B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order, since the issue that arises for consideration in both the writ petitions is one and the same and the parties are common. ( 2 ) IT is required to notice that W. P. No. 4702 of 1999 is filed by the petitioner- society challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent-Chairman, State Level standing Committee and Commissioner and director of School Education, Andhra pradesh dated 22-2-1999 rejecting the application of the petitioner-society for issue of No Objection Certificate for establishing a B. Ed. , College in Tekkali Revenue division. The same petitioner-society in w. P. No. 25044 of 2000 impugns the decision of the said authority dated 5-11-1999 in granting No Objection certificate to the 4th respondent-Education society to apply for permission to the southern Regional Committee, National council for Teacher Education, Bangalore to start a College of Education in Tekkali revenue Division, Srikakulam District. Thus the matter that arises for consideration is one and the same. ( 3 ) THE Competent authority, viz. , chairman, State Level Standing Committee and Commissioner and Director of School education having rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of No Objection certificate to apply for permission to the national Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to start a College of Education at tekkali and having considered the case of the 4th respondent-Education Society granted No Objection Certificate accordingly. The said decisions are impugned in these writ petitions. ( 4 ) THE petitioner-society and the 4th respondent-society are registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. Both of them claim that the societies are formed with an avowed object of providing education to the people of Tekkali. The director of School Education by a notification published in daily newspapers on 26-2-1998 invited applications from the private educational societies for granting No objection Certificates to apply for permission to the National Council for teacher Education, Bangalore for starting new Colleges of Education for the academic year 1998-1999 at the places shown in the annexure to the said notification. Tekkali revenue Division with which we are concerned for the present is one such revenue Division where a private B. Ed. , college is proposed to be established. Tekkali revenue Division with which we are concerned for the present is one such revenue Division where a private B. Ed. , college is proposed to be established. Certain clarifications are issued in the very same notification inter alia stating that the State government will only issue No Objection certificate for starting the college. Actual permission to start shall be obtained from the ncte after fulfilling all the guidelines prescribed under the National Council for teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short the ncte Act ). The notification requires that the applicant has to provide two hectares of land in the name of the society and also corpus fund of Rs. 5. 00 lakhs. The said twin conditions as notified are primary conditions for considering the request for issue of No objection Certificate. It is further notified that the applicant-management who is having experience in the field of education will be given preference. A deposit of rs. 5. 00 lakhs is to be provided as corpus fund by way of Fixed Deposit in any nationalised Bank/nsc in the joint name of society and District Educational Officer (DEO) concerned. ( 5 ) PURSUANT to the notification so issued, the petitioner-society as well as the 4th respondent-society applied for grant of No objection Certificate. In the application form filed by the petitioner, it is clearly stated that the petitioner-society is having an extent of Ac. 6-03 cents of land and out of which Ac. 3. 53 cents, of land is covered by the registered sale deed and another extent of ac. 2-50 cents of land is covered by the registered lease deed. ( 6 ) THE competent authority having considered the application of the petitioner- society for grant of No Objection Certificate rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner-society did not satisfy the conditions stipulated in the notification dated 24-2-1998 and 6-3-1998 as it had failed to provide 2 hectares of land registered in the name of the educational society as owner. ( 7 ) THE competent authority having considered the application of the 4th respondent-society issued No Objection certificate on 5-11. 1999 and subsequently renewed/re-validated the same on 30-12-1999. ( 8 ) SRI O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision of the competent authority in rejecting the application of the petitioner- society for grant of No Objection Certificate suffers from illegalities. 1999 and subsequently renewed/re-validated the same on 30-12-1999. ( 8 ) SRI O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision of the competent authority in rejecting the application of the petitioner- society for grant of No Objection Certificate suffers from illegalities. It is contended that the competent authority ought to have granted No Objection Certificate to the petitioner-society for establishing a College of Education as it fulfils all the conditions. The learned Counsel urges that the decision in granting No Objection Certificate to the 4th respondent society is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. The 4th respondent-society is not eligible for grant of any such No Objection Certificate. ( 9 ) IT is the case of the petitioner-society that there is no requirement in law to provide two hectares of land in the name of the society. It is submitted that as per the norms and standards prescribed by the National council for Teacher Education, New Delhi, which is a competent authority for grant of permission for establishing B. Ed. , colleges, for teacher educational institutions, an extent of 0. 5 hectares of land is essential and an extent of 2 hectares of land is desirable. The competent authority without taking the norm laid down by the NCTE uniformly fixed the requirement of 2 hectares in respect of all educational institutions proposed to be opened in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted that the desirability is different from the essential requirement. An attempt is made to urge that the State Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, has no power and competency to lay down any such condition contrary to the norms prescribed by the NCTE. ( 10 ) SRI D. Prakash Reddy, learned additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State contends that according to the revised guidelines and as well as the notification issued by the competent authority, the twin conditions stipulated for issue of No Objection Certificate, viz. , the registered educational societies have to submit the documents relating to requirement of 2 hectares of land registered in the name of the society as owner and a corpus fund of Rs. 5. 