Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 08.03.1999 wherein the Government withdrew the permission already accorded to the petitioner Institute, to open diploma courses in Pharmacy Medicine and Laboratory Technical Courses. 3.The petitioner, which has been registered under the Societies Registration Act, initiated a proposal to have diploma courses in Pharmacy Medicine and Laboratory Technical Courses. Since the matter had remained pending, the petitioner had to file a writ petition in W.P.No.14659 of 1997. The said writ petition was disposed of on 09.07.1997, directing the respondents to pass final orders on the application filed by the petitioner. The respondents, by order dated 14.10.998, permitted the petitioner to start diploma course in Medical Laboratory Technology and Pharmacy Medicine for the year 1999-2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before the Government for giving retrospective effect to the permission, to make it effective for the year 1998-1999 on the ground that some students had been admitted in anticipation of the Government's order. However, while dealing with such representation, the Government, by the impugned order dated 08.03.1999 has withdrawn the permission for starting two diploma courses. This latter order has been challenged in the present writ petition. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the permission had been withdrawn, the students who had been admitted, have not completed the courses. It has been further submitted that even though the entire infrastructure is there, the petitioner is unable to start the diploma courses because of the subsequent order dated 08.03.1999. 5.It is true that the Government had accorded permission to start two diploma courses for the academic year 1999-2000 by orders dated 14.10.1998. However, the petitioner had already commenced the session in anticipation of the permission of the Government and the petitioner had accordingly prayed that the permission may be granted with retrospective effect for the academic session 1998-1999. It cannot be said that merely because the petitioner in anticipation had admitted a few students, there was any deliberate violation of the order of the Government. The prayer before the Government was to make the permission retrospective effecting for the academic session 1998-1999. If the Government was not prepared to accept the suggestion it could have simply rejected the petition and could have insisted that the academic session would start only in the year 1999-2000. The prayer before the Government was to make the permission retrospective effecting for the academic session 1998-1999. If the Government was not prepared to accept the suggestion it could have simply rejected the petition and could have insisted that the academic session would start only in the year 1999-2000. There was no necessity for the Government to take the extreme step of withdrawing the permission. The order dated 08.03.1999 is therefore liable to be quashed. 6.The next question that arises is whether the petitioner should be permitted to start the two diploma courses for the coming year. 7.It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire infrastructure is available. This is a matter which is required to be examined by the Government. It is therefore directed that if the Government is satisfied that the infrastructure is available, necessary permission may be accorded to the petitioner to start the two diploma courses for the academic year 2003-2004. The Government should permit the petitioner to produce relevant materials in support of the contention that the infrastructure is available. Necessary decision may be taken within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 8.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.