R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. ( 1 ) AS common questions of fact and law are involved in these Writ Petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. While Writ Petition No. 324 of 2003 is filed questioning the proceedings dated: 28. 12. 2002 issued by the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Writ petition No. 17505 of 2003 is filed questioning the order dated: 6. 8. 2003 passed by the first respondent-University. ( 2 ) THE first petitioner is the Yali Moula Educational Society, a society registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies registration Act, 1350 Fasli, which has promoted the second petitioner-College, namely, Moula Ali College of Engineering and Technology, a technical institution approved by the All India Council for Technical Education under the All India council for Technical Education Act, 1987 vide proceedings dated: 19. 7. 2001. Second petitioner-College was started in a village called Gonipeta, Penukonda mandal of Anantapur District. The second petitioner-College had started working from the academic year 2001-2002. The said college is affiliated to the first respondent from the said academic year. During the academic year 2002-2003, pursuant to the inspection and based on Special Inspection Report dated: 16. 11. 2002, the first respondent has issued show cause notice dated: 9. 12. 2002 in proceedings No. A2/affi/moula Ali/2002 calling the explanation of the second petitioner-college as to why students of the said college should not be shifted to other colleges affiliated to JNTU and why further action should not be taken for de-affiliation from the University. The said notice was issued pointing out certain deficiencies in the running of the second petitioner-college viz. , the college is running in temporary sheds and no permanent building is constructed, there is no Principal to the college from the beginning, no senior level faculty was available in the college, faculty available was not sufficient etc. To the said show-cause notice, the first petitioner submitted its explanation on 21. 12. 2002. Dissatisfied with the said explanation, the first respondent-University has passed orders dated: 28. 12. 2002 vide proceedings No. A2/transfer of students/moula Ali/2002 for shifting of the students of first and second year B. Tech course from the second petitioner-college to other colleges affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University as shown in the annexure thereto. ( 3 ) QUESTIONING the said order dated: 28. 12. 12. 2002 vide proceedings No. A2/transfer of students/moula Ali/2002 for shifting of the students of first and second year B. Tech course from the second petitioner-college to other colleges affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University as shown in the annexure thereto. ( 3 ) QUESTIONING the said order dated: 28. 12. 2002, the petitioner has filed Writ petition No. 324 of 2003, and, this Court has passed interim orders in W. P. M. P. No. 435 of 2003 to the effect that transfer of students should be confined only to the students who opted for other colleges, and, the transfer should not be forcible. It appears that pursuant to the said interim orders, 58 students of the second respondent-college, on their option, were transferred to other colleges affiliated to the first respondent-University. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the petitioner filed representation dated 7th March, 2003 stating that the deficiencies pointed out were rectified and requested for withdrawal of show-cause notice, and, on the ground that the said request is not considered, he has also approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 13602 of 2003, and, this Court has passed orders on 11th July, 2003 to consider the said representation for retransfer of 58 students who were transferred earlier to other colleges. Consequently, in view of the representation of the petitioners, and, taking into account the report of the Expert Committee dated 22. 3. 2003, orders were passed on 6. 8. 2003. In the said order dated 6. 8. 2003, the first respondent-University, taking note of some improvements in the infrastructure facilities and the provision of faculty, to some extent, has decided to modify the proceedings dated: 28. 12. 2002 by allowing the second petitioner-college to continue with the students who had not opted to join other colleges pursuant to the option given as per the directions of this Court in WPMP No. 435 of 2003. The said order dated: 6. 8. 2003 is questioned in Writ Petition No. 17505 of 2003. It is the case of the petitioners that even as per the proceedings dated 28,12,2002, under which the students of the second petitioner-college were transferred to other affiliated colleges, retransfer of such students has to be done after deficiencies are rectified, but, in spite of rectifying all the deficiencies pointed out, while passing further orders dated: 6. 8. It is the case of the petitioners that even as per the proceedings dated 28,12,2002, under which the students of the second petitioner-college were transferred to other affiliated colleges, retransfer of such students has to be done after deficiencies are rectified, but, in spite of rectifying all the deficiencies pointed out, while passing further orders dated: 6. 8. 2003, no order is passed for retransfer of those 58 students who were transferred to other colleges. It is further case of the petitioners that inasmuch as second petitioner-college is an approved institution by a statutory body under the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, the first respondent-University, in the proceedings for de-affiliation, has no jurisdiction to transfer students from one college to the other. It is also the case of the petitioners that, if such a transfer is effected, it will alter the permitted intake capacity of the institutions, which is approved by the All india Council for Technical Education under the All Indian Council for Technical education Act, 1987. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, first respondent-University has filed counter affidavit stating that the second petitioner-institution has not fulfilled the conditions of affiliation, and, based on the inspection report of the Committee constituted by the University, proceedings were initiated for de-affiliation and for transfer of the students. It is stated that considering the explanation filed by the petitioner-college, orders were passed for transfer of students to other institutions, and, the said steps were taken in the interests of students. It is further stated that pursuant to the interim orders passed in Writ Petition no. 324 of 2003, 58 students opted to be transferred from the second petitioner-college and only those students were transferred to other colleges. It is stated that after transfer of such 58 students, the petitioners have addressed a letter dated: 7. 3. 2003 stating that they had complied with all the deficiencies pointed out by the University. Accordingly, the University constituted a Three-Member Expert Committee by proceedings dated 22. 3. 2003 to inspect the college and submit a report. The expert committee has submitted its report on 7. 4. 2003. Though the said report noticed an improvement in the facilities made available in the college, but, yet, it opined that some of the deficiencies still continue. Then, the petitioners addressed a further representation dated: 7. 7. 3. 2003 to inspect the college and submit a report. The expert committee has submitted its report on 7. 4. 2003. Though the said report noticed an improvement in the facilities made available in the college, but, yet, it opined that some of the deficiencies still continue. Then, the petitioners addressed a further representation dated: 7. 7. 2003 for re-transfer of the students transferred to other college. But, the University, not being satisfied with the adequacy of the infrastructure and academic facilities, rejected the request of the petitioners for re-transfer of such 58 students, who had opted to be transferred earlier to other colleges. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the University that though the University is not completely satisfied with the improvements in the college, it allowed the second petitioner-college to continue with the students who had not opted to join other colleges. But, the University was disinclined to retransfer the students who were transferred earlier to other colleges, as frequent change in the academic course would cause inconvenience to the students. With regard to the power of the respondent-University, it is stated that the University is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University act, 1972, and, by virtue of powers under Sections 4 (2) and 28-A of the Act, rules are framed for affiliation and recognition of colleges. It is stated that the Executive Council of the University is empowered as per the said Rules to decide on the grant or withdrawal of affiliation, and, to take necessary steps, which are consequential in nature. ( 7 ) HEARD Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and, Sri c. Kodandaram, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University. ( 8 ) IT is submitted by Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that as the second petitioner-college is approved by the All India council for Technical Education, it is not open for the University to pass any order for transfer of students on the alleged deficiencies in infrastructure facilities. ( 8 ) IT is submitted by Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that as the second petitioner-college is approved by the All India council for Technical Education, it is not open for the University to pass any order for transfer of students on the alleged deficiencies in infrastructure facilities. Further, he submits that while considering the proposals for de-affiliation, the University has no jurisdiction and authority to transfer students to any other college, and, any such transfer, if permitted, would amount to altering the intake capacity in the colleges, which is approved by the all India Council for Technical Education, in exercise of powers under the All india Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute, and, Jaya Gokul Eduational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute, the Supreme Court considered the provisions of All India Council for Technical education Act, 1987 vis--vis the provisions of T. N. Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and held that the provisions of State Act to the extent they are inconsistent with AICTE Act are void and that the State Act cannot lay down standards and requirements higher than those prescribed by the Central Act for technical institutions. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and secretary to Government Higher Education Department, the Supreme Court while considering the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education act, 1987 has held that the affiliation aspect is not specifically covered in the said Act, but, it is held that University cannot impose any conditions inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act and its Regulations and conditions framed by the Council under the Act. It is also held in the said judgment that if there is any default on the part of the College in compliance with the conditions of approval, the only remedy for the University is to bring those facts to the notice of AICTE for the latter to take appropriate action. It is also held in the said judgment that if there is any default on the part of the College in compliance with the conditions of approval, the only remedy for the University is to bring those facts to the notice of AICTE for the latter to take appropriate action. In the light of the above judgments of the Supreme Court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for various technical institutions, approval is accorded by the Council constituted under the All India Council for technical Education Act, 1987 for establishing institutions by fixing intake capacity. In that view of the matter, it is not open to the University to transfer the students from the second petitioner-college to any other institution. He further submits that, in any event, there is no justification for not retransferring 58 students who were transferred on their options pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court in WPMP No. 435 of 2003. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri C. Kodandaram, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University that though proceedings were initiated by the university, he submits that the petitioner-college did not comply with the required conditions for continuation of affiliation. As such, based on the report of the Inspection Committee, proceedings were initiated for de-affiliation. He further submits that inasmuch as pursuant to grant of provisional affiliation, students have already been allowed to attend the first year and second year course, in their interests, the impugned orders were passed for transfer of students to other institutions. The learned counsel submits that the said power is ancillary and incidental while considering the proceedings for affiliation or de-affiliation. He further relies on the Rules framed for affiliation and recognition of the colleges framed under Jawaharlal nehru Technological University Act, in exercise of powers conferred under sections 4 (2) and 28-A of the said Act. Based on the said Rules, he submits that the University is empowered to take up periodical review from time to time, and, take such action, as it considers necessary. The learned counsel has relied on the judgments in St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat, t. K. V. T. S. S. Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of T. N. , and, bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education. In St. The learned counsel has relied on the judgments in St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat, t. K. V. T. S. S. Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of T. N. , and, bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education. In St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India, has held that recognition or affiliation creates an interest in the University to ensure that educational institution is maintained for the purpose intended, and, any regulation which will subserve or advance that purpose will be reasonable and no educational institution established and administered by religious or linguistic minority can claim recognition or affiliation without submitting to those regulations. In T. K. V. T. S. S. Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court has considered the repugnancy with regard to provisions of Medical Council Act, 1956 and Dr. M. G. R. Medical university Act, and, held that in view of the permission granted by the Central government, no further permission is necessary from the State Government, in exercise of powers under the State Act. In the said judgment, while dealing with the provisions of the Medical University Act, the Supreme Court held that though provision requiring permission from the State Government is inserted in the Medical University Act, which relates to affiliation of colleges, the said provision deals with the establishment of college, and, as such, it runs contrary to the provisions of the Central Act, and, therefore, no further permission is required from the State Government to a college, to which, permission is accorded by the Central Government. In Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, the Supreme Court considered the requirement of prior approval for conducting technical courses and programmes by the University. In the said judgment, it is held that the definition of "technical institution" under the AICTE Act does not include university, and, further held that All India Council for Technical Education is not intended to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control the universities. In the said judgment, it is held that the definition of "technical institution" under the AICTE Act does not include university, and, further held that All India Council for Technical Education is not intended to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control the universities. ( 9 ) IN the light of the above contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the first respondent-University can impose any condition contrary to the norms fixed by the All India Council for Technical Education for the purpose of maintaining standards in the second petitioner-institution, to which approval has been accorded by the competent authority under the provisions of All India council for Technical Education Act, 1987, for the purpose of affiliation? the answer to the same is obvious that the first respondent-University cannot impose any restriction, which is contrary to the restrictions and conditions imposed by the competent authority under the provisions of All India Council for technical Education Act, 1987. Though, initially, provisional approval was granted to the second petitioner-college for the academic year 2001-2002, but, subsequently, on inspection of the second petitioner-college by the Expert committee, it is found that there are certain deficiencies, as is evident from the proceedings which are impugned in Writ Petition No. 324 of 2003. The deficiencies are very serious in nature, and, definitely, they will have impact on the standard of education being imparted to the students in an institution. Though it is always open to enquire into the compliance of the conditions and the provisions relating to affiliation, but, at the same time, the University cannot transgress its powers and encroach upon the powers of All India Council for Technical Education. The Council constituted under the said Act is the authority for sanction of approval to the colleges or technical institutions and the said authority fixes intake capacity while granting approval to the institutions and courses. While considering the issue of affiliation, it is always open to the University, if the conditions are not complied with, to pass appropriate orders for de-affiliation, but, at the same time, under the scheme of University Act and the affiliation Rules framed thereunder, the university is not empowered to pass orders for transferring the students from one institution to other institution insofar as technical institutions are concerned. In view of the enactment of the provisions under All India Council for Technical education Act, the power for approval of the technical institutions vests with the Council constituted under the said Act, and, while considering such approvals, the intake capacity of such institutions is fixed by the Council. In that view of the matter , any order to be passed by the University for transferring students from one technical institution to other amounts to transgressing its powers. Though it is always open to the University to have their own regulations and impose such conditions to maintain the standards for the purpose of affiliation, but any such regulation or condition should not run contrary to the requirements under the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act and the regulations made thereunder. As the affiliation and recognition of the colleges are governed by the rules framed by the very university constituted under the jawaharlal NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ACT, 1972, a perusal of the said Rules indicates that there is no such power under the Rules to transfer the students from one college to other college on the ground that particular institution has not fulfilled the condition for affiliation. Though the step which is taken by the University appears to be in the interests of student community, but, as it results in variation of approved strength fixed by the Council constituted under the All India Council for Technical Education Act and runs contrary to powers of such Council, the same cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that while considering the de-affiliation proceedings, the university has no authority or jurisdiction to transfer the students from one institution to other institutions. ( 10 ) BUT, as far as this case is concerned, it is to be seen that initially an order was passed on considering the explanation filed by the petitioner for transfer of students of first year and second year to other colleges, which are also affiliated to the first respondent-university. But, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, transfers were not effected, and, only such of the students who have opted on their own to go to other colleges were considered, and, it appears that only 58 students of first and second year students have been transferred from the second petitioner-institution to other institutions. But, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, transfers were not effected, and, only such of the students who have opted on their own to go to other colleges were considered, and, it appears that only 58 students of first and second year students have been transferred from the second petitioner-institution to other institutions. While considering the subsequent representation filed by the petitioners coupled with the inspection report dated 7. 4. 2003, the first respondent-University has passed further orders on 6. 8. 2003 modifying the earlier proceedings to the effect that though the rectification of deficiencies was not to the complete satisfaction, but, considering various factors, the University has decided to allow the college to continue with the students who had not opted to join the other colleges. Though I have held that there is no such power to University to transfer students from one technical institution to other technical institutions, but, inasmuch as the students transferred to other colleges were only 58, and, that too, pursuant to the options exercised by them pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, and, taking into consideration the inconvenience that would be caused to the students on account of frequent changes with respect to their academic career and burden of expenditure in relocating their residences again, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the University. ( 11 ) THE Writ Petitions, therefore, are dismissed. No costs.