P. C. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in the Principal-in-charge-cum-Secretary of Saraswat Mahavidyalaya, Kuamara. He has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 6-1-1999 (Annexure-1) of the appellate authority, who, while rejecting the petitioner's appeal has affirmed the order of the Director, Higher Education, Orissa dated 6-7-1998 (Annexure-10) refusing to grant permission for opening of + 2 Science stream; increase of seats from 192 to 256 in + 2 Arts of the existing college and opening of new subjects - 'education' with 64 seats from the session 1992-93. ( 2 ) THE facts as appear from the record are that the institution in question was established in the year 1981. It got concurrence on 15-11-1986 and was admitted to the grant-in-aid fold with effect from 1-6-1994. Initially, the institution had + 2 Arts stream. But according to the petitioner, in view of the heavy demand from the public, it opened a + 2 Science stream from the academic session 1992-93. Though the students of the said year and subsequent years were permitted to undertake the examination, on 6-7-1998 vide Annexure-10, permission to open new + 2 Science stream was refused and the institution was directed not to admit any students in + 2 Science stream for the academic session 1998-99 and onwards. Permission to increase the roll strength in the + 2 Arts stream from 192 to 256 and that for opening of new subject 'education' with 64 seats has also been refused by the said order. The appeal carried against the said order stood dismissed as is evident from Annexure-1. The case of the petitioner is that, in view of application for permission, the Deputy Director had directed the Principal of M. P. C College, Baripada to carry out an inspection of the petitioner's college and submit a report. Accordingly, an inspection was made by the Vice-Principal and a favourable report was submitted mentioning certain conditions to be fulfilled by the educational agency. According to the petitioner after fulfilling the said conditions an application was made for re-inspection and for grant of permission for opening of + 2 Science stream. Accordingly, as per the direction of the Deputy Director, + 2 education, the institution was inspected by the Principal, M. P. C. College, Baripada who gave a favourable report on the basis of which temporary permission was granted. Accordingly, as per the direction of the Deputy Director, + 2 education, the institution was inspected by the Principal, M. P. C. College, Baripada who gave a favourable report on the basis of which temporary permission was granted. It is also the petitioner's case that in the intervening period, because of heavy demand, students were admitted to the + 2 Science stream and vide order dated 31-12-1993 (Annexure-A/2) temporary concurrence was granted and the students were permitted to appear in the examination. Likewise permission was also granted to the students to appear for the session 1993-94 in English, M. I. L. (O), Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Biology vide Annexure-9 (b) and further on 6-5-1995 (Annexure-9) temporary recognition was granted. Thereafter, the college was restrained from admitting any student. ( 3 ) THE case of the opposite parties is that though the petitioner had not obtained any prior permission either for opening + 2 Science stream or the new optional subject or for any increase in the permitted roll strength in contravention of the rules, it had opened + 2 Science stream for the academic session 1992-93 and admitted students, increased the roll strength and admitted students in the new subject. In order to safe guard the interest of the students, the Government had no option but to grant temporary permission and as is clear from the order (Annexure-8 (a), it was confined to the students who had been admitted for the session 1992-93 only. In spite of this, the institution in question continued to admit students and as such, the authorities were compelled to, in order to safeguard the interest of the students, granted temporary permission. Ultimately, the application for grant of permission was rejected on the ground that there was no educational need and the existing optional subjects already available to the college are adequate to cater to the educational need of the students and accordingly, the institution was directed not to admit any student for the academic session 1998-99 and onwards without obtaining valid or temporary permission, as the case may be, from the prescribed authority. ( 4 ) THE order is assailed, inter alia, on the ground that as temporary recognition had already been granted in view of the inspection report, the authority erred in not granting permission sought by the institution. ( 4 ) THE order is assailed, inter alia, on the ground that as temporary recognition had already been granted in view of the inspection report, the authority erred in not granting permission sought by the institution. It is also contended that, in fact, the rejection of application for permission was misconceived inasmuch as the institution in question had already been granted permission to open + 2 Science stream which according to the learned counsel is clear from the letter dated 15-11-1986 vide Annexure-2. At any rate, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the order of the appellate authority is cryptic as it does not take into consideration the inspection report which is clear from the fact that no reference whatsoever has been made to it in the order. The prayer, therefore, is for quashing the order dated 6-1-1999 (Annexure-1) by directing the authorities to grant the permission sought by the petitioner. In the alternative, it is submitted that in case the Court is not inclined to quash the order and grant permission, the appellate order (Annexure-10) may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the petitioner's case after rehearing the petitioner. In support of the contention that there was already existing permission in favour of the petitioner to open + 2 Science stream, reference is made to Clauses 4 (iv) and (f) of Annexure-2 which read thus :"4 xx xx (e) The management of the college should reserve 50% of the posts available in the college for + 2 Commerce or + 2 Science in the next academic session. (f) The management of the College should restrict the institution to a + 2 college only. Plus three (+ 3) college should not be opened without prior permission of the Government". However, from a reading of the aforesaid clauses, we are of the view that the contention of the learned counsel is misconceived. It is no doubt true that clauses 4 (e) and 4 (f) as quoted above, if read without reference to other petitions, may seem to support the claim of the petitioner but if the said Annexure-2 is read in its entirety, it will be seen that the said letter was a sort of proforma in which certain clauses which had no application were to be deleted which probably has not been done and hence, this contention. Relevant extract of the said Annexure will clarify the position :" "the concurrence is granted for the academic session 1986-87 for the Ist year Higher Secondary Courses in Arts/science/commerce/vocational Streams as per details furnished below subject to grant of affiliation by the council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa. Faculty Arts / Commerce / Science / Vocationalsanctioned strength Compulsory subjectsoptional subjectsfunctional subjects (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 42 Arts128english M. I. L (Oriya)History, Pol. Science, Economics, Logic, Oriya, Sanskritstenography, Shorthand and Type writing, Poultry 3 The renewal of provisional concurrence is subject to fulfilment of the terms and conditions prescribed in Appendix-I of the Regulation-90 of the Orissa Higher Secondary (Amendment) Regulation, 1983. xx xx xx" (Emphasis supplied)The words "concurrence is granted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as per details furnished below" are material for the simple reason that the faculty, sanctioned strength, compulsory subjects, optional subjects and functional subjects have all been specifically mentioned in the said order. A clear reading thereof indicates that permission was with respect to + 2 Arts with the strength and subjects indicated therein. Had permission been granted for + 2 Science and Commerce, this fact would have also been indicated along with the strength and the subjects which were available to the students. The non-mention of + 2 Science clearly indicates that the institution had no concurrence or permission to open + 2 Science stream and that permission was confined to for opening of + 2 Arts stream. Thus, Clauses 4 (e) and 4 (f) of Annexure-2 cannot, therefore, come to the aid of the petitioner. This apart, if, as alleged by the petitioner, there was already permission to open + 2 science stream, where was the occasion for the petitioner to have applied for permission to open + 2 Science stream on the basis of which, admittedly, inspections were made and reports submitted. This clearly negatives the petitioner's contention. ( 5 ) BEFORE dealing with the second aspect, we would like to make a reference to some of the relevant provisions relating to grant of permission under the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Junior College/higher Secondary Schools) Rules, 1991 (in short, 'the Act' and 1991 Rules' respectively ). ( 5 ) BEFORE dealing with the second aspect, we would like to make a reference to some of the relevant provisions relating to grant of permission under the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Junior College/higher Secondary Schools) Rules, 1991 (in short, 'the Act' and 1991 Rules' respectively ). ( 6 ) SECTION 5, sub-section (1) of the Act as amended by Act 15 of 1989 read thus :"5. Application for permission and approval (1) Any person or body of persons (hereinafter referred to as Agency), desirous of establishing any private educational institution may make an application to the prescribed authority for permission to do so". Reference may also be made to Section 6 (i) and (ii) of the Act which read thus :"6. Recognition of Educational Institution- (1) An application for recognition of a private Educational Institution, which has been permitted to be established or, as the case may be, has been approved under Sec. 6 shall be made to the prescribed authority within three months from the date on which- (i) the Educational Institution permitted under sec. 5 is to start functioning; or (ii) the approval is accorded under Sec. 5 as the case may be;provided that the delay in making such application upto a period of sixty days, may, for sufficient reasons, to be recorded in writing be condoned by the prescribed authority". The Education Act was amended in 1994. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 and sub-section (2) of Section 6 thereof read thus :"5. Permission for establishment of Educational Institution- (1) No private educational institution which require recognition shall be established except in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder". "6. Xx xx xx (2) No private educational institution shall be eligible for recognition unless it has been established with prior permission under this Act". ( 7 ) RULES 6, 10 and 15 of the 1991 Rules read thus :"6. Content of the application-- The application in respect of a proposed institution shall inter alia specify the following : (a) The number of students to be enrolled in each stream, viz. Arts, Science or Commerce in which teaching is proposed to be imparted. ( 7 ) RULES 6, 10 and 15 of the 1991 Rules read thus :"6. Content of the application-- The application in respect of a proposed institution shall inter alia specify the following : (a) The number of students to be enrolled in each stream, viz. Arts, Science or Commerce in which teaching is proposed to be imparted. (b) The names of the subjects, both compulsory and optional proposed to be introduced under each stream with the number of students to be permitted for being offered with each optional subject. (c) The anticipated annual income of the institution from different sources". "10. Opening of new stream of subject in an existing institution, increase of seats thereto- The provisions contained in the Rules 4 to 9 regarding for establishment of a new institution shall ipso facto apply to cases of adding any new streams or optional subjects in any existing institution of cases of adding to the permitted strength in existing streams of subjects". "15. Recognition not to be granted in certain cases - (1) The Director shall not accord recognition, permanent or temporary, as the case may be, to any institution which has not been permitted to be established by Government in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 5 or does not have the minimum roll strength as required under sub-section (2) of Section 11. (2) Any new stream or subjects introduced in existing institution or any addition to the permitted roll strength in the existing streams or subjects shall not be recognised unless the same has been introduced or the seat strength added with the prior permission of the Director". From the reading of the above provisions, it is clear that prior permission is sine qua non either for opening a new institution or for opening a new stream in the existing institution or for opening new subjects or for increase of the permitted roll strength in the existing subjects. The provisions also indicate that prior permission is also sine qua non for recognition. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, there is nothing on record to indicate that the + 2 Science stream was opened in the institution with prior permission nor is there any material to indicate introduction of optional subjects and increase in the existing roll strength with prior permission. The provisions also indicate that prior permission is also sine qua non for recognition. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, there is nothing on record to indicate that the + 2 Science stream was opened in the institution with prior permission nor is there any material to indicate introduction of optional subjects and increase in the existing roll strength with prior permission. The documents referred to by the petitioner, cannot, in our view, be taken as proof of prior permission. The initial concurrence (Annexure-8/a) clearly indicates that it was only for the session 1992-93 and it is apparent that the institution continued to admit students as the authorities from time to time granted temporary concurrence which ultimately was not granted for the session 1998-99. Reference may be made to Annexure-8/a which clearly indicates that the Director of Higher Education had extended the temporary concurrence without considering the effect of the order dated 31-12-1993 under which concurrence was made only for the session 1992-93. Letter dated 3-7-1997 (Annexure-G/2) clearly indicates that the concurrence was extended only to avoid litigation. That at any rate, the provisions do provide for a temporary recognition and in case this is granted, the institution cannot compel the authority to grant permanent recognition only because at an earlier point of time, temporary recognition was granted. ( 9 ) FROM what has been stated above it is apparent that though the institution in question was granted permission and recognition for + 2 Arts stream and the roll strength was fixed, it, without prior permission, increased the roll strength, introduced a new subject and also opened + 2 Science stream in the institution, and having admitted the students, now seeks recognition on the ground that the interest of the students will be jeopardised if recognition is not granted. The rules and regulations governing the field provide that an institution can be opened only with the prior permission and such permission is necessary before recognition is granted and further that no new subjects can be introduced nor the roll strength increased nor a new stream opened. So if ignoring the permission an institution does something which is not permissible it has to suffer the consequences. So if ignoring the permission an institution does something which is not permissible it has to suffer the consequences. It cannot first do something in breach of the rules and regulations and then take recourse to "hardship" likely to be suffered by the students as a sword to literally blackmail the authorities for granting retrospective permission and recognition. And, if the Courts are to regularise such illegal acts, it would amount to directing the authorities to do something which is contrary to law. Obviously, no such direction can be issued as the writ jurisdiction is to be exercised for directing the authorities to act in accordance with law and not to do something which is contrary to law. The fact that the temporary recognition was granted cannot ipso facto, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be used as a lever by the petitioner for directing the Governmental authorities to grant permanent recognition. ( 10 ) WE may add that in case an educational agency establishes an institution without permission or opens a new faculty and introduces a new subject or increases the roll strength without prior permission, the authorities concerned will be fully justified not only in refusing to grant recognition but also in taking suitable appropriate action against the erring educational agency for acting in breach of the statutory provisions. We think, it is only because of the liberal attitude in condoning the relaxation more and more institutions are being prompted to overlook the statutory provisions. This tendency has to be stopped. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, the contention of the petitioner that the order of the appellate authority on the face of it is cryptic and shows non-application of mind cannot be said to be unfounded. Learned counsel drawn our attention to paragraph-4 of the impugned order dated 6-1-1999. However, the order being short is reproduced in toto :"6-1-99. Parties are present. 2. Heard the parties including the learned Advocates for the appellant. Learned Advocate for the appellant argues that we have filed application for permission before the amendment Act, 1994 which has been accepted by the Government. Accordingly, Government have issued permanent concurrence or permission as the case may be long before the amendment Act, 1994 came into force. In view of that, refusal of permission at this stage is non-existence in the eye of law and unwarranted. 3. Accordingly, Government have issued permanent concurrence or permission as the case may be long before the amendment Act, 1994 came into force. In view of that, refusal of permission at this stage is non-existence in the eye of law and unwarranted. 3. On the contrary the appellant have prayed for according permission for opening of new + 2 Science stream, increase of seats from 192 to 256 in + 2 Arts and opening of new Opt. subject namely. education in their institution. The stand of the appellant does not hold good since the appellant is blowing hot and cold in the same pot. 4. I am not in a position to know whether the appellant has sought for any relief. In view of the facts, the appeal memo is rejected. Intimate the parties accordingly;";a copy of the memo of appeal filed before the appellate authority is annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. The appeal memo gives detail reference to the facts and the regulations, which according to the petitioner, govern the field. The prayer in the appeal memo reads thus : "the refusal order of the High Power Committee vide Order bearing No. 36843 dated 6-7-1998 may be set aside and permission may be accorded for opening of + 2 Science stream with 96 seats, increase of seats from 192 to 256 in + 2 Arts stream and for opening of new subjects in Education with 64 seats in + 2 stream from the session 1992-93. " thus, the observation of the appellate authority that it was not in a position to know as to whether the appellant i. e. the petitioner herein has sought for any relief, is wholly misconceived. The appellate order also does not reflect any reason as to why the appellate authority came to the conclusion that, "the stand of the appellant does not hold good since the appellant is blowing hot and cold in the same pot". ( 12 ) THUS, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate that the matter be re-examined by the appellate authority in the light of the rules and regulations governing the field and with a reference to the contentions raised in the memorandum of appeal, reference to which is made above. ( 12 ) THUS, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate that the matter be re-examined by the appellate authority in the light of the rules and regulations governing the field and with a reference to the contentions raised in the memorandum of appeal, reference to which is made above. We, however, make it clear that the observations made by us in the earlier paragraph are with respect to the petitioner's claim for permanent recognition for the period from 1992-93 to 1998-99 on the basis of provisional permission and admission of the student to the examination held and this should not in any way prejudice the claim of the petitioner for subsequent permission, if otherwise, according to the appellate authority the petitioner has made out a case and fulfilled the conditions laid down in the statute for opening new stream in + 2 Science increasing the roll strength and adding new subject to the existing subjects. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned order dated 6-1-1999 (Annexure-1) is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority-opposite party No. 1 for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. Looking to the fact that the matter of permission has remained pending before the authorities for a very long period, we are sure that the appellate authority will make efforts to dispose of the appeal within a reasonable period. ( 14 ) IN the result, the writ application is partly allowed. There would be no order as to costs. ( 15 ) CH. P. K. MISRA, J. , I agree. Application allowed.