( 1 ) COMMON ORDER :all these writ petitions are being dealt with under a common order since issue requires to be adjudicated in all the writ petitions is similar. ( 2 ) AS factual position being undisputed, a brief reference thereto would suffice: the All India Council for Technical education, New Delhi (for short "aicte ) issued a notification for consideration for applications for establishment of new technical institutions for the academic year 2003-2004. The said notification was published in the newspapers on 18-8:2002. As per the said notification the last date for submission of completed application forms was 30-9-2002. All such applications were required to be verified at concerned regional office on or before 15-11-2002 from the original documents along with certified english version in case of documents in regional languages. All the applicants had to enclose No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned State Government for establishment of the technical institute for the academic year 2003-2004 as per the format given in the application form and made it clear that only such of those applicants who would produce all the documents in one lot on or before 15-11-2002, which was subsequently extended to 25-11-2002, will be invited for the presentation and other applications will be summarily rejected. It is also indicated in clause-7 that all those applicants who had submitted the application under AICTE advertisement of August, 2001 and have not been issued Letter of Intent (LOI) need not apply again. However, they were required to produce all the documents to the concerned regional office as indicated at Clause 5 including NOC from the State Government for establishment of new technical institution for 2003-2004. In response to above notification the petitioners made their applications seeking permission for establishment of technical institutions for the academic year 2003-2004. Some of the institutions, namely petitioners in W. P. Nos. 24668 of 2002, 1401, 1798 and 1799 of 2003 had already registered their applications for the academic year 2002- 2003 and their applications were transferred for the academic year 2003-2004. The state Government through its letter dated 9-11-2002 informed the AICTE that as on date there were 217 Engineering Colleges in the State with an intake of 62,750 and the availability of Engineering seats per 1. 00 lakhs population is 82. The state Government through its letter dated 9-11-2002 informed the AICTE that as on date there were 217 Engineering Colleges in the State with an intake of 62,750 and the availability of Engineering seats per 1. 00 lakhs population is 82. 86 and the State of a. P. is at number 2 position in the country, in respect of the number of Engineering colleges and the intake in the college making its policy on sanction of new private engineering Colleges and forwarded its recommendations to the AICTE which reads as under:"i am therefore, directed to request you not to sanction any new Engineering colleges in the State except in the uncovered revenue Divisions and the places identified in G. O. Ms. No. 501, dated 4-8-2001 which do not have Engineering Colleges (list enclosed) and also not to sanction colleges to the societies to whom NOCs were not issued by the State Government. I am further directed to request you to sanction additional seats, if any, may be considered in the interior rural colleges as per the norms of AICTE. "while the applications were pending scrutiny the AICTE through the notification dated 20-11-2002 amended the regulations, namely All India Council for Technical education (Grant of approval for starting new technical institutions introduction of courses or programmes and approval of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes) Regulations, 1994 (for short regulations, 1994 ) and 1997 by introducing clause 8 (4) (e ). The same was published in the Gazette on 25-11-2002. ( 3 ) IN view of the above, the present writ petitions have been filed to declare the insistence of NOC from the State government for establishing new technical institutions as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to have the applications processed without reference to NOC from the State Government and the letter issued by the State Government dated 9-11-2002 is without jurisdiction. The Recommending authority, namely the State Government cannot take any policy decision and can request the AICTE not to sanction any other engineering Colleges except uncovered revenue Divisions and the places mentioned in G. O. Ms. No. 501. Once aicte Act governs the field relating to establishment of technical institutions and the Regulations made thereunder in view of entry 66 of List 1 of the Constitution, issuance of letter by the State Government is without jurisdiction. No. 501. Once aicte Act governs the field relating to establishment of technical institutions and the Regulations made thereunder in view of entry 66 of List 1 of the Constitution, issuance of letter by the State Government is without jurisdiction. ( 4 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 24668 of 2002 who obtained NOC from the State government for establishment of new technical institution for the academic year 2002-2003 and whose application is transferred to the academic year 2003-2004 challenged the notification contending that action of the respondents in insisting for production of NOC is unsustainable in view of letter dated 9-11-2002 wherein the State Government informed the aicte that the petitioner is one among the 21 colleges in whose favour it had issued nocs for establishment of new colleges for the academic year 2002-2003 and approval from AICTE is yet to be received. In view of the same, invalidating the application on the ground that NOC for the year 2003-2004 from the concerned State government has not been produced is arbitrary and illegal. ( 5 ) THE AICTE in its counter stated that proposal for setting up the Engineering college is in consonance with the policies, prospective plan for technical education of the concerned State Government. As the state Government felt that there is an appreciable increase in the availability of the facilities for Engineering Education all over the State, there is need to identify potential growth centres where infrastructure for technical education can be created. On a survey made in this regard, the State government had realized that the State average is only 38. 02 seats in Engineering colleges per one lakh population. In about 14 districts availability of seats in Engineering colleges was below the State average, whereas in 9 districts availability of seats is above average. In the neighbouring States like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu the average is above 50 seats per one lakh population. Accordingly, the State Government has identified the Revenue Divisional Headquarters in each district in the State where there is need for growth and increase of engineering seats and declared its policy in G. O. Ms. No. 501, dated 4-8-2000 identifying the places. While that was the position in 2000 the availability of engineering seats for one lakh population is 82. Accordingly, the State Government has identified the Revenue Divisional Headquarters in each district in the State where there is need for growth and increase of engineering seats and declared its policy in G. O. Ms. No. 501, dated 4-8-2000 identifying the places. While that was the position in 2000 the availability of engineering seats for one lakh population is 82. 86 and in view of increase of State average of availability of seats the State Government identified the revenue Divisions, which are not covered so far. The notification issued by the AICTE is uniform to the entire country as regards time limit and any deviation will affect the functioning of the Council, and if similar request from all over the country is entertained the AICTE will not be able to process the applications and will not be in a position to issue its sanction within the period prescribed by it. To have uniformity in the country such schedule was arrived at after consulting the agencies concerned. The petitioners are not entitled to have their applications considered without NOC from the State Government and the action of the council in rejecting the applications is in accordance with the Regulation and they are not discriminated against since it is applied uniformly to all the applicants. The petitioners who have applied pursuant to this notification, knowing fully that NOC from the State Government is mandatory, it is not open for them to say that NOC is not necessary. ( 6 ) THE 1 st respondent-State Government filed a counter stating that while reviewing the growth of technical education in the state it has constituted three member committee to examine the issue of necessity of further engineering Colleges in the State and pending receipt of the report from the Committee the government decided to keep an embargo on sanction of fresh Engineering Colleges in the State except in Revenue Divisions which are not covered so far. Accordingly, it has requested the AICTE not to sanction any new Engineering College in the State except in the uncovered Revenue Divisions and the places identified in G. O. Ms. No. 501, dated 4-8-2001, which do not have Engineering colleges and also not to sanction colleges to the societies to whom the NOCs were not issued by the State Government, keeping in view the interest of the State. No. 501, dated 4-8-2001, which do not have Engineering colleges and also not to sanction colleges to the societies to whom the NOCs were not issued by the State Government, keeping in view the interest of the State. ( 7 ) THE arguments addressed on behalf of the writ petitioners lead by Sri E. Manohar were: (i) Insisting NOC from the State government by AICTE is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Regulations and AICTE cannot surrender its power to the State Government. (ii) Amendment of Regulation 8 (4) (e) published on 25-11-2002 is prospective in operation and cannot be made applicable to the petitioners. (iii) The policy decision of the State government not to permit new colleges through its letter dated 9-11-2002 will not bind AICTE and the State government being the recommendatory authority cannot take any such policy decision as held by the supreme Court in Shivaji University v. Bharti Vidyapeeth, (1999) 3 SCC 224 , and Thirumuruga Kirupananda variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal medical Educational and Charitable trust v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 3 SCC 15 . (iv) The rejection of the application for non-compliance of Regulation 8 (4) (e), namely for non-production of NOC, is contrary to Regulations and before such