00 lakhs in the joint account of D. E. O. concerned are primary in their nature, and they do not run contrary to the norms prescribed by the NCTE. 5. 00 lakhs in the joint account of D. E. O. concerned are primary in their nature, and they do not run contrary to the norms prescribed by the NCTE. ( 11 ) THE revised guidelines issued in g. O. Ms. No. 398, Education, dated 4-12-1997 for establishment of private b. Ed. , colleges in the State of Andhra pradesh in accordance with the NCTE Act, 1993 are clear and unambiguous. The competent authority as per the revised guidelines issued the notification inviting applications from the registered societies for issue of No Objection Certificate in order to obtain permission from the NCTE, bangalore for starting new Colleges of education. The said twin conditions are clearly notified as primary requirements in the very notification. The petitioner with eyes wide open and subjecting itself to all the conditions notified in the said notification, submitted its application on 18-3-1998 for issue of No Objection certificate to establish a B. Ed. , College in tekkali Revenue Division. In all, five applications have been received and the same have been placed before the State level Standing Committee for scrutiny and finalisation for grant of No Objection certificate. The State Level Standing committee having scrutinised all the applications found that only the 4th respondent-society has fulfilled the two primary conditions of providing 2 hectares of land registered in the name of the society as owner and creation of corpus fund of rs. 5. 00 lakhs. The other four applications including the application of the petitioner herein have been rejected by the State Level standing Committee for not fulfilling one of the primary conditions relating to requirement of two hectares of land. Admittedly, the petitioner-society is not the owner of 2 hectares of land and it could not produce any documents in support of the same. The application form, which is in the prescribed format, consists of 38 columns requiring the applicant to furnish the requisite information as against those columns. Column No. 18 relates to the land area possessed by the institution. It is clearly stated that the applicant has to enclose the registered document as a proof of ownership. In the circumstances, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no requirement in law that the society should be the owner of the land is totally unacceptable. It is clearly stated that the applicant has to enclose the registered document as a proof of ownership. In the circumstances, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no requirement in law that the society should be the owner of the land is totally unacceptable. The petitioner made an attempt to contend that providing of 2 hectares of land in the name of the society would be enough and the society need not be the owner of the land. That is how the petitioner-society furnished the requisite information revealing that it owns Ac. 3. 53 cents of land and holds an extent of Ac. 2. 50 cents as lessee. The petitioner-society made available the registered sale deed and lease deed. ( 12 ) A plain reading of the guidelines and notification issued and the application which is in the prescribed formant in clear terms would reveal the requirement that the applicant-society has to provide 2 hectares of land as owner and the same shall stand in the name of the applicant-society. Providing of 2 hectares of land as notified is to be construed accordingly. Otherwise, the whole object of insisting for the specified extent of land would get defeated. The land, after all, is required for construction of class rooms, library, laboratories, workshop, art room, seminar hall, multipurpose room, assembly hall, and other administrative buildings apart from hostels and playgrounds. The State government in its discretion as a policy measure thought it fit to lay down the norms and accordingly notified the requirement of 2 hectares of land to be owned and possessed by the applicant-educational society. ( 13 ) THIS Court in Government of A. P. v. St. Mary s Educational Society, Giddaluru, prakasam District held that "the State government s jurisdiction to grant permission for establishing educational institution including the institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education is in no manner affected insofar as that relates to making of an assessment for providing such educational facilities to the people in a locality. " It is held that "the State Government s role after the enactment of the NCTE Act is mainly restricted to the aspect relating to the need for establishment of institutions offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education. " It is held that "the State Government s role after the enactment of the NCTE Act is mainly restricted to the aspect relating to the need for establishment of institutions offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education. The State Government is still entitled to make an assessment about the need for establishment of such institutions offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education. " ( 14 ) THERE is no difficulty whatsoever to hold that G. O. Ms. No. 398, dated 4-12-1997 issued by the Government of Andhra pradesh prescribing the guidelines for considering an application for grant of No objection Certificate for establishing a college of Education is to be read so as to be in conformity with the provisions of the ncte Act and the regulations made thereunder so as to avoid any repugnancy. Viewed from such angle, there is no difficulty to hold that the State Government is still entitled to prescribe such conditions as it may consider just, proper and necessary for grant of No Objection Certificate. The requirement prescribed in G. O. Ms. No. 398, education, dated 4-12-1997 that the land will be 2 hectares and shall be registered in the name of the applicant-society as owner does not suffer from any legal infirmity. At any rate, G. O. Ms. No. 398, dated 4-12-1997 is not under challenge in these writ petitions. ( 15 ) THE NCTE in its wisdom may have prescribed an extent of 0. 5 hectares of land to be essential for granting recognition/ permission. The State Government perhaps could not have laid down any guideline reducing the extent of the land, which according to the NCTE is essential. Any such prescription may have an adverse bearing or impact upon the standard of teacher education. ( 16 ) THE State Government while prescribing the criteria even for considering the request for grant of No Objection certificate to the institutions for teacher education cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the NCTE. The norms prescribed by the NCTE for grant of recognition may have a reasonable connection with the standard of education. But the State Government can prescribe its own norms which are consistent with or do not adversely affect the norms prescribed by the NCTE in exercise of its power under the ncte Act. The norms prescribed by the NCTE for grant of recognition may have a reasonable connection with the standard of education. But the State Government can prescribe its own norms which are consistent with or do not adversely affect the norms prescribed by the NCTE in exercise of its power under the ncte Act. It can always lay down the conditions in addition to those prescribed by the NCTE and such norms would be consistent with promoting higher standards to the teacher education courses. The State government in its discretion cannot lay down any norms, which may have an impact of lowering the educational standards. (For the proposition see: Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh ). ( 17 ) IT is thus clear that the norms prescribed by the State Government that the applicant-registered educational society should own in its name a minimum of 2 hectares of land for considering its request for granting No Objection Certificate in order to enable the applicant to obtain permission from the NCTE for establishing the B. Ed. , college does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The competent authority rightly rejected the application of the petitioner-society since the petitioner does not fulfil and satisfy the primary condition of owning the land of 2 hectares in the name of the society. ( 18 ) THE next question that falls for consideration is as to whether the 4th respondent-society fulfils and satisfies the norms as laid down by the State government. It is contended that the 4th respondent-society instead of depositing the amount in the Nationalised Bank has deposited the amount in District Cooperative Central Bank, Srikakulam, Palasa- kasibugga Branch. Thus the deposit that has been made by the 4th respondent is not in consonance with the notification issued by the 2nd respondent. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, did not seriously press the contention and, therefore, it is not necessary to examine the said contention in detail. However, suffice it to note that the 4th respondent-society by depositing the amount in the District Cooperative Central Bank, Srikakulam has substantially complied with the requirement. It is nobody s case that the 4th respondent- society has not deposited the amount. However, suffice it to note that the 4th respondent-society by depositing the amount in the District Cooperative Central Bank, Srikakulam has substantially complied with the requirement. It is nobody s case that the 4th respondent- society has not deposited the amount. ( 19 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, would urge that the land which has been shown by the 4th respondent is not a contiguous plot and bits and pieces of land has been joined together to show that the total extent of land is Ac. 5-00 and not one composite plot as is required. The 4th respondent-society made an incorrect statement in the application submitted before the first respondent. The certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer would reveal that the total extent of land would come to Ac. 4-88 cents and not Ac. 5-00 of land as specified in the notification. It is thus contended that the 4th respondent-society, like the petitioner, does not own and possess 2 hectares of land and, therefore, no No objection Certificate could have been issued in its favour. ( 20 ) SRI D. Prakash Reddy, learned additional Advocate General contends that the 4th respondent-society has substantially complied with the requirement of providing 2 hectares of land. It is contended that even if a particular bit/piece of land is not contiguous to the remaining vast extent of land, the same is negligible. In the counter- affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated that only an extent of Ac. 0-56 cents of land out of Ac. 5-25 cents of land owned and possessed by the respondent-society is at a distance of half a kilometre from the rest of the land. ( 21 ) THERE is no dispute and the record also would reveal that only an extent of ac. 0-56 cents of land is away and not contiguous to the remaining extent of the land. It is also clear from the record that no other applicant including the petitioner satisfied the primary requirement. The total extent of land owned and in the name of the 4th respondent-society is more than 2 hectares. 0-56 cents of land is away and not contiguous to the remaining extent of the land. It is also clear from the record that no other applicant including the petitioner satisfied the primary requirement. The total extent of land owned and in the name of the 4th respondent-society is more than 2 hectares. May be, at the most, there could be a shortfall of about a few cents of land, if that particular bit of land which is not contiguous to the remaining vast extent of land is to be excluded for the purpose of calculating as to whether the 4th respondent has 2 hectares of land. It is thus clear that the 4th respondent- society has substantially complied with even with regard to the ownership of the land in its name. ( 22 ) THERE is nothing on record to show that any of the statutory authorities acted in any biased manner or showed any favouritism to the 4th respondent-society as alleged by the petitioner-society. May be the secretary and Correspondent of the 4th respondent-society happens to be the wife of a local Telugu Desam Party M. L. A. There is nothing on record to suggest that the said m. L. A. used his influence and got the No objection Certificate. It is easy to level an allegation, but difficult to prove. There is no material on record to hold that the decision making process is vitiated on account of any extraneous considerations. ( 23 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. The same shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 24 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the interim order earlier granted by this Court shall stand vacated.