stand disposed of. No order as to costs. ( 8 ) LEARNED Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks. Orders accordingly. --- *** --- .