Judgment S.N.JHA, J. 1. The dispute in these two writ petitions relates to affiliation of a Dental College namely, Dr. S. M. Naqui Imam Dental College and Hospital, Bahera in the district of Darbhanga, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-college or college). C.W.J.C. No. 6388 of 2001 is by the college seeking quashing of the notification dated 27-4-2001 of the respondent-L. M. Mithila University by which, in effect and substance, affiliation earlier granted to the college has been withdrawn, and a direction upon the University to conduct the pending examinations and publish the results. C.W.J.C. No. 11204 of 2001 is by a student of the college seeking direction upon the University to issue migration certificate to the petitioner. C.W.J.C. No. 6388 of 2001 has been argued as the representative case and the facts to be mentioned hereinafter are accordingly taken from the record of that case. 2. At the outset it may be mentioned that C.W.J.C. No. 6388/2001 was referred to Division Bench doubting the correctness of a decision in the case of Governing Body of the Budha Institute of Dental Science V/s. State of Bihar, 1995 (1) PLJR 623. The impugned notification refers to non-compliance of the proviso to Sec. 21(2)(d) of the Bihar State Universities Act (in short, the Universities Act) which provides for prior approval of the State Government in the matter of affiliation of Medical College, and the Statutes of the University. In the case of Budha Institute of Dental Science supra the said proviso was held to be void to the extent of repugnancy with the Dentists Act, 1948 . Naturally, when the case came up for hearing before one of us (S. N. Jha, J.), sitting singly, heavy reliance was placed on the said decision. The Bench expressed its reservations about the correctness of the decision and by a speaking order referred the case to Division Bench. The order of reference was challenged in the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 11125 of 2001 but without success. 3. In fairness to the parties it may be stated that when the case was taken up the Court observed that in view of the fact that the reference has been made by one of us the case could be heard by another Bench. Counsel for the parties stated that they have no objection whatsoever to the hearing of the case by this Bench. Counsel for the parties stated that they have no objection whatsoever to the hearing of the case by this Bench. Counsel for the petitioner, in fact, took the stand that the order of reference was passed at a stage when the pleading was not complete. At the same time he submitted that as appeal against the decision in Budh Institutes case by the State is pending in the Supreme Court, this Court may not like to go into the correctness or otherwise of the decision. He referred to the case of A. Haleem V/s. M. S. Tajudeen, 1994 (Supp) 3 SCC 644. Counsel submitted that it may not be necessary to go into that question in the facts and circumstances as the impugned notification of the University is liable to be struck down on other grounds as well. 4. The decision in Haleems case supra was rendered in a quite different context. In the matter of a dispute relating to constitution of the Board of Trustees of a certain trust, the Supreme Court earlier by an interim order had constituted a Board with Justice V. Khalid, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, as Chairman, pending disposal of the special leave petition. During the pendency of the special leave petition, one of the trustees filed application before the District Judge for removal of the Secretary of the Board impleading the Chairman i.e. Justice V. Khalid as eo nomine party to the application. The District Judge entertained the application and issued notice to the parties including Justice V. Khalid. This led to contempt notice. It was in this context that the Supreme Court observed that where the matter is pending before superior Court the subordinate Court should not entertain parallel proceedings. In the hierarchical system of Courts a willing and disciplined acceptance of the order of the higher Court is a fundamental feature of the system and what the District Judge had done was perilously close to destroying that discipline. However, as the District Judge had tendered unconditioned apology the proceeding was dropped. It would thus appear that the decision was rendered on entirely different facts and the observations relied upon by the counsel have no relevance in the context of the present case. However, as the District Judge had tendered unconditioned apology the proceeding was dropped. It would thus appear that the decision was rendered on entirely different facts and the observations relied upon by the counsel have no relevance in the context of the present case. Secondly, whether it is essential to go into the correctness or otherwise of the decision in the case of Budha Institute of Dental Science or the case can be decided on facts without going into that question, as submitted on behalf of the petitioner, could be appreciated only after full dress hearing. That apart, the Court was also conscious of the fact that the impugned notification has created a state of uncertainty for the students of petitioner-college. The Court thus thought it proper to proceed with the hearing of the case. 5. The case of the petitioner-college may briefly be stated as follows. The college is a minority institution established by one Rauf Muslim Jamia Society, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act sometime in 1989. Request was made to the Dental Council of India for recognition of the college. By letter dated 1-3-89 the Dental Council informed the management about its policy not to permit New Dental College without permission of the concerned State Government and affiliation with the concerned University. The petitioner then took steps to obtain permission from the State Government and the affiliation from the L. N. Mithila University. On 10-6-90 the Vice-Chancellor of the University inspected the College and by letter dated 12-6-90 no objection certificate in the matter of affiliation of the College was granted. On 13-1-93 the Government of Bihar in the Health Department in continuation of its earlier letters requested the Dental Council to inspect the College in the light of the direction of this Court. 6. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner-College had filed writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 9490/92 seeking direction upon the respondents to make inspection and finalise the approval of the College in which it took the stand that being a minority institution it had right to establish any institution of its choice unaffected by the amended provisions of Secs. 10(A), 10(B) and 10(C) of the Dentist Act. 10(A), 10(B) and 10(C) of the Dentist Act. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 14-9-93 held that the right to establish minority institution is not absolute, it was subject to statutory regulations and therefore, the establishment and maintenance of an educational institution must be in conformity with the statutory provisions. The Court further held that the amended provisions of the Dentist Act were applicable to all institutions including those which were established before the commencement of the amended provisions and therefore, the recognition of the existing institutions will abide by the decision of the Central Government. The above decision titled Dr. S. M. Naqui Imam Dental College and Hospital V/s. Dental Council of India, reported in 1993 (2) PLJR 641. The petitioner-college then filed C.W.J.C. No. 5824/93 seeking more or less similar direction to grant approval to the college in terms of Sec. 10A(5) of the Dentists Act and, further, direction to grant affiliation. That writ petition too was dismissed on 28-3-94. The Court held that the second writ petition seeking similar relief was barred by principles of res judicata as no party can be permitted to raise the same question again after being canvassed and rejected in the earlier writ petition. In Civil Review No. 42/94 on 19-4-94 the Court clarified that the petitioner-college could take steps for affiliation. 7. It may be mentioned at this stage itself that against the above said decision dated 14-9-93 in C.W.J.C. No. 9490/92, 1993(2) PLJR 641, the petitioner-college preferred Special Leave Petitions being SLP(C) Nos. 20394-96/94 in the Supreme Court which is still pending. In the said SLP on 20-2-95 an interim order was passed directing the Dental Council to inspect the college, without prejudice to the contentions which may be raised in response to the Special Leave Petitions, as regards the availability of the infrastructure, teaching facilities, laboratory facilities. Library and adequacy or lack of availability of the teaching staff, whether or not the college is equipped to impart dental surgery. While the report of the inspection team was awaited, on 10-7-95 the Supreme Court passed another interim order directing the University to publish the result of the students who had appeared at the BDS first year examination held in 1992 without prejudice to the contentions which may be raised during hearing of the case. While the report of the inspection team was awaited, on 10-7-95 the Supreme Court passed another interim order directing the University to publish the result of the students who had appeared at the BDS first year examination held in 1992 without prejudice to the contentions which may be raised during hearing of the case. The Court further directed that the "eligible candidates, after declaration of result, shall be permitted to pursue their further studies including taking part in the next higher examination under rules." In accordance with the above direction of the Supreme Court the University allowed the students of the college admitted for the sessions 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 to appear in the examination. 