JUDGMENT Nagendra Rai, J.- The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 25.4.1990 issued under the signature of Secretary, Science and Technology by which the State Government has directed the District Magistrate, Madhubani to close the petitioners institution as the prayer for its recognition has been rejected and also for quashing the order dated 30.4.1990 by which the application for recognition/approval filed by the petitioners under the provisions of Bihar State Engineering and Pharmacy Education Institutions (Regulation and Control) Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) has been rejected under Section 6 (II) of the said Act as the petitioners did not furnish the necessary information in terms of the guidelines issued by the All India Council for Technology Education. Both the impugned orders have been annexed as annexures-12 and 12/1 respectively to this writ petition. 2. The necessary facts which are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are that Mithila Vikash Sansthan, Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, established a polytechnic named as Sanjay Gandhi Polytechnic (petitioner no.1) for imparting technical education. The petitioner no.2 is the president of the Managing Committee of petitioner no.1. 3. In the year 1981 the State Government promulgated an ordinance namely, Bihar State Engineering and Pharmacy Education Institutions (Regulation and Control) Ordinance on 27.1.1981. The said ordinance was promulgated to regulate and control opening of private Engineering Colleges, Polytechnic and Pharmacy Colleges in the State of Bihar. Section 2 of the Ordinance provided that no person or body or institution registered under the Societies Registration Act will commence in any course in Engineering or Pharmacy upto degree or diploma standard without prior permission of the State Government. For permission to open Engineering and Pharmacy College an application has to be filed under Section 3 of the Ordinance. Section 6 of the Ordinance provides for decision regarding permission to open Engineering and Pharmacy Colleges. On receipt of the Inspection report in terms of provisions of Section 5 of the Ordinance, the State Government will decide as to whether or not proposed Engineering, Polytechnic or Pharmacy College fulfils the conditions laid down by the State Government, Government of India and All India Council for Technical Education. If the institutions do not fulfil the conditions, it will reject the application for permission/recognition. If the institutions do not fulfil the conditions, it will reject the application for permission/recognition. If the application is not rejected, it will be sent to All India Council for Technical Education and on receipt of its recommendation the State Government will communicate its decision regarding permission. 4. The petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Ordinance filed an application for permission as well as recognition of the institution before the State Government in the prescribed proforma as mentioned in the Ordinance. The said Ordinance was repealed and other Ordinance no. 103 of 1981 containing the similar provision except repealing 7 clause of the Ordinance was introduced. The petitioner again applied on 27.4.1981 in terms of the aforesaid ordinance. The said ordinance was substituted by an Act (63/82) which came into force on 30th July, 1982. 5. When the decision on the application filed by the petitioner was not taken, some members of the Managing Committee filed CW.J.C. No. 2589 of 1981 before this Court for a direction to the State Government to consider the question of permission and recognition of the Institution. The said writ application was disposed of on 7th December, 1981 and this Court directed the State Government to take decision with regard to the subject matter within three months and pending disposal the State Government will not interfere with regard to the functioning of the Institution. A copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure-1 to this writ petition. In the meantime, the State Government ordered for enquiry to decide the question of permission and recognition. As asserted on behalf of the petitioners, an enquiry report was submitted in favour of the Institution. However, no decision was taken. In the meantime, another writ petition was filed by some of the students of the Institution for permission and recognition being C.W.J.C. No. 1002 of 1983 and this Court by order dated 9th December. 1983 directed the State Government to take final decision on the recognition matter by 16th January, 1984. A copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure-3 to this writ petition. The State Government did not take any decision within the time granted by this Court and on 13th January, 1984 sent the case of the petitioner Polytechnic to All India Council for Technical Education having its original office at Calcutta. A copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure-3 to this writ petition. The State Government did not take any decision within the time granted by this Court and on 13th January, 1984 sent the case of the petitioner Polytechnic to All India Council for Technical Education having its original office at Calcutta. Up-till now Council has not taken any decision in the matter. In the meantime, it appears that certain steps were taken to take over the Institution of the petitioner and it is asserted in the writ petition that the matter was examined and then the Chief Minister ordered that the petitioner's Polytechnic should be taken over by the State Government and thereafter a draft ordinance was also prepared. Later on a decision was taken to review the matter with regard to take over the polytechnic and it was decided that the State Government will not take over the Institution. In the meantime, other writ petitions have been filed which are pending. While the matter was pending before the All India Council for Technical Education the State Government has passed the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for recognition of the Institution on the ground that necessary informations were not furnished with regard to the fulfilment of the guidelines. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it is stated that the application filed by the petitioner for recognition of the Institution has been referred to All India Council for Technical Education on 13.1.1984. It is further stated that the petitioner has opened the institution on its own without invitation to the State Government. When the State Government came to know that a large number of persons are opening private Engineering and Pharmacy Colleges with a view to dupe the innocent• students, promulgated an ordinance which has been replaced by the Act. It is further stated that the State Government has no power to recognise the institution without prior approval of the All India Council for Technical Education which has been created under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1988. It is further stated that when the petitioner's institution was asked to furnish informations regarding guidelines laid down .by All India Council for Technical Education vide their letter no. It is further stated that when the petitioner's institution was asked to furnish informations regarding guidelines laid down .by All India Council for Technical Education vide their letter no. 1930 dated 3.7.1989, the petitioner did not comply it and after careful consideration the State Government ordered to close the institution and rejected the application for approval/recognition of the institution. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the State Government has referred the application for approval/recognition of the petitioner's institution to the All India Council for Technical Education in terms of the provisions of the State Act, it has no power to reject the application for recognition till a decision is taken by the All India Council for Technical Education. He further submitted that the State Government has also no power to close the institution. 8. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that after promulgation of the Central Act, 1988 and the regulations framed thereunder now the power of granting approval/recognition to Technical Institution vests in All India Council for Technical Education and the State Government has no role to play except the role vests in it in terms of the provision of the Act and the regulations framed thereunder. He also submitted that at the relevant time as the petitioner did not furnish the necessary information regarding the guidelines which were to be fulfilled for consideration of recognition by the All India Council for Technical Education, the State Government rejected the application for recognition of the institution. 9. According to the provisions contained in Section 6 of the State Act, after filing of the application for recognition the State Government has to consider as to whether necessary guidelines fixed by All India Council for Technical Education has been fulfilled by the institution or nor and if it is found that it has not fulfilled the condition, then it will reject the application otherwise it will send the application to All India Council for Technical Education for recognition. From the statements made in the counter affidavit it appears that the case of the petitioner for recognition of the institution was sent to the All India Council for Technical Education on 13.1.84. From the statements made in the counter affidavit it appears that the case of the petitioner for recognition of the institution was sent to the All India Council for Technical Education on 13.1.84. In that view of the matter before receipt of any communication from the All India Council for Technical Education, the State Government should not have passed final order on the application filed by the petitioner. Passing of an order by the State Government rejecting the application for recognition/approval without awaiting the decision of the All India Council for Technical Education is contrary to the provision of Section 6 of the Act itself and on this ground alone the impugned orders contained in annexures 12 and 12/1 are fit to be quashed and it is ordered accordingly. 10. The next question for consideration is as to what direction is to be given in this case. Admittedly, All India Council for Technical Education (Central Act) came into force on 23rd December, 1987. It has been enacted to provide for the establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education with a view to proper planning and co-ordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvements of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith. The Act provides with regard to functions of the Council. Section 10(1)(h)(i) provides that the Council will lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations and Section 10(1)(k) provides that the Council will grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned. Section 10(1)(n) provides the Council to take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of technical education. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 23(1) of the Central Act, the All India Council for Technical Education has made a regulation on 31st October, 1994 which provides that the said regulation shall be applicable not only to new institutions but also to all technical institution functioning on the date of commencement of these regulations or for setting up of a new technical institution at degree or diploma level. It is not necessary to go into the details of the procedure. It is not necessary to go into the details of the procedure. Suffice it to say that now after coming into force the Act and regulation the question with regard to approval/recognition of the technical insitution vests in the All India Council for Technical Education and the State has no role to play except the function that is to be carried out by the State Level Committee and the University in terms of the provisions. The provision of the Central Act was considered by the apex court in the case of State of T.N. and another vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others reported in (1995) 4 SCC 104 . The apex court held that the All India Council for Technical Education Act falls under Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It provides that after enactment of the Act the Council created under the Act is the only competent body to grant of approval and if there is any conflict between the State Law and the provisions of the Central Act and regulation then the provisions of the State Act to the extent of the inconsistency shall be void. It further held in paragraph 41 which runs as follows: "(i) The expression 'coordination' used in Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make coordination either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make coordination either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention. (ii) To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation though the former is purported to have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect encroaches upon the legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union List, it would be void and inoperative. (iii) If there is a conflict between the two legislation, unless the State legislation is saved by the provisions of the main part of clause (2) of Article 254, the State legislation being repugnant to the Central legislation, the same would be inoperative. (iv) Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have to be determined by the examination of the two laws and will depend upon the facts of each case. (v) When there are more applicants than the available situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented from laying down higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by the Centre or the Central authority to short list the applicants. When the State authority does so, it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union List or make a law which is repugnant to the Central Law. (vi) However, when the situations/seats are available and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as the case may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications laid down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally. So also when the State authorities de-recognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the Central authority, the State authorities act illegally." 11. So also when the State authorities de-recognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the Central authority, the State authorities act illegally." 11. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court now it is for the Council to consider the question of approval/recognition and the application has to be filed before the authority as mentioned in the Act and Regulation framed thereunder. The State Government is not a final authority in the matter and the provision of the State Act so far it is inconsistent with the provision of the Central Act and the Regulation cannot be given effect to as being void. Though order passed by the State Government has been set aside on the ground mentioned above, the only direction which could be given in this case is that in case the petitioner wants recognition of the institution he should file an application before the All India Council for Technical Education in terms of the provisions of the Act read with Regulations and thereafter the Council is directed to consider the matter in accordance with law and take a final decision in the matter within nine months from the date of filing of the application by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that unless the recognition/approval is given by the All India Council for Technical Education and other formalities as required under the law are complied with, no student should be admitted in the institution for the reason that such students cannot be allowed to appear in the examination being an student of unrecognised institution. The court in such matter will not show any sympathy on the students of unrecognised institution. The apex court in the case of Dental Council of India vs. Harpreet Kaur Bal and others reported in 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 304 has held that direction to hold examination of students of unrecognised and unaffiliated institution is unjustified and not permissible in law. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs.