D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE Pranabandhu Institute of Para Medical Science and Technology through its Director Dr. S. C. Das is aggrieved by the inaction of the All India Council for Technical Education (opp. party no. 3) and the Pharmacy Council of India (opp. party no. 4) for not approving the pharmacy course of the institution for the session 1996-97 as per Government refusal intimation dated 27-11-96 (Annex. 13 ). ( 2 ) PETITIONER's case is, it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act its aim being, to promote the technical education in the field of pharmacy, to meet the need of the society as well as for creating potentiality for self-employment. The institute is named after a well known freedom fighter Late Pranabandhu the father of its Director Dr. S. C. Das. It applied to the State Government for permission in the year 1993 and the Government after getting the institution inspected by the D. M. E. T. and Dr. Mrs. Manorama Das and being satisfied that all the infrastructures were available issued 'no Objection Certificate' dated 13-6-96 (Annexure 2) thereby permitting for admission of 40 students as intake capacity for the session 1996-97 with a condition that the institute besides complying with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Unikrishnan should obtain affiliation from the Orissa State Board of Pharmacy. It is further case of the petitioner that after obtaining no objection certificate from the Government it moved through the D. M. E. T. (opp. party no. 2) the above two authorities for approval of the course. It is claimed that although the institute complied with all the conditions as per Education Regulation 91 and the guideline of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and also duly submitted the application forms in time with all necessary documents, yet opposite parties 3 and 4 did not accord approval. ( 3 ) IT is the case of opposite party no. 3, the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, 'aicte') that the institute did not comply with the various requirements under the Education Regulations, 1991 and further, the institute failed to submit the proposal in time for which it was not possible to initiate any action for approval. Opp. party no. 3, the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, 'aicte') that the institute did not comply with the various requirements under the Education Regulations, 1991 and further, the institute failed to submit the proposal in time for which it was not possible to initiate any action for approval. Opp. party no. 4, the Pharmacy Council of India (for short, 'pci') stated in the counter that on verification of the application, since some deficiencies were noticed, it asked the petitioner to resubmit the application after full compliance. It is their case that the petitioner did not rectify the defects so pointed. Therefore it did not give approval for the course. Opp. party no. 2, the D. M. E. T. took the stand that in the absence of approval from the AICTE Government did not include the petitioner-institute in the list of approved institutions and this was intimated to the petitioner under the impugned Annexure 13. ( 4 ) MR. S. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner took us to the contents of the writ application, counter-affidavits and the various annexures to the writ petition. It was strenuously urged that even though the petitioner-institute has complied with all statutory requirements and had submitted the proposal for approval to opposite parties 3 and 4 in time, yet because of the total inaction of the opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 the institute has suffered great loss. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned counsel for opp. parties 4 and 5, on the other hand, took us to the various sections of the Pharmacy Act and advanced extensive arguments submitting that it is the Pharmacy Council of India who is the sole authority to accord approval and unless this is done no technical institution can be started. Referring to Annexures A/4, B/4 and C/4 Mr. Mohanty urged that these documents would indicate that opp. party no. 4 pointed out deficiencies in the application form and asked the institute to rectify them in time which the institute did not do for which no approval could be granted. Mr. J. S. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 also took this Court to various points and also advanced arguments submitting that there was no laches on the part of this opposite party since the proposal of the institute for conducting the course for the session 1996-97 was not received in time. Mr. J. S. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 also took this Court to various points and also advanced arguments submitting that there was no laches on the part of this opposite party since the proposal of the institute for conducting the course for the session 1996-97 was not received in time. The rival contentions of the respective counsel for the parties need examination. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner-institute was registered in the year 1992 and it applied to the State Government on 26-12-93 in the prescribed pro forma for permission. The Government issued no objection certificate under Annexure 2 dated 13-6-96 with certain conditions of which two were essential and pre-requisite for starting the course and they were firstly that, the institute should get the approval of the PCI and the AICTE and secondly that, the institute should obtain affiliation from opposite party no. 5. Copy of this no objection letter was sent to opposite parties 3, 4 and 5. Under Annexure 6 dated 19-6-96, the institute wrote to the Secretary of the State Board (opp. party no. 5) mentioning about the no objection certificate issued by the Government wherein it requested opp. party no. 5 to grant necessary affiliation to the institute. The Board under Annexure 11 dated 12-7-96 clearly took the stand that the same was only an "examining authority" under the Education Regulation, 1991 and can only issue consent to hold the examination subject to inspection to be conducted by the team of inspectors of the Board. The matter of inspection and issue of consent thereof would be discussed in the next meeting of the Board. So far admission of students was concerned, in the said letter opp. party no. 5 advised the institute to contact the Selection and Admission Cell formed by the Government and functioning at the S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack in the Pharmacology Department. As regards approval of the course to be conducted, the Board directed the institute to contact the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi in the matter. From the above letter of the Board it is clear that the Board is an examining authority and it has nothing to do with the selection/admission of the students, nor it was an authority to have any say in the matter of sufficiency or otherwise of the infrastructure. It admitted that matter of approval was with opp. From the above letter of the Board it is clear that the Board is an examining authority and it has nothing to do with the selection/admission of the students, nor it was an authority to have any say in the matter of sufficiency or otherwise of the infrastructure. It admitted that matter of approval was with opp. party no. 4. It was the authority for inspection of the institution for the purpose of only examining whether facilities are provided in the institute for holding the examination. ( 6 ) ANNEXURE 10/a is the letter of the Assistant Secretary, Pharmacy Council of India addressed to the petitioner-Director with reference to the letter of the institute dated 16-3-96. The opp. party no. 4 under this letter pointed out the following deficiencies in the standard inspection form (Education Regulation, 91) and these are- (i) non-teaching staff was less than prescribed, (ii) area in sq. ft. instead of sq. m. , and (iii) consent of the examining authority was not submitted. The institute was directed to rectify the above deficiencies soon within 15 days of the issuance of the letter. This letter amply shows that opp. party no. 4 did not find any deficiency with regard to the infrastructure i. e. building, accommodation, facility for holding classes and any non-compliance or deficiency in regard to any instruction/guideline as per the Education Regulation, 91 or 94. For conducting the course though it was stated that non-teaching staff was less than prescribed, but nothing specific was mentioned about the staff. So far as consent of the examining authority is concerned that was not available then because opp. party no. 5 had not inspected the institute. This was claimed to have been done on 26-2-97 which was during the pendency of the writ petition. To us, these deficiencies were not anything relating to the non-compliance of the Education Regulation, 91. ( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit of opp. party no. 4, in para 4. 2 it admitted that for the first time the petitioner applied to it for approval on 19th June, 1996. This opp. party in the counter referred to Annexure A/4, B/4 and C/4 stating that the Council pointed out the deficiencies in the application form of the institute and asked to rectify them but the latter did not rectify for which the Council was not to be blamed. This opp. party in the counter referred to Annexure A/4, B/4 and C/4 stating that the Council pointed out the deficiencies in the application form of the institute and asked to rectify them but the latter did not rectify for which the Council was not to be blamed. We have already mentioned about these annexures such as Annexure A/4 is the same as Annexure 10 and C/4 is the same as Annexure 10-A. Annexure B/4 is the letter addressed to the D. M. E. T. , opposite party no. 2 informing him that the petitioner has not complied with the deficiencies pointed out. The date being illegible on the annexure, it is perhaps the letter issued after the impugned letter Annexure 13. ( 8 ) WE fail to appreciate the way opposite party 4 conducted itself. It admitted to have received the application dated 19-6-96 of the petitioner. It took a stand that under Annexure 10 (same as Annexure C/4) it intimated to the institute the deficiencies, but surprisingly it did not reply to the averments of the writ petition in paragraphs 10-A and 10-C. These averments related to the fact firstly that the institute informed this opp. party by letter dated 16-12-96 (Annexure 10 (b)) that the Member-Secretary of opp. party no. 5 Board was already requested to expedite the matter of affiliation. Secondly, the institute submitted the inspection form duly signed for necessary action by opp. party no. 4. Thirdly, the petitioner under the same Annexure 10 (b) informed opp. party no. 4 that without admission of the students it would be difficult to maintain the teaching and non-teaching staffs and that the petitioner assured the opposite party that one Store Keeper and one Gardener would be appointed soon. It also intimated that the conversion of the building area from sq.ft. to sq. mtrs. was also furnished. Fourthly, for the consent of the examining authority i. e. the State Board, the petitioner was in constant touch with the said authority. All these facts were conveyed to opp. party no. 4 by letter dated 16-12-96, the above annexure. Conspicuously, opposite party No. 4 is found not to have disputed these averments in its counter-affidavit. Since these factual averments are not controverted, we accept the submission of Mr. All these facts were conveyed to opp. party no. 4 by letter dated 16-12-96, the above annexure. Conspicuously, opposite party No. 4 is found not to have disputed these averments in its counter-affidavit. Since these factual averments are not controverted, we accept the submission of Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the deficiencies as pointed out under Annexure 10 by opposite party No. 4 were only technical in nature, but even then the petitioner complied with them and so far as the consent of the State Board was concerned, the matter was delayed at their end for which petitioner was not to blame. We do not find any laches on the part of the petitioner in applying to opposite party no. 4 for approval and the subsequent compliance with regard to the deficiencies pointed out by the Council. An important feature in the conduct of opposite party no. 4 is, it made very clear that before it could give any approval, consent of the examining body should be obtained. This leads us to believe that opp. party no. 4 threw the responsibility on the petitioner for getting the consent of opp. party no. 5 which was, as is clear, a pre-requisite for giving its approval to the petitioner- institute. Because of this approach of opposite party no. 4 obviously the matter became dependent on the action of opp. party no. 5 in respect of the institute for giving clearance for approval. Therefore, we would observe that opposite party no. 4, the PCI dealt with the case of the petitioner in an extremely perfunctory manner and this manifests an utter indifference shown towards the cause of the petitioner. Next we may examine the role of the AICTE, opposite party no. 3. ( 9 ) IN paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, opposite party no. 3 admitted that the proposal submitted by the petitioner-institute in 1993 was looked into and according to the recommendation of the Task Force, the petitioner-Director was advised to resubmit the proposal along with necessary documents for consideration during the year 1995-96 and this was communicated under Annexure C. This indicates that the petitioner-Director moved opp. party no. 3 in the year 1993. However, since 'no objection' certificate from the Government was issued on 13-6-96 certainly question of considering the approval for 1994-95 could not have arisen. party no. 3 in the year 1993. However, since 'no objection' certificate from the Government was issued on 13-6-96 certainly question of considering the approval for 1994-95 could not have arisen. However, the petitioner in para 9-A of the writ petition stated that under Annexure 8 addressed to the regional office of opp. party no 3 at Bhopal that the institute of the petitioner has been inspected on 29-11-94 and 4-6-94 by the D. M. E. T. as well as the Professor and Head of Department of Pharmacology, S. C. B. Medical College respectively who reported about the availability of the infrastructural facility in the institution. The petitioner requested opp. party no. 3 for approval of the institution. Under Annexure 9 (a) the petitioner took the stand to have sent the application in the prescribed pro forma with relevant documents to opposite party no. 3 for approval and it was sent through the Dolphin Courier on 25-12-96 which was received by opp. party no. 3 on 30-12-96 at New Delhi. In para 9 (b) of the writ petition the petitioner stated to have met the Chairman of the AICTE on 30-1-97. The Chairman advised the petitioner to meet the Technical Director of the Chairman and the petitioner also met the said official and apprised him about the difficulties faced by the institute on account of non-approval by the Council. The petitioner also stated in Annexure 9 (a) giving details of the steps taken by him for getting the approval from opposite party no. 3. ( 10 ) BUT this opposite party has conveniently avoided to meet these averments in the counter-affidavit. In para 11 of the counter opposite party no. 3 stated that the facts stated in para 9 (which also includes averments of paragraphs 9 (a) and 9 (b)) to have been answered by the opposite party in paras 6 and 7. But we find in paragraphs 6 and 7 opposite party no. 3 has quoted only the procedure for filing application and consideration of such application and rejection under the Education Regulations. The facts averred in paragraphs 9 (a) and 9 (b) that the applications were received on 30-12-96 and the Director met the Chairman on 31-1-97 have not been controverted. Therefore, we accept them to be true and hold that the petitioner's application/proposal was duly received by opp. party no. 3 on 30-12-96. The facts averred in paragraphs 9 (a) and 9 (b) that the applications were received on 30-12-96 and the Director met the Chairman on 31-1-97 have not been controverted. Therefore, we accept them to be true and hold that the petitioner's application/proposal was duly received by opp. party no. 3 on 30-12-96. This fact is further supported by the documents such as Annexure 19 dated 25-12-96 the receipt of the Courier the Dolphin Service which indicates the name of the consignee Secretary, AICTE and Annexure 20 dated 30-12-96 with the seal of opp. party no. 3 indicating the receipt of the letter. From these facts it is amply proved that certain amount of indifference has been meted out to the petitioner-institute by the opposite party no. 3. On their own saying the proposal for 1996-97 was not received in time. But admittedly they did not reject the application as required under the Education Regulation mentioned in para 7 of the counter. That itself shows, the proposal was pending with them, and the same could have been considered for 1997-98 course which opp. party no. 3 did not do. ( 11 ) WE may now examine the conduct of opp. party no. 5. This opposite party admitted that it is only an examining body. We may point out that it is a part of the Govt. and being a statutory body, is an instrumentality of the State. It is bound by the administrative action of the State without any exception whatsoever. The Government being satisfied that adequate infrastructural facilities were available for opening the two-year Diploma Pharmacy Course, issued no objection certificate. This was immediately informed to opp. party no. 5 vide Annexure 2, the 'no objection' letter of the Government, copy of which was sent to opp. party no. 5. No doubt, the 'no objection ' certificate of the Government was received in 1996 though the petitioner had moved to the Government in the year 1993-94 for permission. Obviously therefore by the time the petitioner-institute moved the Government it had by then, when the D. M. E. T. and the Professor of the Pharmacology, S. C. B. Medical College visited the institution for inspection as per their letter which was accepted by the Government, the petitioner had all infrastructure for the purpose of conducting the course. Obviously therefore by the time the petitioner-institute moved the Government it had by then, when the D. M. E. T. and the Professor of the Pharmacology, S. C. B. Medical College visited the institution for inspection as per their letter which was accepted by the Government, the petitioner had all infrastructure for the purpose of conducting the course. This availability of the infrastructure to conduct the course thus provided by the petitioner-institute cannot be disbelieved since this was found on inspection by the two responsible officials of the Government and that Government had accepted their report and ultimately issued 'no objection' certificate. ( 12 ) OPPOSITE party no. 5 has taken a stand that it detected a number of deficiencies when it inspected the institute on 26-2-97. We have a serious doubt as to whether the institute was at all inspected on 26-2-97, because the way the Government record produced from the side of opposite party no. 5 is found to have been maintained. It is found that no note-sheet is maintained. The fact that members of the inspecting team would visit on 26-2-97 is not reflected in the note-sheet. Even assuming the Board caused the inspection on 26-2-97, this was seven months from the date of intimation received from the opp. party no. 2, the D. M. E. T. and that too this was after filing of the writ petition and this does help in explaining their conduct. The matter of inspection by opposite party No. 5 has been dealt in a casual and sluggish manner. It is too much to expect that the petitioner, a Doctor who gave his sweat and blood to bring out an institution by providing infrastructure in the year 1993-94, those infrastructures would continue to be in the same state of fitness for more than four years when the Board claimed to have inspected it. If some one is subjected to rectify certain trivial and excusable technicalities even after being permitted by the Government to open the institute, we cannot except that he would still have the spirit and enthusiasm to keep it maintained for four years in such readiness of inspection spending his own fund and that too without any assurance for the approval when the matter of approval itself still remained in a state of flux. ( 13 ) DURING the course of argument both counsel for opposite parties 3 and 4 submitted that there has been mushroom growth of such professional colleges and giving approval to such colleges would not be proper in public interest, and therefore, approval has been rightly rejected. We may point out that proposal for approval has not been rejected. It is still pending with both the opposite parties 3 and 4 and their action is a manifestation of total lack of co-ordination between all the three statutory bodies. However, we should not attribute professionalism to an educational institution for the following reasons. ( 14 ) ADMITTEDLY, this institution is an educational institution. This should not be treated as a professional institution. We would say that institution which a person tries to bring up by his sole effort and money spent by him, there is no question of said individual going for any professional occupation. I feel it appropriate to quote the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Unni Krishnan, J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 1 SCC 645 : ( AIR 1993 SC 2178 ). The Court held thus :"imparting education cannot be treated as a trade or business. Trade or business normally connotes an activity carried on with a profit motive. Education has never been nor can it be allowed to become a commerce in this country. A law, existing or future, ensuring against it would be a valid measure within the meaning of clause (6) of Art. 19. Education has been treated as a religious duty, a charitable activity. Making it a commerce is opposed to the ethos, tradition and sensibilities of this nation. "in another place the Court observed as follows :"imparting education cannot also he called a 'profession' within the meaning of Art. 19 (1) (g ). The words 'to practice any profession' refers to such profession as may be practiced by citizens i. e. individuals. Establishing educational institution cannot be treated as 'practising any profession'. Teaching may be a profession but establishing an institution, employing teaching and non teaching staff, procuring the necessary infrastructure for running a school or college is not 'practising profession'. It may be anything but not practising a profession. Establishing educational institution cannot be treated as 'practising any profession'. Teaching may be a profession but establishing an institution, employing teaching and non teaching staff, procuring the necessary infrastructure for running a school or college is not 'practising profession'. It may be anything but not practising a profession. "the Apex Court in para 226 of the judgment observed that a citizen of this country may have a right to establish an educational institution but no citizen, person or institution has a right much less a fundamental right to affiliation or recognition or to grant-in-aid from the State. ( 15 ) IN the present case, the petitioner after getting permission form the State to conduct the course has taken all possible steps to get approval from opposite parties 3 and 4. But for the reasons indicated in the above paragraphs, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner's proposal has been kept under the carpet. Since the matter of approval of the petitioner-institute has been long since pending with opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 and they have not taken up it in the right perspect, we feel, it appropriate to allow the writ petition. ( 16 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to admit students for the session starting from 1999-2000 as per law and rules prescribed. The opposite party No. 2, the D. M. E. T. is hereby directed to enlist the petitioner-institute in the prospecuts, Annexure 14 for the year 1999- 2000. Immediately after completing admission the petitioner shall intimate the opposite parties. The opposite parties after receipt of such intimation, within four months thereafter, may inspect the institute to find out any deficiency or non compliance of any statutory provision and act according to law. The opposite parties 3/4, as the case may be, may issue a provisional approval to the petitioner-institute till such inspection and final approval subject to the result of the inspection as mentioned above. No cost. ( 17 ) P. K. MISHRA, J. :- -. I agree. Petition allowed.