H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 2 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has sought the issuance of writ of mandamus for direction to the opposite party-third respondent to accord sanction to petitioner-Society to start an engineering college at Thana Kushnoor, Taluk Aurad, District bidar, on the basis of recommendations of Gulbarga University, gulbarga and for other reliefs. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a registered society and according to petitioner's case, the petitioner wanted to start an engineering college in the backward area of the Bidar District. According to petitioner's case, the petitioner had been running Jawaharlal nehru Polytechnic at Thana Kushnoor, Taluk Aurad, District bidar and thereafter, they resolved to approach the Government and the Vice-Chancellor, Gulbarga University, for being permitted to start an engineering college in the campus of the society of Jawaharlal Nehru Polytechnic referred to above and passed a resolution. Petitioner's case is that in pursuance of resolution dated 11-11-1987 petitioner-Society moved an application to Gulbarga University on 14-11-1987 and also deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the second respondent, that is University by way of demand draft as per annexures-C and C1. The Gulbarga University called was pleased to constitute a Committee to consider the application of the petitioner and other colleges for establishment. After inspection, etc. , by letter dated 7-4-1988, on the recommendation of the Committee, the Gulbarga University, Gulbarga, informed the first respondent that University has recommended the sanctioning of the engineering college and that the application and the report of the Committee were being forwarded to the respondent 1 as per Annexure-F, dated 7-4-1988. The petitioner had written another letter to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the government of Karnataka on 5-8-1988 and requested for sanction of an engineering college being granted on the basis of the recommendations of the Gulbarga University. Petitioner's case is that "the Government has so far not taken any action on the said letter". Though according to petitioner, the institution as started by the petitioner, was the only institution that had been recommended by the Local Inspection Committee and gulbarga University. Petitioner's case is that "the Government has so far not taken any action on the said letter". Though according to petitioner, the institution as started by the petitioner, was the only institution that had been recommended by the Local Inspection Committee and gulbarga University. The petitioner's case is that no doubt people's Education Society and Christian Association have been granted the permission, but no orders appear to have been passed so far on the application of the petitioner which had been recommended by the Gulbarga University and follow-up action was by way of letter dated 5-9-1988 addressed to the Chief minister. ( 4 ) I have heard the petitioner's Counsel. The petitioner's Counsel submitted that the petitioner's application for permission to start the engineering college, to the petitioner's knowledge, has neither been sanctioned nor rejected and it appears the same has not been disposed of and is kept pending. I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 5 ) UNDER the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, as per Section 3 thereof, the State Government has been conferred with power subject to sub-section (3) of Section 1, to regulate general education, professional education, medical education, technical education, commerce education and special education at all levels in accordance with the provisions of the Act and sub-section (2) provides that Government is empowered specifically with the above objective in view, to establish and maintain educational institutions as well as to permit any local authority or private body of persons to establish educational institutions and maintain them in accordance with such specifications as may be prescribed. It has also been conferred power to require registration of educational institutions as well as to confer recognition of the educational institutions and to grant aid to any recognised educational institutions in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Section 3 confers power on the State Government to regulate the admission including the power to fix and determine the minimum and maximum number of the students that may be admitted to the courses in educational institutions and prescribe conditions for the legibility of or for admission to educational institutions and such other powers as mentioned in Section 3. Section 6 of the education Act provides that no educational institution shall be established and maintained otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and Rules framed thereunder. Section 6 of the education Act provides that no educational institution shall be established and maintained otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and Rules framed thereunder. A reading of these provisions per se reveals that no educational institution can be started and established except in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act and the government has been given power to permit or not to permit the establishment of an educational institution by a private body, that is, it leads as a necessary implication that no educational institution can be started by a private person or by a local body without the permission of the State Government. When the power has been given to the State Government to permit or not to permit and when a school cannot be started without permission, the private person or body or society if he desires to start an educational institution, no doubt it is necessary that he should seek the permission of the Government in that regard and the Government should dispose of the matters by passing necessary orders within reasonable time. In the present case, it appears that application of the petitioner had been forwarded by the Gulbarga University with the recommendations of the committee to the Government for consideration and orders on the application in the matter of granting permission to start engineering college, and this application was recommended sometimes on 7th of April, 1988 as per Annexure-F and the petitioner had also moved another application to the Chief minister on 5th September, 1988. The petitioner's case is that nothing has been communicated to the petitioner. Government should have disposed of the matter within a reasonable time. But it has not yet been done, and his application has not been disposed of. ( 6 ) SUBSEQUENT developments have taken place and Act,namely All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1993 has come into force and under that Act, in the matter of technical education, the power to grant sanction has been conferred on that Technical Education Council. There is no use to issue any mandamus to the Government in regard to the previous application for the purpose of this case. There is no use to issue any mandamus to the Government in regard to the previous application for the purpose of this case. The appropriate course in such a case is for the petitioner to move a fresh application before the Technical Council mentioning the fact that he had already moved and that no action on that application and in this new situation, the fresh application is moved, so that the Council may expeditiously dispose of the matter. ( 7 ) WITH these observations, the writ petition is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous in view of subsequent enactment of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1993, and it is clarified that it is open to the petitioner to apply to the Technical Council. Petition is finally disposed of. --- *** --- .