8. The case of the petitioner-college is that shortly thereafter the University held inspection and on being satisfied with the available infrastructure granted permanent affiliation to the college on 2-12-95. Copy of the letter informing the Secretary of the petitioner-college about the affiliation has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Much argument was made with reference to the said communication by both the sides and I shall refer to it again at the appropriate place in this judgment. On 6-1-96 the successor Vice-Chancellor made reference for the annulment of the above said order of affiliation to the Chancellor under Sec. 9(4) of the Bihar State Universities Act. The Chancellor refused to interfere with the order advising the Vice-Chancellor to "take such appropriate action as may be available according to law". The Syndicate thereafter on consideration of the facts and circumstances decided to hold examination for the first BDS course for 1993 and onwards and an examination programme was also issued. Having decided to hold examination, the Syndicate thus tacitly concurred in the affiliation earlier granted by the Vice-Chancellor. Though the proviso to Sec. 21(2)(d) of the Universities Act requires prior approval of the State Government in the matter of affiliation of a medical college, the said provision has been held to be ultra vires by this Court in the case of Budha Institute of Dental Science, 1995 (1) PLJR 623 and therefore, there was no need to obtain any such prior approval. However, on 3-2-96 the Additional Commissioner-Special Secretary of the Health Department requested the Secretary of the Higher Education Department to make inspection of the petitioner college so that the State Government may take appropriate stand in the pending SLPs, in which the State Government had been impleaded as a party. Copy of the said letter was also sent to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University. On 28-2-96 the University constituted a three-member committee for inspection of the college. The case of the petitioner is that the said committee inspected the college on 24-4-96 and submitted its report on 4-5-96 stating therein that the college was improving day by day, and the norms and terms laid down by the Dental Council were being followed. Meanwhile the Dental Council had also got the college inspected by an inspection team pursuant to above mentioned direction of the Supreme Court dated 20-2-95 in SLP (C) No. 20394-96/94. In the light of the inspection report on 12-8-95 the Acting President of the Council granted permission for admission of 60 students from the year 1989. On 8-11-95 the General Body of the Dental Council also decided to grant permission to run the BDS course with an intake of 60 students from the academic year 1989-90. The said decision of the Dental Council dated 8-11-95 was communicated to the petitioner-college on 9-8-96. Copy of the letter has been enclosed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Much argument has been made with reference to said communication by both sides and I shall come back to the document at the appropriate place again in this judgment. 9. The further case of the petitioner-college is that though the final BDS examinations for the Sessions 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 had become due the University was not taking steps to conduct the examination. Writ petitions being C.W.J.C. Nos. 11381/99 and 1766/2000 were filed before this Court which were disposed of on 23-2-2000 with a direction to the University to publish the pending results of the examinations already held and to conduct further examinations falling due within three months. The University instead of complying with the above direction of this Court filed M.J.C. No. 1175/2000 for modification of the order on the ground of pendency of enquiry by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department. By order dated 10-5-2000 the prayer of the University was rejected. The University instead of complying with the above direction of this Court filed M.J.C. No. 1175/2000 for modification of the order on the ground of pendency of enquiry by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department. By order dated 10-5-2000 the prayer of the University was rejected. As the University had failed to conduct the examination and publish the result as per the directions issued in C.W.J.C. No. 11381/99 and C.W.J.C. No. 1766/2000, M.J.C. No. 1318/2000 was filed for initiation of contempt proceeding. On 12-9-2000 this Court directed the University to comply with the earlier orders without going into the technicalities. The contempt petition was kept pending. On 19-2-2000 the University informed the Court that examination programme had been published. The Court directed the University to publish fresh examination programme and conduct the examination. A revised examination programme was published on 27-9-2000. As per the said programme the University conducted the examinations but in part only. The process was completed only on the intervention of the Collector of the District. However, the practical examinations were not notified. This led to another contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 3701/2000. On 21-12-2000 the petition was disposed of with a direction to conduct the examination in practical papers within one month. In accordance with the above directions the University conducted the practical examination in some subjects but abruptly postponed the examination for the remaining subjects. In the meantime the first BDS examination for the Sessions 1998-99 and 1999-2000 also became due but the University did not take step to conduct the examination despite request. The petitioner thus filed yet another contempt petition, M.J.C. No. 803/2001, which is pending. Some of the students of the college filed writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 5206/2001, in representative capacity. On 24-4-2001 the case was adjourned for instructions. The Vice-Chairman of the College met the Officers of the University and requested them to fix the examination programme and conduct the examination but they did not pay any heed to the request. Instead of fixing the examination schedule etc. the Vice-Chancellor cancelled the order of affiliation itself on 27-4-2001 giving rise to the present writ petitions. 10. The case of the petitioner is that the Vice-Chancellor has relied on Sec. 4(19) and proviso to Sec. 21(2)(d) of the Universities Act. Instead of fixing the examination schedule etc. the Vice-Chancellor cancelled the order of affiliation itself on 27-4-2001 giving rise to the present writ petitions. 10. The case of the petitioner is that the Vice-Chancellor has relied on Sec. 4(19) and proviso to Sec. 21(2)(d) of the Universities Act. While Sec. 4(19) of the Act has no application to Dental Colleges, proviso to Sec. 21(2)(d) has been held to be ultra vires in the case of Budha Institute of Dental Science, 1995 (1) PLJR 623 . The ground for cancellation of the affiliation is thus non est. It is also said that the cancellation is in the teeth of various orders of the Supreme Court which were passed on consideration of all issues of fact and law. Under Article 144 of the Constitution every authority in the territory of India is required to act "in aid of the Supreme Court". The Vice-Chancellor, instead, has acted in derogation of the orders of the Supreme Court. In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Unnikrishnan J. P. V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645 the University is supposed to adopt an affirmative approach in the matter of establishment and running of private medical/dental colleges, the approach of the respondent University, however, has been negative. In any view, the notification is fit to be quashed on the solitary ground of violation of the rules of natural justice as the decision to cancel the affiliation was taken without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-college. 11. The case of the University is as follows. The petitioner college obtained affiliation from the University and permission to run BDS course with an intake of 60 students from Dental Council on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation and in disregard of the statutory provisions. Till date it does not have a valid permission or no objection from the State Government or affiliated from the University. The Dental Council on consideration of the materials has now come to the conclusion that the petitioner-college does not deserve the recognition and accordingly has recommended to the Central Government for derecognition of the degrees granted to the students of the petitioner-college. The petitioner-college is not the only case of its kind. The Dental Council on consideration of the materials has now come to the conclusion that the petitioner-college does not deserve the recognition and accordingly has recommended to the Central Government for derecognition of the degrees granted to the students of the petitioner-college. The petitioner-college is not the only case of its kind. Within a short span of one year during 1988-1989 four new Dental Colleges came to be established at Darbhaga under the jurisdiction of L. N. Mithila University even though the University did not have dental faculty or any authority to grant "recognised dental qualifications" within the meaning of the Dentists Act. These colleges were established bypassing all statutory bodies. The Dentists Act has been enacted to regulate the grant of the dental qualification and it does not deal with matters relating to or incidental to affiliation of colleges with the University which are contained in the Bihar State Universities Act. As such, the provisions relating to grant of affiliation as contained in the Universities Act cannot have any conflict with the provisions of the Dentists Act. The recognition of a college under the Dentists Act and its affiliation under the Universities Act operate in different fields. Sec. 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 inter alia, provides that it is the University alone which can grant a degree. The degrees are not granted by colleges. They are merely teaching institutions. They impart education and training to students for examination to be conducted by the University on the basis of which degrees are granted by it. Under Sec. 10(2) of the Dentists Act, any authority or institution, meaning thereby a University, intending to grant "recognised dental qualification" as defined in Sec. 2(j) of the Act may apply to the Central Government which may after making such enquiry as it deems necessary, notify the degree granted by such authority or institution by adding it in the schedule of the Act. Till date L. N. Mithila University has not applied for inclusion of the dental qualification supposedly granted by it in the schedule of the Act. As a matter of fact the University does not have any dental faculty nor it has framed regulations for conducting the examination in the BDS course. Till date L. N. Mithila University has not applied for inclusion of the dental qualification supposedly granted by it in the schedule of the Act. As a matter of fact the University does not have any dental faculty nor it has framed regulations for conducting the examination in the BDS course. Transitory Regulations of 1992 for conducting examination in BDS courses in private dental colleges has been held to be ultra vires by this Court in the case of Sarjug Dental College vide decision, reported in 1993 (2) PLJR 610. 12. The further case of the University is that General Body of the Dental Council in its meeting held on 29/30-11-88 had taken a policy decision that no new Dental Colleges would be permitted to be established without the permission or no objection certificate of the concerned State Government and the affiliation or no objection certificate of the concerned University. Further, no new proposal for setting up of new Dental Colleges would be considered by the President or the Executive Committee of the Dental Council under Regulation 3(5) by circulation. Accordingly, on receipt of the intimation from Rauf Muslim Jamia about the proposed establishment of a college in the name of Dr. S. N. Naqui Imam Dental College and Hospital, the Dental Council vide its letter dated 1-3-89 directed the President of Rauf Muslim Jamia to obtain prior permission from the State Government and affiliation from the University. Rauf Muslim Jamia/college objected to the above stand on the ground that it had right to establish a minority institution of its choice. Upon a reference made to the Central Government, vide its letter dated 18-4-90 of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, it was clarified that although the right of Rauf Muslim Jamia to establish and administer a Dental College cannot be denied, the right is subject to the regulatory measures as prescribed in that behalf. Rauf Muslim Jamia thereafter filed representation before the Vice-Chancellor on 14-5-90. The then Vice-Chancellor (Dr. J. Kumar) who had no medical qualification inspected the college on 10-6-90 and issued no objection certificate on 12-6-90. Curiously, the Vice-Chancellor stated in the letter that "the college is smoothly functioning in the three storeyed and electrified palatial newly constructed building located at Bahera. . . . . . The then Vice-Chancellor (Dr. J. Kumar) who had no medical qualification inspected the college on 10-6-90 and issued no objection certificate on 12-6-90. Curiously, the Vice-Chancellor stated in the letter that "the college is smoothly functioning in the three storeyed and electrified palatial newly constructed building located at Bahera. . . . . . I am influenced and satisfied to this Dental College and Hospital since it has its own well equipped and furnished laboratories, hospital library, hostels (boys and girls), typewriting and duplicating machines, telephone, furniture, teaching aids, well experienced and qualified teaching and non-teaching staff". The case of the University is that the Dental Council has laid down minimum basic norms for new Dental Colleges, none of which has apparently been specifically noticed or mentioned in the said letter. The University has expressed doubt that a college allegedly established in the year 1989 could be so well equipped on or about 12-6-90 as stated in the letter. 13. The petitioner-college meantime had also approached the Chancellor. On 29-7-91 the Registrar informed the Chancellor that there was no question of granting any affiliation or holding any examination unless the petitioner obtains no objection from the State Government. Similar letter was written by Registrar to the Secretary of the petitioner-college on 19-9-91. There was no response from the petitioner-college. The college, it appears, meanwhile went on admitting the students. It again approached the Chancellor for issuing necessary direction to conduct the examination for the students. The Chancellor directed the University to frame Transitory Regulations. The University accordingly, framed Regulations which was approved by the Chancellor but the same was later held to be ultra vires by this Court in the case of Sarjug Dental College, vide 1993 (2) PLJR 610. The petitioner-College approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9490/92 which was dismissed on 14-9-93. The Court held that the amended provisions of Secs. 10A, 10B and 10C were applicable to the petitioner-college and it had no option but to take steps in the light of those provisions. The college filed M.J.C. No. 530/94 for initiating contempt proceeding which was dismissed on 13-9-94. The college then filed another writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 5824/93 which too was dismissed on 28-2-94. While dismissing the case the Court noticed that Transitory Regulations (supra) had already been held to be ultra vires. The college filed M.J.C. No. 530/94 for initiating contempt proceeding which was dismissed on 13-9-94. The college then filed another writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 5824/93 which too was dismissed on 28-2-94. While dismissing the case the Court noticed that Transitory Regulations (supra) had already been held to be ultra vires. The Court observed that it was for the University to make an application under Sec. 10(2) of the Dentists Act for granting "recognised dental qualification". In Civil Review No. 42/94 arising from the said decision however, the Court clarified that the petitioner may raise the question of affiliation before the appropriate authority in accordance with law if the petitioner fulfills all the conditions thereof. 14. In the meantime the petitioner-College had preferred special leave petitions, SLP(C) Nos. 20394-96/94 challenging the decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9490/92 (supra) but without impleading the University. The Supreme Court passed interim orders relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, directing the Dental Council to conduct inspection vide order dated 20-2-95, and directing the University to publish the result of the first BDS examination vide order dated 10-7-95. These orders were passed behind the back of the University. It was only on or about 12/13-10-95 that the University was added as a party. The examinations were accordingly held but under Transitory Regulations already held to be ultra vires by this Court. The fact that Transitory Regulations had already been held to be ultra vires was suppressed from the Supreme Court nor it was brought to its notice that the L. N. Mithila University had no authority to conduct any such examination or to grant recognised dental qualification in BDS course under the Dentist Act. 15. As regards the permission of the Dental Council to run dental course with an intake of 60 students it has been stated that the decision was taken by the acting President of the Council in utter disregard of the policy decision of the General Body in its meeting held on 29/30-11-88 to the effect that no new proposal for setting up new dental colleges would be considered by the President. Though the General Body of the Dental Council apparently ratified the said decision of the acting President, it would appear that the decision was result of misrepresentation that the petitioner-college already stood affiliated with L. N. Mithila University. Though the General Body of the Dental Council apparently ratified the said decision of the acting President, it would appear that the decision was result of misrepresentation that the petitioner-college already stood affiliated with L. N. Mithila University. As a matter of fact the misrepresentation was made by the College at the stage of inspection on or about 14-4-95 carried out pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court dated 20-2-95, because in paragraph 4 of the report it was stated that "the college is affiliated with L. N. Mithila University, Darbhanga and the University had conducted the first BDS examination under DCI Regulations approved by the Chancellor". The fact of the matter is that the acting Vice-Chancellor of the University (Dr. B. N. Jha) granted permanent affiliation only on 2-12-95. The decision of the Dental Council to permit running of the Dental Course with an intake of 60 students on the assumption that the College already stood affiliated was thus obviously the result of fraud and misrepresentation. 16. As regards the affiliation dated 2-12-95 it has been stated that in the second week of October, 1995 the permanent Vice-Chancellor Sri R.C.P. Sinha proceeded on leave. Taking advantage of his absence on or about 11-10-95, the petitioner-college made application for grant of permanent affiliation. On or about 5-11-95 the then Registrar of the University suo motu without any order or authority inspected the college and submitted a report on 9-11-95 to the acting Vice-Chancellor Dr. B. N. Jha. On 2-12-95, the impugned notification was issued granting permanent affiliation of the petitioner-college in respect of BDS course from the session 1989-90 professedly in the light of the order of this Court dated 19-4-94 in Civil Review No. 42/94. According to the University, it was yet another act of fraud inasmuch as neither in the main judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 5824/93 (giving rise to Civil Review No. 42/94) nor in the order on the review petition, there was any direction of this Court to grant affiliation muchless permanent affiliation. All this was apparently done taking advantage of temporary absence of the permanent Vice-Chancellor. A counter-affidavit to this effect was also hurriedly filed in the Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos. 20394-6 of 1994, in January 1996. As soon as the permanent Vice-Chancellor Dr. All this was apparently done taking advantage of temporary absence of the permanent Vice-Chancellor. A counter-affidavit to this effect was also hurriedly filed in the Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos. 20394-6 of 1994, in January 1996. As soon as the permanent Vice-Chancellor Dr. R. C. P. Sinha assumed charge of the office on return from leave, taking notice of the illegalities committed during his absence he submitted a detailed report to the Chancellor and the State Government on 6-1-96 pointing out violation of statutory provisions. The Chancellor advised the Vice-Chancellor to take action according to law. In August, 1996 the University filed a counter-affidavit setting out the facts and circumstances and the violation of the statutory provisions in the matter of grant of affiliation. The counter-affidavit filed earlier in January, 1996 was withdrawn as being unauthorised. 17. As regards violation of statutory provisions in the grant of affiliation on 2-12-95 it has been stated that by Bihar Act 17/93 the powers of the Senate and Syndicate of the University were restored with effect from 9-2-93, but neither the Senate or Syndicate was consulted nor for that matter the Standing Committee for affiliation was informed muchless consulted. At the time of hearing reference was made to Affiliation Statute dated 19-4-86 titled Statute relating to admission or exclusion of Colleges other than those managed and maintained by the University and the Statutes on formation of Standing Committee dated 20-12-86, providing for an Affiliation and New Teaching Programme Committee at Sl. (a) of the list of committees. The composition, powers and functions of the Committee are mentioned in para 2. The factual position, according to the University, is that till date the Senate or the Syndicate has not approved the grant of affiliation to the petitioner-college which is violative of the provisions of Secs. 4(19) and 21(2) of the University Act. Sec. 4(19) of the Act empowers the University to affiliate or disaffiliate colleges according to Statutes subject to prior approval of the State Government, under Sec. 21(2), the senate has power to affiliate or disaffiliate colleges, with the prior approval of the State Government in terms of the proviso. The State Government took cognizance of the matter on receipt of the above said report of the Vice-Chancellor dated 6-1-96 and by letter dated 7-2-97 it held that the grant of affiliation was illegal and accordingly directed the University to withdraw/cancel the same. The State Government took cognizance of the matter on receipt of the above said report of the Vice-Chancellor dated 6-1-96 and by letter dated 7-2-97 it held that the grant of affiliation was illegal and accordingly directed the University to withdraw/cancel the same. On receipt of the above communication dated 7-2-97, on 15-2-97 the Registrar of the University sent communication to the Dental Council to treat the petitioner-college as unaffiliated setting out the relevant circumstances. As soon as the petitioner-college learnt about said letter, it approached the new Vice-Chancellor Shri A.M.S.A. Moghni on 28-2-97. Immediately on the protest letter itself on 1-3-97 he passed an order that the order of the Registrar was ultra vires and the same was set aside. He further restored the affiliation as before. The Deputy Registrar of the University on 13-3-97 (bypassing the Registrar) issued notification to the above effect. Objection has been taken to the above order/notification dated 1-3-97/3-3-97 by submitting that neither the order nor the notification contains any statement or the ground that the permanent affiliation earlier granted by the then acting Vice-Chancellor on 2-12-95 was valid. All that is stated is that the Registrar had no authority to make such an order without the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. 18. As regards the permission of the Dental Council it has been stated that after grant of permission dated 6/8-11-95 was communicated by the Council by letter dated 9-8-96, fresh inspections were made by the Dental Council. The first inspection was made on 3/4-12-97. The report was considered by the Executive Committee of the Council on 2/3-1-98. The Executive Committee refused to recommend the recognition of the BDS qualification in respect of the petitioner-college on account of the deficiencies pointed out in the report. The Executive Committee again considered the matter in the meeting held on 20/21-6-98 and 1/2-8-98. The compliance reports submitted by the petitioner-college were rejected on account of deficiencies earlier pointed out in the report dated 3/4-12-97. Another inspection was made on 20/21-3-99. The Executive Committee in its meeting held on 13/14-5-99 reiterated its decision not to recognise the BDS degree granted to the students of the petitioner-college on account of fresh deficiencies. This process went on between the petitioner-college and Dental Council, the University was kept in dark about these developments. Another inspection was made on 20/21-3-99. The Executive Committee in its meeting held on 13/14-5-99 reiterated its decision not to recognise the BDS degree granted to the students of the petitioner-college on account of fresh deficiencies. This process went on between the petitioner-college and Dental Council, the University was kept in dark about these developments. Later, on the basis of another inspection the General Body of the Dental Council accepted the recommendation of the inspection team to recognise the BDS degrees of the students of the petitioner-college in its meeting held on 24/25-4-2000 and accordingly sent its recommendation to the Central Government, but soon after, in the meeting held on 28/29-8-2000 reversed the decision on the recommendation of the Executive Committee on the ground that the petitioner-college had been misleading the Dental Council in respect of its academic staff from the beginning and thus informed the Central Government of its decision to derecognise the degrees granted to the students. 19. It has also been stated that the State Government/Chancellor of the University having come to know about the manner in which four Dental Colleges had been running at Darbhanga under the L. N. Mithila University and the irregularities ordered a Vigilance enquiry in April, 1999. A First Information Report has been lodged against one of the colleges namely, Darbhanga Dental College for having fraudulently obtained affiliation and recognition. The officials of the University and the Dental Council including the then Vice-Chancellor of the University Shri Moghni have been made accused in the case. Some of them (including Shri Moghni) were also arrested and remained in custody for some time. 20. The stand of the University thus in a nutshell is that the College has been established and running without valid permission of the Dental Council, approval of the State Government and affiliation of the University. 21 The Dental Council has also filed counter-affidavit in which it has been stated that pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court dated 15-2-2001 and 18-9-2001 recommendation was made to the Central Government on 3-10-2001 to recognise the BDS degrees of L.N. Mithila University for the batches 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. Earlier, on 1-6-2001 it had informed the Central Government that the college had not removed the deficiencies and was evading joint inspection. Earlier, on 1-6-2001 it had informed the Central Government that the college had not removed the deficiencies and was evading joint inspection. The Central Government having considered the matter decided to prohibit the petitioner college and other three colleges from taking admission from the session 2001-2002. The decision was conveyed to the authorities of concerned colleges on 23-8-2001. 22. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the affiliation having been withdrawn on the solitary ground of non-compliance of the provisions of the Universities Act and the Statutes framed thereunder, the University should not be allowed to urge additional grounds in support of the decision. The validity of any action or order has to be tested with reference to the ground(s) on which the action/order is based and it is not permissible to add fresh grounds in support of the impugned action/order. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Police, Bombay V/s. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 and Pavanendra Narayan Verma V/s. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, (2002) 1 SCC 520 . On behalf of the University it was submitted that the facts stated in the counter-affidavit, as briefly noticed to above, are not in support of the impugned notification but to show that the hands of the petitioner-College are not clean and hence the Court should decline to grant any relief. I find substance in the argument of the counsel for the University. 23. It is well known that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable in nature and exercise thereof is discretionary. Thee Court therefore can take into consideration other relevant facts and circumstances for granting or denying the desired relief, as the case may be. in S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu V/s. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court observed "The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process of convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whos case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process of convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whos case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation." The Court therefore should not adopt a technical approach and confine itself to the facts stated or the reasons assigned in the impugned order which may sometimes result in injustice. The Court should consider whether interference with the impugned order would result in revival of another order which may in itself be illegal or otherwise perpetuate some wrong or illegality. Where it is likely to do so the Court should refrain from interfering with the order. Reference may be made to the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828 . As regards the submission that the Court should not take into consideration the grounds/reasons other than those mentioned in the impugned order, in Union of India V/s. E.G. Nambudiri, AIR 1991 SC 1216 , the Supreme Court observed that orders of the administrative authorities who are not statutorily obliged to disclose reasons need not contain or assign the grounds on which the decision was based and where the correctness of the order is challenged it is open to the respondents to satisfy the Court that grounds were available in the record which had occasioned passing of the orders and the same been taken note of. In the case of Gordhandas Bhanji (supra) permission to construct a cinema hall was granted but later cancelled by the Commissioner of Police, Bombay. The cancellation was pursuant to government order. The order stated, "I am directed by the Government to inform you that the permission.......... granted to you.......... is hereby cancelled." An attempt was made in the counter-affidavit to show that this was really an order made by the authority i.e. the Police Commissioner. The Court noticed that in his reply to legal notice, the Commissioner had stated "I write to inform you that permission granted to your client was cancelled under orders of the government........" In these facts the Supreme Court observed that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations given by the authority. It must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. The case of Pavanendra Narayan Varma (supra) was an altogether different case. The services of a temporary employee were terminated stating that "work and conduct has not been found to be satisfactory". The Supreme Court held that such an order ex facie was not stigmatic. The validity of order however was assailed on the basis of certain statements in the counter-affidavit in defence of the order. In this context, the Court observed that statements in counter-affidavit could not be involved to invalidate an order which is otherwise valid. The decisions are, thus, of no avail to the petitioner-college. In the above premises, I do not find any substance in the contention that this Court while considering the validity of the impugned notification should not go beyond the facts stated or reasons assigned in the notification. 24. This approach, which is consistent with the decision of the Apex Court, would also relieve this Court of the burden of going into the correctness or otherwise of the decision in the case of Budha Institute of Dental Science (supra). The said decision having been rendered by a Division Bench, another Bench of coordinate jurisdiction cannot possibly hold otherwise. Nevertheless I would like to briefly refer to some salient features of the case of Budha Institute of Dental Science. From the facts stated in the judgment it appears that on request of the Institute the State Government by letter dated 16-5-87 communicated its concurrence in the matter of temporary affiliation for four sessions from 1985-86 to 1988-89, subject to fulfilment of all conditions. On 13-8-91, the State Government extended the affiliation for the session 1989-90 until further orders. However on 28-9-91 the Government issued a show cause notice as to why the affiliation granted on 13-8-91 be not cancelled. On 5-10-91 the affiliation was cancelled. The said order was set aside on the ground of violation of natural justice. The Government reiterated the earlier order on 7-2-92. The Court found that by notification dated 8-7-92 issued under Sec. 10 of the Dentists Act, the B.D.S. degree granted by the Magadh University had been included in the schedule of the Act as a recognised dental qualification. The Court noticed that the Budha Institute of Dental Science was the only Institute under the Magadh University imparting education in dental science. The Court noticed that the Budha Institute of Dental Science was the only Institute under the Magadh University imparting education in dental science. The effect of the said notification thus was that the BDS degree obtained by the students of the Institute got recognised by the Central Government and the Dental Council. 25. These facts, in my opinion, if I may say so, were sufficient for setting aside the order dated 7-2-92 by which the affiliation had been cancelled. The Court however proceeded to examine the question as to whether for want of permission of the State Government in terms of proviso to Sec. 21 (2) (d) of the Universities Act the cancellation of affiliation could be sustained. The Court came to the conclusion that dental qualification can be de-recognised under Sec. 16 (4) of the Dentists Act by the Central Government, the State Government being merely recommending authority did not have the power. The Court observed that by reason of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution the field of "Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions" was occupied by the Central Act i.e. the Dentists Act and therefore the proviso to Sec. 21 (2) (d) so far as it relates to grant of affiliation to a Dental College was void to the extent of repugnancy with the provisions of the Dentists Act. 26. On behalf of the University it was submitted that recognition of an institution or qualification and affiliation operate in two distinct fields and the Division Bench committed error in holding that the field was occupied by the Central Act. According to the counsel unless there is actual and factual conflict so much so that two enactments cannot stand together it cannot be said that the field is occupied by the Central Act so as to make the State Act nugatory under Article 254 (1) of the Constitution. An institution imparting education merely prepares its students for the examination conducted by the University and therefore needs affiliation with that University. Counsel submitted that the petitioners cannot contend that without affiliation with a University the College can be recognised. This in fact is the declared policy of the Dental Council. An institution imparting education merely prepares its students for the examination conducted by the University and therefore needs affiliation with that University. Counsel submitted that the petitioners cannot contend that without affiliation with a University the College can be recognised. This in fact is the declared policy of the Dental Council. As a matter of fact in the context of the Dentists Act it is the University which is required to make application for recognition of the dental qualification granted by it under Sec. 10 (2) of the Act and therefore affiliation with the University is a must. The matter relating to grant of affiliation is governed by the provisions of Sec. 4 (19) read with Sec. 21 (2) (d) of the Universities Act, further read with relevant Statutes of the University. Counsel urged that it is well settled that where the Statute prescribes the mode of doing something, the thing must be done in that manner or not at all. Reference was made to the Affiliation Statute dated 19-4-86 and the Standing Committees Statute dated 20-12-86, already noticed above. In terms of the said Statutes application for admission i.e. affiliation containing the required particulars has to be scrutinised by the Affiliation Committee. After the Affiliation Committee makes its recommendation the matter goes to the Senate of the University which is the supreme body vested with the power to affiliate or dis-affiliate a College-in the case of Medical College including Dental College in terms of Bihar Medical Education Institutions (Regulation and Control) Act 1981 (Bihar Act 23 of 1982), with the prior approval of the State Government. The requirement as to prior approval of the State Government is thus part of the decision making process. The impugned notification refers to the non-compliance of not only Sec. 21 (2) (d) proviso regarding prior approval of the State Government but also non-compliance of the Statutes of the University referred to above. 27. At this stage I would like to refer to the scheme of the Dentists Act so far as relevant in order to find out the possible conflict with the Universities Act and/or Statutes. The Act was originally enacted for recognising dental qualifications by the Dental Council of India. By amendment Act 42 of 1972, the power was vested in the Central Government in consultation with the Dental Council. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. The Act was originally enacted for recognising dental qualifications by the Dental Council of India. By amendment Act 42 of 1972, the power was vested in the Central Government in consultation with the Dental Council. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 10 lays down that the dental qualifications included in Part I of the Schedule shall be recognised dental qualification for the purpose of the Act. In other words, any dental qualification not included in the Schedule is not to be treated as a recognised dental qualification. Under Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 10 any authority or institution in India which grants a dental qualification, not included in the Schedule, may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised and the Central Government after consulting the Dental Council and after such enquiry, if any, as it may think fit for the purpose, may by notification in the Official Gazette include such qualification by amending the Schedule. The Act contains provisions as to the effect of recognition u/s. 13, withdrawal of recognition u/s. 16. u/s. 20 the Dental Council is empowered to make regulations. The Dentists Act was amended again by Act 30 of 1993. As stated in its Aims and Objects, to quote, "The experience of the working of the Act has brought to light certain inadequacies. One of the most noticeable inadequacy has been mushrooming of the dental colleges without adequate academic and training facilities as laid down in the regulations of the Dental Council of India. At present, the law does not require any one to seek the prior permission of Dental Council of India before establishing a new dental college or for adding a new course of study or post-graduate course or for increasing the capacity of students in any existing college. Taking advantage of these legal lacunae dental colleges were being established after obtaining the permission of the State Government and affiliation from the University concerned. After the students had put in two or three years of study, such colleges were approaching the Dental Council of India for recognition. The Dental Council of India is not in a position to stop the functioning of such colleges at that stage as such a step would invariably harm the future prospects of the students and results in allegations of victimisation" . The Dental Council of India is not in a position to stop the functioning of such colleges at that stage as such a step would invariably harm the future prospects of the students and results in allegations of victimisation" . In the above premises the Dentists (Amendment) Ordinance, 1992 was promulgated on 27-8-92 to amend the Dentists Act by incorporating provisions regarding prior permission of the Central Government for establishing any new dental college and for starting any new or higher course of study or training or increasing the admission capacity in any existing college. Thus any person desirous of establishing a new dental college etc. is required to apply to the Central Government for the purpose. The said Ordinance was replaced by Act 30 of 1993 in due course resulting in insertion of, among others, Secs. 10A, 10B, 10C, 16A and Clauses (fa) and (fb) in Sec. 20 (regulation making provision). 28. Though the gist of the amendment has been indicated above it would be proper to quote the relevant provisions of Sec. 10A of the Act after 1993 amendment, as under :- "10A. Permission for establishment of new dental college, new courses of study. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force,- (a) no person shall establish an authority or institution for a course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the grant of recognised dental qualification; or (b) no authority or institution conducting a course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) for grant of recognised dental qualification (i) open a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognised dental qualification; or (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training), except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section. Explanation 1 - For the purpose of this section, "person" includes any University or a trust but does not include the Central Government. Explanation 1 - For the purpose of this section, "person" includes any University or a trust but does not include the Central Government. Explanation 2 - For the purpose of this section, "admission capacity", in relation to any course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) in an authority or institution granting recognised dental qualification, means the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being admitted to such course or training. (2) (a) Every person, authority or institution granting recognised dental qualification shall, for the purpose of obtaining permission under Sub-sec. (1), submit to the Central Government a scheme in accordance with the provisions of Clause (b) and the Central Government shall refer the said scheme to the Council for its recommendations. (b) The scheme referred to in Clause (a) shall be in such form and contain such particulars and be preferred in such manner and be accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of a scheme by the Council under Sub-sec. (2), the Council may obtain such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person, authority or institution concerned, granting recognised dental qualification and thereafter, it may- (a) if the scheme is defective and does not contain any necessary particulars, give a reasonable opportunity to the person, authority or institution concerned for making a written representation and it shall be open to such person, authority or institution to rectify the defects, if any, specified by the Council; (b) consider the scheme, having regard to the factors referred to in Sub-sec. (7), and submit the scheme together with its recommendations thereon to the Central Government, (4) The Central Government may, after considering the scheme and the recommendations of the Council under Sub-sec. (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person, authority or institution concerned, and having regard to the factors referred to in Sub-sec. (7), either approve (with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall be permission under Sub-sec. (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person, authority or institution concerned, and having regard to the factors referred to in Sub-sec. (7), either approve (with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall be permission under Sub-sec. (1) :Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person, authority or institution concerned granting recognised dental qualification a reasonable opportunity of being heard : Provided further that nothing in this Sub-sec. shall prevent any person, authority or institution whose scheme has not been approved to submit a fresh scheme and the provisions of this section shall apply to such scheme, as if such scheme has been submitted for the first time under Sub-sec. (2). xx xx xx (7) The Council, while making its recommendations under Clause (b) of Sub-sec. (3) and the Central Government, while passing an order either approving or disapproving the scheme under Sub-sec. (4), shall have due regard to the following factors, namely :- (a) whether the proposed authority or institution for grant of recognised dental qualification or the existing authority or institution seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of dental education in conformity with the requirements referred to in sec. 16A and the regulations made under Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 16A and the regulations made under Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 20; (b) whether the person seeking to establish an authority or institution or the existing authority or institution seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training or to increase its admission capacity has adequate resources; (c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the authority or institution or conducting the new course of study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme; (d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number of students likely to attend such authority or institution or course of study or training or as a result of the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme; (e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such authority or institution or course of study or training by persons having the recognised dental qualifications; (f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of dentistry; and (g) any other factors as may be prescribed." 29 From a bare reading of the above provisions it is manifest that the Central Government, in consultation with the Dental Council of India, has been vested with exclusive powers of granting permission for establishing a new dental college or opening a new or higher course or increasing the admission capacity in any course of study or training. The section lays down not only the procedure for grant of permission but also the guidelines to be taken into consideration while considering the question of approving or disapproving the scheme which would amount to granting or refusing permission. It would thus appear that the field so far as recognition of a dental college is concerned is occupied by the Dentists Act. The expression permission in Sec. 10A, in my opinion, is a cognate expression to be understood in the same sense as recognition and therefore, once the Central Government recognises a dental college, the State Government or the University cannot go behind the decision of the Central Government. The expression permission in Sec. 10A, in my opinion, is a cognate expression to be understood in the same sense as recognition and therefore, once the Central Government recognises a dental college, the State Government or the University cannot go behind the decision of the Central Government. The subject of education which earlier found place in the State List i.e. List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution as Entry 11 was included in the Concurrent List i.e. List III as Entry 25 and made subject to Entry 66 of List I, among others, by the Forty-Second Amendment in 1976. The amended Entry 25 of List III reads thus :- "Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; .............." Entry 66 of List I runs that :- "Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions." From a conjoint reading of the above two entries of the 7th Schedule dealing with the legislative powers of the Parliament and State Legislature there can be no doubt that though the State Legislature is competent to make law with respect to the subject of education including medical education, such law will be subject to the enactment of the Parliament so far as it relates to co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. 30 The question that would then arise for consideration is whether provisions of Sec. 4 (19) or Sec. 21 (2) (d) proviso to the Universities Act read with the University Statutes are in conflict with the relevant provisions of the Dentists Act. Article 254 (1) of the Constitution lays down that "if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of Clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void". Being a subject of the Concurrent List, competence of the State Legislature to enact the Universities Act cannot be doubted. The question of repugnancy thus has to be considered with reference to Entry 66 of the Union List. Entry 66 refers to the Co-ordination and determination of standards in the institutions. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust V/s. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Kerala State, (2000) 5 SCC 231 the State Government refused to grant permission for establishing an engineering College governed by the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act 1987 on the ground that establishment of the college was not in accordance with its policy. The appellant trust wanted to establish a self financing engineering college and submitted application to the University of Kerala and the All India Council for Technical Education. An inspection team of the University favourably recommended its case to the State Government. The Trust at its level also requested the State Government for permission to establish a College. After permission was refused it filed writ petition. The Supreme Court observed that though affiliation is not specifically governed by the AICTE Act the University cannot impose any condition inconsistent with the Act or its regulation or conditions imposed by the AICTE, nor the procedure in respect of affiliation can be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. It may be mentioned here that the provision under which the State Government had assumed jurisdiction, namely, Clause 9 (7) of the Kerala University 1st Statute was materially different from the corresponding provision of Sec. 21 (2) (d) proviso of the Bihar State Universities Act inasmuch as whereas the Kerala University Statute provided for "ascertaining the views of the Government also", under the Bihar State Universities Act the provision is mandatory in character, to quote "provided further that no Medical College shall be affiliated except without prior approval of the State Government". I am, however, inclined to think that this difference in the two provisions would not materially change the legal position so far as the binding nature of the provisions of the Dentists Act, like those of the AICTE Act in Jaya Gokuls case, is concerned. I am, however, inclined to think that this difference in the two provisions would not materially change the legal position so far as the binding nature of the provisions of the Dentists Act, like those of the AICTE Act in Jaya Gokuls case, is concerned. While deciding the case of Jaya Gokul Trust their Lordships following the earlier decision in State of Tamil Nadu V/s. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104 relied upon the provisions of Sec. 10 (k) of the AICTE Act which confers power upon the AICTE to "grant approval for starting any technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned." So far as the Dentists Act is concerned, as noticed above, it is the Central Government which has been vested with powers to approve or disapprove the scheme. In terms of Sub-sec. (4) of sec. 10A such approval is to be treated as permission under sub-section. (1). 31. This however does not mean that the provision as to affiliation with a University can be dispensed with. As observed above, educational institutions prepare their students for the examination but it is the University which conducts examination. In the context of the Dentists Act, u/s. 10 (2) it is the University which can make application for recognition of the dental qualifications proposed to be granted by it. It would thus follow that both in terms of the relevant provisions of the Universities Act relating to affiliation as well as in terms of the provisions of Dentists Act, it would be competent for the University to take a decision in the matter of affiliation though it cannot make a parallel enquiry on the same points which are covered by the standards/norms fixed by the Dental Council nor can do any thing inconsistent with the Dentists Act or the regulations thereunder. But this does not mean that the affiliation should be automatic and without observing the procedure. But this does not mean that the affiliation should be automatic and without observing the procedure. It has to be kept in mind that in the 1st Part of the Schedule of the Dentists Act it is name of the University as an authority or institution which is mentioned in Column I of the Schedule which means that unless a particular college is excluded from its purview by a notification under Sec. 16A (4) of the Act, degrees granted by all the Dental Colleges attached with the University would automatically get recognised as recognised dental qualification. It would be preposterous to hold that without proper affiliation with the University any college should be treated at par with other colleges even though the examination on the basis of which degrees are granted is conducted by the University. The authority of the University thus has to be recognised in the matter of grant or refusal of affiliation. The only thing is that affiliation cannot be refused on any ground inconsistent with the provisions of the Dentists Act or regulations framed thereunder. Entry 66 of the Union List also speaks about co-ordination and determination of standards. The University thus cannot tinker with the standards determined by the Dentists Act or the regulations framed thereunder but it can certainly refuse to grant affiliation or withdraw affiliation on a ground not inconsistent with the provisions of the Dentists Act or regulations framed thereunder. A prior the authority of the State Government also cannot be denied. If the decision of the University does not take effect in view of the express provision of sec. 21 (2) (d) proviso of the Universities Act, unlike the case of Jaya Gokul Trust where only the views of the State Government had to be ascertained, it is plain that decision of the University/Senate would require concurrence of the State Government. It is another matter that the State Government too cannot refuse its concurrence on any ground inconsistent with the provisions of the Dentists Act or the regulations framed thereunder. It is well settled that where the Statute lays down the manner of doing certain thing, the thing is required to be done in that manner or not at all. It is another matter that the State Government too cannot refuse its concurrence on any ground inconsistent with the provisions of the Dentists Act or the regulations framed thereunder. It is well settled that where the Statute lays down the manner of doing certain thing, the thing is required to be done in that manner or not at all. The University cannot violate the provisions of the Universities Act nor can the Court give any mandamus to ignore the mandate of the Act unless the Act or any provision thereof itself is held to be ultra vires. In these premises it must be held that the respondent University was fully competent to withdraw the affiliation granted earlier to the petitioner College. 32. This takes us to the question as to whether the impugned decision is correct or the same requires interference by this Court. 33. The circumstances in which the then Acting Vice Chancellor granted permanent affiliation to the petitioner-college on 2-12-95 are indeed intriguing. No sooner the permanent Vice Chancellor Dr. R.C.P. Sinha went on leave than on 11-10-95 application was filed on behalf of the college and on the basis of inspection report of the Registrar of the University who did not possess any expertise in the matter, the Acting Vice Chancellor Dr. B. N. Jha accorded affiliation giving reference to order of this Court in Civil Review No. 42/93. As noticed above, no such order had been passed either in the said civil review or in the main judgment giving rise to the review petition. It was submitted that the Dental Council had already granted permission for running the BDS course from the academic year 1989-90 in the meeting of the General Body of the Council held between 6 and 8/11/1995 and, therefore, the University had hardly any discretion in the matter. The argument appears to be attractive but lacks in substance. It may be mentioned that pursuant to the interim order of the Supreme Court dated 20-2-95 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 20394-96/94 an inspection team consisting of Dr. B. R. Bhuyan, Principal, RDC Guwahati, and Dr. R.Y. Singh, Professor and HOD, Department of Dentistry, RMC Imphal had held inspection of the petitioner-college on 13- 14/04/1995. It may be mentioned that pursuant to the interim order of the Supreme Court dated 20-2-95 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 20394-96/94 an inspection team consisting of Dr. B. R. Bhuyan, Principal, RDC Guwahati, and Dr. R.Y. Singh, Professor and HOD, Department of Dentistry, RMC Imphal had held inspection of the petitioner-college on 13- 14/04/1995. The inspection report enclosed as Annexure 21 to the supplementary affidavit reveals that the inspection team was given to understand that the college was affiliated with L. N. Mithila University which had also conducted the first BDS examination under Regulation approved by the Chancellor under memo No. LMU-22/90-1146 (1) dated 29-4-92. The fact of the matter is that as on the date of inspection the college did not enjoy affiliation with L. N. Mithila University or any other University. On the basis of the said misrepresentation initially the Acting President of the Dental Council accorded permission for admission of 60 students which was later ratified by the General Body of the Dental Council in the meeting held between 6/11/1995. The said decision of the General Body of the Dental Council was communicated to the petitioner-college only on 9-8-96. It is, therefore, not correct to say that affiliation had anything to do with the decision of the Dental Council to permit running BDS course in the college. It may be recalled that the Regulation dated 29-4-92 referred to in the inspection report had already been held to be ultra vires in the case of Sarjug Dental College on 2-9-93 vide decision reported in 1993 (2) PLJR 610. This was another misrepresentation made by the petitioner-college. 34. Adverting to the order dated 2-12-95 granting permanent affiliation to the petitioner-college, it is to be kept in mind that the decision was taken by the Acting Vice Chancellor on his own without referring the matter to the State Government much less taking its approval. On plain language of sec. 21 (2) (d) proviso the affiliation does not take effect unless it is approved by the State Government. It is true that in the case of Buddha Institute of Dental Science, 1995 (1) PLJR 623 the proviso was held to be void "to the extent of its repugnancy with the provisions of the Dentists Act". On plain language of sec. 21 (2) (d) proviso the affiliation does not take effect unless it is approved by the State Government. It is true that in the case of Buddha Institute of Dental Science, 1995 (1) PLJR 623 the proviso was held to be void "to the extent of its repugnancy with the provisions of the Dentists Act". Thus, even as per that judgment, if there is no repugnancy between the said provision and the provisions of the Dentists Act, the requirement of obtaining approval of the State Government has to be fulfilled. In this connection it may be pointed out that the attention of the Division Bench which decided the case of Buddha Institute of Dental Science was not drawn to the earlier decision in the case of Sarjug Dental College, 1993 (2) PLJR 610, by another Division Bench, upholding the jurisdiction of the State Government in the matter of affiliation of the college u/s. 4 (19) read with sec. 21 (2) of the Universities Act. The relevant observations at page 617 of the report may be quoted as under : "Neither the Dental Council of India constituted under the Central Act nor the State Government under any existing statutory provisions including State Act has any authority to grant affiliation or recognition to any dental college. u/s. 4 (19) read with sec. 221 (2) of the State Act, an affiliation of the College cannot take effect unless it is approved by the State Government. Therefore, the State Government will have its say in relation to affiliation/recognition only when a proposal to this effect is sent to the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the statutes made in this regard by the authorities of the University defined u/s. 17 of the Act." 35. It hardly needs emphasis that affiliation of any institution with a University is essential because University is the examining body and the students can appear at the examination conducted by University only when the institution is affiliated. In the context of the Dentists Act, such affiliation is all the more indispensable because recognised dental qualification within the meaning of the Act can be awarded only by an authority or institution which would include a University. The grant of affiliation therefore cannot be said to be an empty formality and non-compliance of the express provisions of the Act/Statutes cannot be ignored. The grant of affiliation therefore cannot be said to be an empty formality and non-compliance of the express provisions of the Act/Statutes cannot be ignored. I am therefore inclined to think that the order dated 2-12-95 did not amount to valid affiliation in favour of the petitioner-college. 36. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that if the Vice Chancellor was of the view that the earlier affiliation was defective, she should have referred the matter to the Senate. I do not find any substance in the contention. It may be recalled that after Dr. R.C.P. Sinha re-assumed the office, he made reference to the Chancellor seeking annulment of the affiliation on 6-1-96 pursuant to which the Chancellor vide letter dated 6-4-96 advised the Vice Chancellor to take appropriate action according to law. On 18-5-96 the Syndicate constituted a committee to inquire into the affiliation matter. On 24-8-96 vide Annexure N to the Universitys counter affidavit the Syndicate also authorised the Vice Chancellor to take appropriate decision in the matter of admissibility of affiliation to the petitioner-college. The decision authorising the Vice Chancellor to take final decision was apparently taken on consideration of the report of the said committee. On 7-2-97 vide enclosure to Annexure O to the counter affidavit, the State Government took the view that the affiliation was wholly illegal and advised the University to cancel the same. The Vice Chancellor, thus, was fully competent and indeed justified to pass the impugned order. 37. It was submitted that pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court the dental qualification in respect of the BDS students of the petitioner-college, granted in or before 1997, has already been included in the schedule of the Dentists Act as a recognised dental qualification vide notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 12-12-2001. It appears from the records that on an interlocutory application by some students of the petitioner-college in Civil Appeal Nos. 8098-8100/95 on 15-2-2001 the Supreme Court directed their results to be published. On 18-9-2001 the said order was made applicable to other similarly situate students of the batches 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 who had passed the examinations. In its order dated 18-9-2001 the Supreme Court clarified that the order was being passed so that the students who had completed studies and appeared at the examination should not be deprived of the results. On 18-9-2001 the said order was made applicable to other similarly situate students of the batches 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 who had passed the examinations. In its order dated 18-9-2001 the Supreme Court clarified that the order was being passed so that the students who had completed studies and appeared at the examination should not be deprived of the results. The question as to whether having regard to the scheme of the Dentists Act, any order could be passed in respect of particular student or group of students, individually, was not considered. It may be recalled that the Dentists Act was originally enacted to regulate the grant of degrees in Dental Science and once the degree granted by any authority or institution is included in the schedule as a recognised dental qualification it becomes applicable to all students possessing the degree granted by such authority or institution. It would be useful to quote the said order of the Supreme Court on 18-9-2001 in extenso as under :- "In these matters it is brought to our notice that there are very serious questions whether the Dentists Act as amended in 1993 is applicable, whether the affiliation granted to the college in question is valid or not and whether the appellant is a minority institution. In these cases we do not propose to consider these larger aspects of the matter and what we are concerned at present is whether the order dated 15-2-2001 should be made applicable to other students who are similarly placed as the students with whom we were concerned in that order. We made that order on 15-2-2001 only on the basis pursuant to the studies made by them, examination taken by them, this Court having made an order their results should be declared in which they are declared to have passed. When these students pursued their studies along with those students in respect of whom order is already made we do not think any other order could be made in respect of them. For such of the students who passed along with those students in respect of whom order was made by us on 15-2-2001 shall be extended and that is confined only to the batches passing out in years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. For such of the students who passed along with those students in respect of whom order was made by us on 15-2-2001 shall be extended and that is confined only to the batches passing out in years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. The other reliefs sought for shall stand rejected for the present.........." (Emphasis added) It would thus appear that without any adjudication on merit, on equitable considerations, if I may say so with respect, the orders dated 15-2-2001 and 18-9-2001 were passed. 38 Counsel submitted that both the Dental Council and the University filed separate petitions for review of the aforesaid orders vide Civil Review Petition Nos. 772-774/2001 and Review Petition No. 1452-1454/2001, respectively, which were dismissed on 31-7-2001 and 8-11-2001, respectively. For the reasons indicated above, as there was no adjudication on merit of the case and the orders had been passed to protect the interest of the students who had passed the examination, the summary rejection of the review petitions cannot be construed as upholding the claim of the petitioner-college on merit. 39. It is relevant to mention here that the name of L.N. Mithila University was earlier included in the schedule of the Dentists Act at serial No. 38 pursuant to the direction of the Central Government purportedly in the light of the orders of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarjug Dental College, SLP (Civil) No. 20122/99, even though the observations pursuant to which the decision was taken by the Central Government were made in the context of Sarjug Dental College alone but the University as a whole was included in the schedule on 19-10-94. After the review petitions were dismissed, pursuant to the earlier order of the Supreme Court dated 18-9-2001 the entry at serial No. 38 of the schedule was made applicable to the BDS students of the petitioner-college in respect of dental qualification granted in or before 1997. The abovesaid orders being interim orders without any adjudication on merit, cannot be construed as a final verdict of the Supreme Court so as to foreclose any discussion on the points. The Supreme Court at no stage observed or gave any direction which can be construed as giving direction to grant affiliation. 40. The abovesaid orders being interim orders without any adjudication on merit, cannot be construed as a final verdict of the Supreme Court so as to foreclose any discussion on the points. The Supreme Court at no stage observed or gave any direction which can be construed as giving direction to grant affiliation. 40. As of date, the inter-party decision in the case of petitioner-college, 1993 (2) PLJR 641, stands by reason of which the college is required to take permission of the Central Government in the matter of establishment under Sec. 10A of the Dentists Act. So far as the permission of Central Government and/or Dental Council is concerned, the position which obtains at present is that the Dental Council has declined to recommend the case of the petitioner-college to the Central Government pursuant to which the Central Government has already decided to stop admission vide letter dated 23-8-2001. Inclusion of the name of the petitioner-college in the schedule of the Dentists Act on 12-12-2001 is another matter which I have already dealt with above. 41. As regards the question of violation of rules of natural justice it may be observed that it is not one of the ordinary run-of-the mill cases in which the decision has been taken behind the back of the petitioner-college taking it by surprise. The dispute in the matter of affiliation has been coming since long. The petitioner-college was aware of the fact that reference was made to the Chancellor as well as the State Government for annulment of the affiliation. Both the Chancellor and the State Government advised the Vice Chancellor to take action according to law. The Syndicate also authorised the Vice Chancellor to take final decision in the matter. As a matter of fact, after the University made reference to the Dental Council on receipt of the advice of the State Government vide letter dated 7-2-97, on 28-2-97 the petitioner college made a representation to the then Vice Chancellor Shri Moghni who promptly on 1-3-97, on the body of the representation itself set aside the order/letter of the Registrar observing that the same was ultra vires and he (Registrar) had no jurisdiction to pass the order i.e. make reference. It is thus not a case where the petitioner-college was ignorant of the fact that the dispute was pending with respect to the validity of the affiliation. It is thus not a case where the petitioner-college was ignorant of the fact that the dispute was pending with respect to the validity of the affiliation. In the circumstances, if the Vice Chancellor who had been asked by the Chancellor and the State Government and authorised by the Syndicate, took the impugned decision to withdraw the affiliation, it cannot be said that the decision was in violation of the rules of natural justice. The object of giving opportunity of hearing is to give an opportunity to the person to have his case considered by the authority before decision is taken against him. In the instant case it cannot be contended that the case of the petitioner-college was not considered by the Vice Chancellor. As a matter of fact, so far as the ground of withdrawal of affiliation is concerned, it is not in dispute that there was non-compliance of the proviso to Sec. 21 (2) (d) of the Universities Act and the Statutes of the University. In M. C. Mehta V/s. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 it was observed that an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution in all cases, for example, where order does not cause any prejudice or where the quashing of the order on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice may result in revival of another order which may be equally illegal. In S. L. Kapoor V/s. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379 the Supreme Court had rejected the de facto prejudice theory but even in that case an exception was pointed out, namely, if on admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible. In other words, if no other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable fact it is not necessary to quash the order, an order which was passed in violation of the natural justice. The de facto prejudice theory has been upheld in K. L. Tripathi V/s. State Bank of India, (1984) 5 SCC 43 and, recently, in State of U.P. V/s. Harendra Arora, (2001) 6 SCC 392 . 42. Whether it was mandatory to seek approval of the State Government, to have the case of the petitioner-college considered by the Affiliation Committee in accordance with the Affiliation Statute, referred to above, are debatable questions of law which I have already discussed above. 42. Whether it was mandatory to seek approval of the State Government, to have the case of the petitioner-college considered by the Affiliation Committee in accordance with the Affiliation Statute, referred to above, are debatable questions of law which I have already discussed above. So far as the factual position is concerned, it is an admitted position that neither the State Government was consulted much less its approval taken nor the matter was discussed by the Senate or by the Affiliation Committee as required under the statutes. Clearly, the University or its Vice Chancellor are bound by the provisions of the University Act and/or the University Statutes framed thereunder. Any decision by the Vice Chancellor taken on his own without observing the prescribed procedure cannot be said to be according to law. If quashing of the impugned order on the ground that of violation of natural justice would result in revival of the affiliation dated 2-12-95 which in facts and circumstances cannot be said to be in accordance with law, and would thus result in perpetuating the illegality arising from that order, the Court should decline to interfere. The petitioner having obtained the permission from the Dental Council on misrepresentation and suppression of facts about the college being affiliated with the L. N. Mithila University and the conduct of the BDS examination under a Regulation already held to be ultra vires and therefore non est in the eye of law, it must be held that the conduct of the petitioner-college has not been fair. All said and done, the Dental Council has already reversed its earlier decision and accordingly the Central Government has also taken decision against the petitioner-college. The case of the petitioner-college is pending in the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8098-8100/95. No relief can be granted to it by this Court in the present proceeding. 43. Adverting to the second case i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 11204/2001 the only prayer of the petitioner, who is student of the college, is for direction to the University to issue migration certificate. Though the admission of the petitioner cannot be regarded as valid, in my opinion, it would not be proper to deny him the migration certificate so that he may prosecute his studies elsewhere. He apparently took admission in the petitioner-college bona fide. Though the admission of the petitioner cannot be regarded as valid, in my opinion, it would not be proper to deny him the migration certificate so that he may prosecute his studies elsewhere. He apparently took admission in the petitioner-college bona fide. If under any law a student cannot be admitted without production of a migration certificate it would be harsh and inequitable to deny him such certificate. The ratio of the decision in A. P. Christians Medical Educational Society V/s. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, (1986) 2 SCC 667 relied upon by the counsel for the University cannot be applied against the petitioner. I accordingly hold that the petitioner is entitled to migration certificate according to rules. 44. In the result, CWJC No. 6388/2001 is dismissed, while CWJC No. 11204/2001 is allowed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. 45. TARKESHWAR PD. SINGH, J. :- . I agree. Order accordingly.