rejection notice, as contemplated under proviso to Regulation 8 (7) (ii) has not been issued and AICTE has to consider the applications independently of the petitioners who have invested considerable amount. (v) In the absence of any guidelines issued for issuance of NOC, AICTE cannot delegate its power to State government for issuance of such noc. (vi) It was lastly contended that Regulation 8 (4) (e) was introduced only to defeat the writ petitions and the same cannot be made applicable for 2003-2004. ( 8 ) SRI V. R. Reddy, learned Senior counsel supplemented that the petitioner in W. P. No. 24668 of 2002 was granted noc for the year 2002-2003 and the same was revalidated through proceedings dated 3-1-2003. In view of the same, rejection of the petitioner s application through proceedings dated 31-1-2003 is arbitrary and illegal. When the petitioner s college is in the pipeline, which is evident from the letter dated 9-11-2002, revalidating is only a formality and the same can be treated as noc. The petitioner has been discriminated in issuing LOI whereas in case of Bhandari educational Society LOI was granted. When the petitioner s college is in the pipeline, which is evident from the letter dated 9-11-2002, revalidating is only a formality and the same can be treated as noc. The petitioner has been discriminated in issuing LOI whereas in case of Bhandari educational Society LOI was granted. ( 9 ) SRI Koka Raghava Rao, learned counsel representing the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 23987, 24033 and 25700 of 2002, apart from general submissions, referred to above, contended that condition to obtain NOC does not indicate the power of refusal to state Government and the petitioner in W. P. No. 23987 of 2002 submitted his application seeking approval of Engineering College for the academic year 2002-2003 and the same was rejected on 17-6-2002 stating that it can be considered for the academic year 2003-2004. The petitioner submitted the same again for the academic year 2003- 2004 and completed 75% of the construction legitimately expecting that permission will be granted to it. In spite of the petitioner s request for hearing before the Committee for submission of NOC merely the State government decided to return the D. D. paid towards inspection fees through its letter dated 14-11-2002 in view of declaring holiday for establishment of new Engineering colleges till a survey is conducted by AICTE. Similarly the petitioner in W. P. No. 24033 of 2002 complied with all the formalities and legitimately expected for grant of approval and the AICTE is estopped from rejecting the application. ( 10 ) SRI Nuty Ram Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 24609, 24701 of 2002, 1798 and 1799 of 2003 contended that Regulations do not contemplate the production of NOC on the date of submission of application. What was not contemplated in the Regulations cannot be made as a condition precedent by way of amendment. ( 11 ) SRI Philkhana Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 24474 of 2002 would contend that application made by the petitioner has to be considered as per the Regulations but not as per the amendment effected. When there is no provision under AICTE Act requiring approval of the State Government and obtaining NOC, the same cannot be incorporated in the Regulations. Regulations cannot override the provisions of the Act and such Regulations, if any, is repugnant to section 10 (1) (k) of the Act. When there is no provision under AICTE Act requiring approval of the State Government and obtaining NOC, the same cannot be incorporated in the Regulations. Regulations cannot override the provisions of the Act and such Regulations, if any, is repugnant to section 10 (1) (k) of the Act. The petitioner has already completed 75% of the construction and is entitled to approval even without NOC. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 24669 of 2002, Sri P. Sri Raghu ram would contend that policy to reject the application should be uniform and there cannot be any discrimination. ( 13 ) SRI S. Niranjan Ready, learned counsel while adopting the general submissions further submitted that Section 20 of the A. P. Education Act, 1982 cannot be made applicable for establishing technical institutions which is now recognized as occupation under article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. NOC is only a form of recommendation and medium of consultation. Even if the power to grant noc is conferred on the State Government, no opportunity was given to the applicants before rejection of NOC. In view of the state Government s letter dated 9-11-2002 revenue Division is a unit for such consideration and it is not in accordance with any other conditions specified by aicte. Under Regulation 6 (7) AICTE cannot include condition opposed to or in conflict with the Act or Regulation. When aicte Act does not provide for any role to the State Government with regard to desirability/feasibility of any institution or any location, State Government cannot take a decision for establishing such institutions in the Revenue Division. In the absence of any material before the State Government its decision to declare a holiday for grant of noc is arbitrary and illegal. ( 14 ) SRI S. Sreeram, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 4630 and 4683 of 2003 contends that late issuance of noc cannot be attributable to the petitioners as approval will be given in June, 2003. In view of the same, the applications of the petitioners have to be considered in the light of NOCs issued by the State government. ( 15 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel, Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad representing AICTE as well as the State Government in answering the above arguments would contend that none of the petitioners have challenged regulations/amendment. In view of the same, the applications of the petitioners have to be considered in the light of NOCs issued by the State government. ( 15 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel, Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad representing AICTE as well as the State Government in answering the above arguments would contend that none of the petitioners have challenged regulations/amendment. In the impugned notification it is made clear that non- production of documentary evidence will entail the rejection and no notice is required before rejecting the case. AICTE has to adhere to All India Calendar and in order to see that National Calendar is adhered to it has to act fast. Inspection and all other formalities have to be completed by June. Four committees were constituted to process the applications. The petitioners have not challenged the orders of rejection of applications. The State Government only indicated its polity to AICTE through letter dated 9-11-2002 and the same cannot be challenged. Regulation framed under Section 23 of the AICTE Act as amended in 1997 for processing the applications neither creates any right, nor extinguishes the rights. The amended Regulation will be applicable to all such applicants. Even as per the amended regulations, 1997, the State Government has to send its recommendations. The insertion of Regulation 8 (4) (e) is nothing but as stated in the notification. In the absence of any mala fides attributed, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the requirement of NOC. In the absence of state Act, which requires NOC, Regulation is made under Central Act itself, which itself requires NOC, therefore, the petitioners cannot plead any repugnancy. When the state Government identified needs of the locality for establishing new institutions, it does not encroach into the domain of AICTE. The date of consideration will be material date and on the said date Regulations, which are in force will be applicable for such consideration by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone, AIR 1981 sc 711 . The consultation process between the State Government and the AICTE cannot be communicated to the petitioners in the absence of petitioners acquire any right. The NOCs were received belatedly in W. P. Nos. 24668 of 2002; 1401,1798 and 1799 of 2003 i. e. , after due date. The consultation process between the State Government and the AICTE cannot be communicated to the petitioners in the absence of petitioners acquire any right. The NOCs were received belatedly in W. P. Nos. 24668 of 2002; 1401,1798 and 1799 of 2003 i. e. , after due date. Therefore, the same were not considered, as AICTE cannot put back the clock and the same will upset the whole system. The role played by the State government is only recommendatory and it is one of the decision making process under section 10 (1) (k) of the AICTE Act where the AICTE shall consult the State government/ Union Territories before permitting any new colleges. By placing reliance in St. Johns Teachers Training institute v. Regional Director, NCTE, (2003) 3 SCC 321 , learned Counsel contends that such a consultation process cannot be termed as arbitrary and illegal. The NOC given to the petitioner in W. P. No. 24668 of 2002 is only for the academic year 2002-2003 and revalidation is after the cut off date. Admittedly, the NOCs. issued in favour of petitioners in W. P. Nos. 1038, 1401, 1798, 1799,1816, 2370, 2717 and 2732 of 2003 were belated. In the absence of any vested right, the petitioners cannot insist that they are entitled for grant of letter of permission by issuing Letter of Intent. ( 16 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 21831/2002 submitted that aicte has not undertaken any survey for the need of establishing new colleges and granting approval for establishing new colleges will only result in falling down of standards, which is contrary to the aims and objects. ( 17 ) FOR deciding the issues that arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions, it is necessary to notice the object in enacting the AICTE Act and various provisions which have a direct bearing on these issues. ( 18 ) THE All India Council for Technical education (AICTE) was set up in 1945 by a Government resolution as a National expert Body to advice the Central and the state Governments for ensuring the coordinated development of technical education in accordance with approved standards. ( 18 ) THE All India Council for Technical education (AICTE) was set up in 1945 by a Government resolution as a National expert Body to advice the Central and the state Governments for ensuring the coordinated development of technical education in accordance with approved standards. Taking into account the growing erosion of standards, the Council at its meeting held in 1981 came to the conclusion that a stage had reached when it should be vested with statutory powers to regulate and maintain standards of technical education in the country. In pursuance of the above resolution and other recommendations, a national Working Group was set up in november, 1985 to look into the role of the aicte and it has recommended that in order to enable the AICTE to play its role effectively, it shall have to be vested with necessary statutory authority. The National policy on Education, 1986, also stipulated that the AICTE will be vested with statutory authority for planning formulation and the maintenance of norms and standards, accreditation, finding or priority, areas, monitoring and evaluation, maintaining party of certificates and awards and ensuring the co-ordinated and integrated development of technical and management education in future. Accordingly, the power and functions assigned to the AICTE inter alia provide for laying down norms and standards for programmes and institutions, giving approval for setting up of technical institutions, prescribing guidelines for admission of students and the charging of fees, and inspecting and evaluating institutions periodically with a view to maintaining standards and accordingly to provide recognition or withhold recognition of programmes and institutions. To achieve the said object AICTE Act was enacted with the following objectives: (1) proper planning and co-ordinated development of the technical education system through the country; (2) promotion of qualitative improvement of technical education in relation to planned quantitative growth; and (3) regulation of the system and proper maintenance of norms and standards. Section 10 of the Act deals with powers and functions of the Council and reads: 10. Functions of the Council. Section 10 of the Act deals with powers and functions of the Council and reads: 10. Functions of the Council. (1) It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical and management education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may, (a) undertake survey in the various fields of technical education, collect data on all related matters and make forecast of the needed growth and development in technical education; (b) co-ordinate the development of technical education in the country at all levels; (k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned. ( 19 ) SECTION 14 of the Act requires the council to establish Regional Committees to advice and assist the Council to look into all aspects of planning, promoting and regulating technical education within the region. ( 20 ) SECTION 22 empowers the Central government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. ( 21 ) SECTION 23 empowers the Council to make Regulations and specifically mandates the making of such Regulations only not in consistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules. ( 22 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, the AICTE framed Regulations, 1994. ( 23 ) SECTION 24 obligates that the rules and regulations made under the Act have to be placed before the Parliament. It is not disputed that Rules and also regulations framed have been placed before the Parliament, as required under Section 24 of the Act. ( 24 ) REGULATION 4 obligates grant of approval for establishing new technical institution or University by the AICTE and regulation 6 provides conditions for grant of approval made under Regulation 5. Every application under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 4 shall be considered subject to the fulfilment of various conditions, which may be specified by the Council from time to time under Regulation 6 (vii ). Every application under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 4 shall be considered subject to the fulfilment of various conditions, which may be specified by the Council from time to time under Regulation 6 (vii ). The application so submitted will be scrutinized by the Bureau Regional Committees of the council constituted under Section 14 of the act, which shall invite the comments/ recommendations on the application, referred to in sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 7 from the following: (1) the State Government concerned; (2) the affiliating University/state Board of technical Education (3) Bureaus MPCD; (4) Bureau BOS; (5) Bureau RA; (6) the Regional Office. The time schedule and sequences of processing applications for approved proposals shall be given as per the schedule appended to the Regulations. ( 25 ) REGULATION 8 deals with scrutiny of applications and reads : 8. Scrutiny of Applications : (1) On receipt of a copy of the application submitted to the council for obtaining a letter of viability, the concerned University or the Directorate of technical Education, having jurisdiction in the area in which the new technical institution is to be started, shall make arrangements for scrutiny and verification of the information contained therein. (2) (4) On receipt of the report containing the recommendations of the University or the directorate of Technical Education, as the case may be, under sub-regulation (3), the state Government or the University Grants commission, as the case may be, shall forward the report and its recommendations to the Council specifically dealing with the viability of the proposal having regard to the following requirements: (a) Requirement of Land: the Application shall identify suitable land for starting the new technical institution. The minimum requirement of such land shall be as indicated in Table below: ( 41 ) POINT No. 2: It was urged that regulation 8 (4) (e) is beyond the competence of the Council and the same will not have retrospective in operation. Sri Koka Raghava rao, learned Counsel, who contended that such a Regulation is beyond the power of the Council, has not placed any material either in the written argument nor- substantiated the same. In the absence of any submission in this regard, we hold that the same do not suffer from excessive delegation or that the same is ultra vires to section 23 of the Act. In the absence of any submission in this regard, we hold that the same do not suffer from excessive delegation or that the same is ultra vires to section 23 of the Act. ( 42 ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioners that Regulation 8 (4) (e) will not have retrospective operation has to be considered in the light of right conferred upon the writ petitioner-institutions for establishing such a college. The petitioners are only entitled to make an application pursuant to notification, which clearly prescribes that applicants should enclose noc from the concerned State Government for establishing new technical institution. Section 10 (1) (k) of the Act confers power on the Council for grant of approval in consultation with the agencies concerned. One of the agencies is State Government whom the Regional Committee can consult under Regulation 9 (2 ). Even in the absence of any such Regulations the guidelines issued under the notification will partake the character of Regulation. The condition prescribed in the notification is not in any way inconsistent with the Regulations 8 and 9 (2 ). Sub-regulation (8) of Regulation 8 deals with issuance of letter of viability or rejection of the same. As already noticed, the State Government through its letter dated 9-11-2002 informed the AICTE that there are more number of colleges, which were already granted, the same will be a guiding factor for the AICTE do deal with the applications and take a decision whether to grant approval or not. The writ petitioners/ applicants are only entitled for consideration of their applications by the aicte. In the absence of any right conferred on them for grant of such approval, it is not open for the petitioners to insist that aicte has necessarily to grant approval in their favour irrespective of NOC. Prescribing a condition for obtaining NOC cannot be termed as irrational or arbitrary. It is in furtherance of achieving the object sought to be achieved as mentioned in section 10 (1) (k) and the regulations framed thereunder. In view of the same, the amended regulation will also govern the cases of the applicants as the applications will be scrutinized after the introduction of regulation 8 (4) (e ). It is in furtherance of achieving the object sought to be achieved as mentioned in section 10 (1) (k) and the regulations framed thereunder. In view of the same, the amended regulation will also govern the cases of the applicants as the applications will be scrutinized after the introduction of regulation 8 (4) (e ). ( 43 ) THE Supreme Court in State of tamil Naidu v. M/s. Hind Stone (supra) categorically held that in the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application. ( 44 ) ANOTHER submission was made by Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel that before rejecting the application, no opportunity was given as contemplated under proviso to Regulation 8 (7) (ii ). Issuance of notice will arise only in case application was forwarded by Regional Council for consideration by AICTE and if the Council rejects the case only in such circumstances a notice is contemplated, but in the notification itself it is clearly mentioned that non- compliance of the conditions specified will entail rejection, no such further notice is required. Yet a feeble submission was made by the learned Counsel that Regulation 8 (4) (e) was introduced only to defeat the writ petitions. We see no force in the said submission, as already observed even there being no Regulation, the same was made a condition in the notification itself. In the light of the observations made by supreme Court in case of St. Johns Teacher training Institute v. Regional Director, ncte (supra), we desire that it will be but proper for the Council to frame appropriate regulations fixing the time limit within which the State Government has to consider and take its decision in issuance of noc on the applications moved by the applicants for grant of such NOCs. Johns Teacher training Institute v. Regional Director, ncte (supra), we desire that it will be but proper for the Council to frame appropriate regulations fixing the time limit within which the State Government has to consider and take its decision in issuance of noc on the applications moved by the applicants for grant of such NOCs. Till such guidelines are issued, a reasonable time can be fixed so as to enable State government to take decision which in our view should be four months and hold that if the State Government will fail to take decision and communicate the same either to grant or not to grant NOC within four months from the date of application, it shall be deemed that the same has been granted and the Council has to proceed accordingly. ( 45 ) POINT No. 3: The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 24668/2002, 1401, 1798 and 1799 of 2003 were granted NOC by the State government for the academic year 2002- 2003. The State Government in its letter dated 9-11-2002 clearly stated about its issuance of NOC for establishment of new colleges in favour of six societies for the academic year 2002-2003, but approval of the Council has not been received so far. The Government also issued NOC to 11 societies for the academic year 2002-2003. The details are mentioned in the letter. Thus altogether the State Government granted NOC for 21 Engineering Colleges which are likely to be established for the academic year 2003-2004 and requested not to sanction any new Engineering colleges in the State. The application of the petitioner in W. P. No. 24668 of 2002, who obtained NOC from the State Government for the academic year 2002-2003, was transferred for consideration for the academic year 2003-2004 by the AICTE through its letter dated 31-1-2002 stating that it would be communicated to the petitioner by post. Curiously the application of the petitioner was rejected, as NOC for the year 2003-2004 from the concerned State government has not been produced. Pending writ petition the State Government has granted NOC in favour of the petitioner. In view of the same, AICTE has to consider the application of the petitioner afresh for issuance of approval. Curiously the application of the petitioner was rejected, as NOC for the year 2003-2004 from the concerned State government has not been produced. Pending writ petition the State Government has granted NOC in favour of the petitioner. In view of the same, AICTE has to consider the application of the petitioner afresh for issuance of approval. The contention of the Government Pleader for Higher education that revalidated NOC was not received on the last date therefore, rejection of the application was validly made cannot be accepted for the reason letter dated 9-11-2002 can be treated as granting noc in favour of petitioner-institution and the State Government s intention to revalidate the same for the academic year 2003-2004. In view of the same, rejection of the application on the technical ground that NOC has not been revalidated cannot be sustainable and it is accordingly set aside. W. P. Nos. 24668 of 2002, 1401, 4299, 1798 and 1799 of 2003 deserve to be allowed for reconsideration by the AICTE in the light of NOC issued. Similarly, the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 4630 and 4683 of 2003 in whose favour NOCs were issued belatedly have to be reconsidered for issuance of approval by AICTE. ( 46 ) YET another submission was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that some of the petitioners have completed 75% of construction, which is essential condition for making the application as per the notification, therefore, the respondents are estopped from refusing permission cannot be accepted for the reason that as per the Regulations any prospective applicant has to show necessary infrastructure of the land required for establishment of such institution for consideration of application. That does not mean that the applicants who have made available the land and construction have necessarily to be granted approval and LOI for establishing the colleges. It is fairly now well settled that unless there is a promise by the approving authority for grant of licence or approval and in furtherance of said promise if the applicants acted upon, the promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. By merely raising of construction no right is acquired by the applicants. ( 47 ) LASTLY it was also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that minorities have a fundamental right to establish an institution subject to reasonable restrictions. By merely raising of construction no right is acquired by the applicants. ( 47 ) LASTLY it was also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that minorities have a fundamental right to establish an institution subject to reasonable restrictions. In the absence of any reasonable restrictions pleaded nor disclosed by the state Government, the petitioners can establish such institution. Such a submission is devoid of any merit in the light of law laid down in the case of St. Johns Teachers training Institute (supra ). Establishment of new institution is subject to regulations framed under the AICTE Act. ( 48 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned w. P. Nos. 24668/2002, 1401, 1798, 1799, 4299, 4630 and 4683 of 2003 are allowed and the first respondent is hereby directed to consider the applications in the light of nocs issued by the State Government afresh within a period of three weeks from to-day. W. P. Nos. 23987, 21804, 22535, 22638, 22906, 22972, 23191, 23271, 23281,23286, 23296, 23319, 23389, 23396, 23428, 23505, 23508, 23518, 24033, 24138, 24164, 24165, 24366, 24401, 24433, 24474, 24515,24607, 24609, 24648, 24669, 24701, 25051, 25489, 25496, 25700 of 2002 and 708, 1038, 1816, 2370, 2717, 2732 and 4130 of 2003 are dismissed. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, it is unnecessary for us to go into the contentions advanced in the w. P. No. 21831/2002, which was filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation and the same is liable to be dismissed and it (W. P. No. 21831/2002) is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs.