Judgment ( 1. ) BOTH petitions involving similar question of law based on same set of facts are being decided by this common order. The respondents have refused permission to the petitioner for establishment of New Technical Institution for M. B. A. and M. C. A. courses during academic year 2004-2005 vide order Annexure P/1 in both the cases separately. ( 2. ) THE petitioner is a charitable trust registered under the provisions of M. P. Public Trust Act, 1951. The petitioner-trust has promoted three hospitals which are being run by Professional Management and Independent Companies to provide best possible health care. The petitioner has also established a Dental College. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT No. 4, All India Council for Technical Education has been established under Section 3 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to in short the Act) with a view to achieve proper planning and co-ordinated development of the Technical Education system throughout the country. Respondent No. 3 is under obligation for promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and to regulated and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the Technical Education System and for matters connected therewith. Section 10 of the Act cast a duty on respondent No. 4 to take all such steps as may be necessary to ensure, co-ordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standard at all levels. ( 4. ) RESPONDENT No. 4 notified through advertisements announcing national Calendar for the year 2004-05 pertaining to establishment of new technical institutions for various courses in Engineering technology, pharmacy etc. including MBA and MCA courses for the year 2004-05. The advertisement annexure P/3 in this regard was published in 2nd week of September, 2003. As per advertisement, entire process is required to be ensured for a time-bound programme from the point of submission of application till the issuance of letter of approval. The last date of submission of application was 15-10-2003 and the last date of receipt of NOC from the concerned State Government was 15-12-2003. As per advertisement, a NOC from the concerned State Government is a prerequisite for which also, a cut-off date was prescribed apart from other formalities. As per advertisement, the process for establishment of technical institution was provided with all norms and standards. ( 5. As per advertisement, a NOC from the concerned State Government is a prerequisite for which also, a cut-off date was prescribed apart from other formalities. As per advertisement, the process for establishment of technical institution was provided with all norms and standards. ( 5. ) THEREAFTER, respondent No. 2, Director, Technical Education, government of M. P. issued a corresponding advertisement on 25-9-2003 inviting applications to establish technical institutions and for submission of the applications for the purpose of seeking no objection certificate. The last date prescribed in the advertisement was 15-10-03 which was extended to 30-10-03. The advertisement issued by respondent No. 3 is on record as Annexure P/4. ( 6. ) THE petitioner showing itself fully eligible and desiring to establish the institute for Management Studies applied in the prescribed form with all details, declarations, development profile report, corpus of funds, property and other resources available for the purposes of establishing the said institution along with maps, designs etc. of the building on 10-10-03. The applications were filed for seeking NOC for the courses MBA and MCA. As per requirement, the petitioner submitted application to respondent No. 2 on 10-10-2003 for the purpose of seeking NOC from the State Government. A copy of the application dated 10-10-2003 is on record as Annexure P/6. Along with the application, petitioner deposited fees/charges as prescribed. ( 7. ) THE petitioner for this purpose also applied to respondent No. 3 barkatullah University, Bhopal for affiliation and NOC. On receiving information from respondent No. 3, petitioner deposited Rs. 20,000/- on 15-10-2003 as inspection fee. ( 8. ) IT is stated by the learned Counsel for petitioner that when the application filed by the petitioner was in process, the Assembly Elections were declared and because of Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India, the Man Power Planning Department, State of M. P. sought extension of the last date for receiving the NOC from the Government for establishment of new technical institutions for the year 2004-05. A copy of communication dated 15-12-2003 of respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 1 extending the date 31st December, 2003 is on record as Annexure P/8. ( 9. ) THE petitioner who is already running a Dental College was intending to establish the institution with norms and standards. A copy of communication dated 15-12-2003 of respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 1 extending the date 31st December, 2003 is on record as Annexure P/8. ( 9. ) THE petitioner who is already running a Dental College was intending to establish the institution with norms and standards. The petitioner/trust is prepared to meet out fully and completely all norms and standards laid down by the respondents for the purpose of establishing institute. The petitioner is willing to provide infrastructure, both qualitatively and quantitatively, much better and above than even the prescribed standards and for this purpose, it is stated that it spent a huge amount for the development and establishment of proposed institution. ( 10. ) AS the petitioner did not receive "no objection certificate" from respondents 1, 2 and 3, petitioner made a representation -cum -reminder on 26-12-2003 for the issuance of NOC and to process the application of the petitioner vide letter Annexure P/3, respondent No. 3, Barkatullah University granted to the petitioner no objection certificate for affiliation of MBA course subject to necessary clearance from respondent No. 4. ( 11. ) RESPONDENT No. 4 vide letter Annexure P/1 dated 1st January, 2004 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the State government has not recommended petitioners proposal for the establishment of the new technical institution for the academic year 2004-05 before the cut-off date. Aggrieved by Annexure P/l, petitioner filed this petition on 31-1-2004 for seeking following directions in the matter. In Writ Petition No. 495/2004 reliefs claimed are as under:- (i) call for the entire material record pertaining to the establishment of Peoples Institute of Management and Research, Bhopal for its kind consideration from the respondent authorities. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders. (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the necessary approvals, no objections, affiliations etc. for the purposes of establishment of the Management Institute for the academic session 2004-05 henceforth, in terms of the application of the petitioner in this regard, expeditiously and in a time bound fashion so that the said Institute shall become functional for the academic session 2004-05 and onwards. (iv) Grant any other relief/s that this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to the petitioner. (iv) Grant any other relief/s that this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to the petitioner. (v) Award the cost of the instant lis to the petitioner. ( 12. ) IN Writ Petition No. 552/2004 reliefs claimed are as under :- (i) Call for the entire material record pertaining to the establishment of Peoples Institute of Management and Research, Bhopal for its kind consideration from the respondent authorities. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders. (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the necessary approvals, No objections, Affiliations etc. for the purposes of establishment of the Management Institute for the academic Session 2004-05 henceforth, in terms of the application of the petitioner in this regard, expeditiously and in a time bound fashion so that the said Institute shall become functional for the academic Session 2004- 05 and onwards. (iv) Grant any other relief/s that this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case to the petitioner. (v) Award the cost of the instant lis to the petitioner. " ( 13. ) ON 16-2-2004, these petitions were admitted for final hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. Respondents have filed returns in both the cases. ( 14. ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 opposed the petition on the ground that respondents have been facing financial difficulty in regulating these institutions which have no sufficient means to operate the institution in the efficient manner. There are large number of institutions where the seat in the discipline are lying vacant and number of seats allotted to such institutions have not been utilized in the previous year. The petitioner and similarly other situated many others submitted applications for issuance of NOC in their favour. All have been refused on the basis of latest policy decision taken by the State Government of m. P. vide notification dated 15-12-2003 Annexure R/1. It is specifically laid down that in future NOC shall not be granted for the purpose of opening new institutions for conducting MBA and MCA courses in the light of policy decision taken by the State Government. The permission sought by the petitioner has been refused. It is specifically laid down that in future NOC shall not be granted for the purpose of opening new institutions for conducting MBA and MCA courses in the light of policy decision taken by the State Government. The permission sought by the petitioner has been refused. As many as 42 applications were received by the State for issuance of NOC to various institutions including the petitioner. The State vide letter dated 15-12-2003 communicated intimation to All India Council for Technical education in this regard. A copy of letter of State Government is on record annexure R/2. The petitioners name is included in the list Annexure R/2 at serial No. 2 and at serial No. 1 in Annexure R/3. It is also stated in para 5 of the reply that the State constituted a committee of six members to scrutinise the applications received from various institutions seeking approval and NOC. Such committee applied its mind and after due consideration including the negative communication of answering respondents, refused the permission to the petitioner as per policy decision taken by the State. NOC has been refused on the basis of policy decision taken by institutionalized procedure bona fidedly in the interest of public and education. On these grounds respondents 1 and 2 sought dismissal of the petition. ( 15. ) RESPONDENT No. 3 has filed the return in which it is stated that because of non-submission of NOC of All India Council for Technical Education, Director, Technical Education, Government of M. P. and Commissioner higher Education, Govt. of M. P. as per statute 28 of respondent No. 3-Univer-sity, the application for affiliation could not be considered. Last date for submission of sanction is 31-7-2004 and in case the same could not be produced prior to that, respondent No. 3 will not consider the case of affiliation. ( 16. ) RESPONDENTS 4 and 5 contested the petition on the ground that the State Government has not recommended establishment of new Technical institution of petitioner for the academic year 2004-05, hence the application of petitioner was rightly rejected. The recommendation of the State Government is a mandatory requirement envisaged in sub-regulation 8 (4) (e) of amended Regulation of respondent No. 4. The case of the petitioner was rejected merely on the ground that the State Govt. has not recommended the matter of the petitioner. The recommendation of the State Government is a mandatory requirement envisaged in sub-regulation 8 (4) (e) of amended Regulation of respondent No. 4. The case of the petitioner was rejected merely on the ground that the State Govt. has not recommended the matter of the petitioner. On the aforesaid ground, respondents 4 and 5 have contested the matter. ( 17. ) IN view of the reply filed by the respondents, only point remains in the case for consideration is whether because of change of policy by the State govt. Annexure R/1 dated 15-12- 2003, the State Government is justified in not issuing NOC to the petitioner. There are no allegation in the matter that the petitioner-institution does not fulfil the norms and standards fixed by the respondents. The only ground is that because of the change of policy the State govt. has not issued NOC. ( 18. ) TO consider the contentions, it is necessary to look into the policy decision of the respondent-State Annexure R/1. As per para (A) sub-para (3)of Annexure R/1, the State Govt. has decided not to issue any NOC to MBA and MCA courses. Though no reason has been assigned in the policy decision annexure R/2, but from the perusal of the return, it appears that the State government is facing some financial difficulty in regulating the institutions and in the last year, some seats remained unfilled in MBA and MCA courses and because of this, the State Govt. has decided aforesaid. ( 19. ) IN this case, it is not in dispute that respondent No. 4 issued annexure P/3, advertisement in the 2nd week of September 2003 by which for the academic year 2004-2005 applications were invited from the registered trust/society, University, State Government for establishment of new technical institutions for Under Graduate degree level courses in Engineering and Technology/pharmacy/architecture/town Planning/hotel Management and Catering technology/applied Arts and Crafts and MBA and MCA for the year 2004-05. In continuation to this advertisement Annexure P/3, State Government issued advertisement Annexure P/4 by which the State Govt. invited applications for establishment of new technical institutions for new courses. The last date of applications as per Annexure P/4 was 15-10-2003 and thereafter vide another notification this date was extended up to 30th October, 2003. Thereafter the state Govt. In continuation to this advertisement Annexure P/3, State Government issued advertisement Annexure P/4 by which the State Govt. invited applications for establishment of new technical institutions for new courses. The last date of applications as per Annexure P/4 was 15-10-2003 and thereafter vide another notification this date was extended up to 30th October, 2003. Thereafter the state Govt. sought extension of last date of issuing NOC by the State Government, which was duly extended up to 31st December, 2003 vide letter Annexure p/8 dated 15th December, 2003. The contention of the petitioner is that relying on the advertisements Annexure P/3 and P/4, petitioner- institution invested huge amount for the establishment of aforesaid new technical institution to start mba and MCA courses. When the State Govt. invited applications vide annexure P/4 for the academic session 2004-05, it must have taken some decision in this regard and before taking decision, the State Govt. must have considered all the pros and cons of inviting such applications. The petitioner who was desirous of establishing the institution for MCA and MBA courses acted upon the advertisement of the State Govt. and respondent No. 4 and invested for the establishment of all necessary paraphernalia and other establishment for this purpose. When the State Govt. once decided to invite applications for the academic session 2004-05 then immediately after three months on 15-12-2003, it cannot change its decision. The State Government is estopped from doing so and cannot deprive those institutions who believing on the advertisement Annexures P/3 and P/4 started to establish the institution and has invested in this regard. ( 20. ) THE State Government vide advertisement Annexure P/4 announced its decision for the establishment of technical institutions. Once the state Govt. has announced it, it cannot deny later on merely on the ground of financial difficulties. The State Govt. may decide that in the next session, this facility may not be available, but once the State Govt. has issued such an advertisement and the petitioner acting upon it has established the institution, the State Govt. cannot deny no objection certificate. The State Govt. is estopped to do so fpr the academic year. The State Government may change its previous policy decision. In such a situation, relevant facts and circumstances should be brought on record. State Government should not shirk from its liability. In the present case, no such facts are brought on record. cannot deny no objection certificate. The State Govt. is estopped to do so fpr the academic year. The State Government may change its previous policy decision. In such a situation, relevant facts and circumstances should be brought on record. State Government should not shirk from its liability. In the present case, no such facts are brought on record. Merely on previous occasion, in some of the institutions, the seats were lying vacant will not be a ground to withdraw the decision within a period of three months when the petitioner after issuance of notices Annexures P/4 and P/5 acted upon it and has established institution. Thus no objection certificate cannot be denied merely on the ground that on 15th December, 2003, the State Govt. decided otherwise. The last date was extended on the prayer of the State by respondent no. 4 to issue NOC. This means that the State Govt. was processing the applications and because of Code of Conduct, it was not desirable to issue NOC. But thereafter the State Government has decided otherwise and has not issued noc. This act of the Govt. cannot be appreciated. It is a fact of common knowledge that MBA and MCA courses are specialised course and in this regard if an institution with all norms, standards and paraphernalia comes forward to provide this education, this education can not be denied by the State Government merely on the aforesaid ground. The policy may be changed for the ensuing year. The State Govt. may take decision not to issue NOC is next session. Once the State Govt. in the month of Sept. 2003 decided to invite applications in that regard now it cannot say that it will not issue NOC to those institutions who acting upon the advertisements P/4 and P/5 established the institutions. From the perusal of the entire facts and also the instructions annexures P/4, it cannot be said that the Government is burdened with heavy financial obligation. What are the financial obligations which the Govt. has to meet out, are not on record. The petitioner is required to pay fee and the State govt. has to satisfy itself about the fact that the petitioner-institution is fulfilling all the requisite norms and parapharnalia necessary for the establishment of the institution is available with the petitioner. ( 21. ) THE learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that NOC on behalf of the State Govt. The petitioner is required to pay fee and the State govt. has to satisfy itself about the fact that the petitioner-institution is fulfilling all the requisite norms and parapharnalia necessary for the establishment of the institution is available with the petitioner. ( 21. ) THE learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that NOC on behalf of the State Govt. is not required even under All India Council for Technical education Act of 1987. Reliance is placed to the Apex Courts judgment in thirumurgua Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (1996) 3 SCC 15 in which in para 35 held thus :- "35. As indicated earlier, the Trust did approach the State of Tamil nadu for grant of essentiality certificate in terms of Letter of intent dated 12-12-1995 issued by the Government of India, but the State Government has refused to issue the said certificate by its order dated 10-1-1996. The only reason which has been given by the State Government for such refusal is that "the Government have not changed the policy of not permitting any private trust or management to start a medical/dental college". This would show that instead of considering the matter of grant of essentiality certificate on the basis of desirability and feasibility of having the proposed medical college at the proposed location, the State government has refused to grant the essentiality certificate on the basis of its earlier policy of not permitting any private trust or management to start a medical/dental college in the State. The state Government could not refuse essentiality certificate on such a policy consideration. The refusal on the part of the State government to grant the essentiality certificate in respect of the medical college proposed to be established by the Trust cannot, therefore, be upheld. " ( 22. ) IN Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to government Higher Education Department, Kerala State and another, (2000) 5 scc 231 , the Apex Court held (in para 22, 23, 26 and 27 ). "22. As held in T. N. case the Central Act of 1987 and in particular, section 10 (k) occupied the field relating to "grant of approvals" for establishing technical institutions and the provisions of the central Act alone were to be complied with. "22. As held in T. N. case the Central Act of 1987 and in particular, section 10 (k) occupied the field relating to "grant of approvals" for establishing technical institutions and the provisions of the central Act alone were to be complied with. So far as the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act or its statutes were concerned and in particular Statute 9 (7), they merely required the University to obtain the "views" of the State Government. That could not be characterised as requiring the "approval" of the state Government. If, indeed, the University statute could be so interpreted, such a provision requiring approval of the State government would be repugnant to the provisions of Section 10 (k) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and would again be void. As pointed out in T. N. case there were enough provisions in the Central Act for consultation by the Council of AICTE with various agencies, including the State Governments and the universities concerned. The State-Level Committee and the Central Regional Committees contained various experts and State representatives. In case of difference of opinion as between the various consultees, aicte would have to go by the views of the Central Task Force. These were sufficient safeguards for ascertaining the views of the state Governments and the universities. No doubt the question of affiliation was a different matter and was not covered by the central Act but in T. N. case it was held that the University could not impose any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its regulation or the conditions imposed by AICTE. Therefore, the procedure for obtaining the affiliation and any conditions which could be imposed by the University, could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act. The University could not, therefore, in any event have sought for "approval" of the State Government. ( 23. ) THUS we hold, in the present case that there was no statutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State Government and even if there was one, it would have been repugnant to the aicte Act. The University Statute 9 (7) merely required that the "views" of the State Government be obtained before granting affiliation and this did not amount to obtaining "approval". If the university statute required "approval", it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act. Point 1 is decided accordingly. The University Statute 9 (7) merely required that the "views" of the State Government be obtained before granting affiliation and this did not amount to obtaining "approval". If the university statute required "approval", it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act. Point 1 is decided accordingly. 24 *** *** *** *** 25 *** *** *** *** 26. Even on merits, the reasons given by the State Government in its counter are not tenable in law. The Director of Technical education of the State was a member of the State Level Committee as per Regulation 9 (4) of the AICTE Regulations. The secretary, Technical Education of the State of Kerala was also a member of that Committee. AICTEs approval dated 30-4-1995 showed that the approval had been given by the State-Level committee of which they were obviously members. It is, therefore, not understandable how the Director had given a contrary opinion to the State Government. Regulation 8 (4) of AICTE only required calling for the "comments/recommendations" of the state Government and of the University. In case, there was difference between the State Government, University or the regional Committee the Central Task Force was to make a final recommendation under Regulation 8 (4 ). Here the letter of approval of AICTE dated 30-4-1995 showed that the Central task Force had given its approval. The said approval was based also on the inspection by the Expert Committee of AICTE. Hence the State Government in its counter, could not have relied upon any contrary opinion of the Director of Technical Education. If the State Government had any other valid objections, its only remedy was to place its objections before the AICTE Council under the AICTE Act or before the committees, e. g. State Level committee etc. " 23. In Bharathidasan University and another Vs. All India Council for technical Education and others, (2001) 8 SCC 676 Para 13 and 14. The Apex court held:-"13. AICTE cannot, in our view, make any regulation in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act, notwithstanding subsection (1), which though no doubt enables such regulations being made generally to carry out the purposes of the Act, when such power is circumscribed by the specific limitation engrafted therein to ensure them to be" not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, and the Rules. . . . . " So far as the question of granting approval, leave alone prior or post, Section 10 (1) (k) specifically confines the limits of such power of AICTE only to be exercised vis-a-vis technical institutions, as defined in the Act and not generally. When the language is specific, unambiguous and positive, the same cannot be overlooked to give an expansive meaning under the pretext of a purposive construction to perpetuate an ideological object and aim, which also, having regard to the Statement of objects and Reasons for the AICTE Act, are not warranted or justified. Therefore, the Regulation insofar as it compels the universities to seek for and obtain prior approval and not to start any new department or course or programme in technical education (Regulation 4) and empower itself to withdraw such approval, in a given case 0f contravention or the Regulations (Regulation 12 are directly opposed to and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 10 (1) (k) of the Act and consequently void and unenforceable. 14. The fact that the Regulations may have the force of law or when made have to be laid down before the legislature concerned does not confer any more sanctity or immunity as though they are statutory provisions themselves. Consequently, when the power to make regulations is confined to certain limits and made to flow in a well-defined canal within stipulated banks, those actually made or shown and found to be not made within it confines but outside them, the courts are bound to ignore them when the question of their enforcement arises and the mere fact that there was no specific relief sought for to strike down or declare them ultra vires, particularly when the party in sufferance is a respondent to the lis or proceedings cannot confer any further sanctity or authority and validity which it is shown and found to obviously and patently lack. It would, therefore, be a myth to state that regulations made under Section 23 of the Act have "constitutional" and legal status, even unmindful of the fact that any one or more of them are found to be not consistent with specific provisions of the Act itself. It would, therefore, be a myth to state that regulations made under Section 23 of the Act have "constitutional" and legal status, even unmindful of the fact that any one or more of them are found to be not consistent with specific provisions of the Act itself. Thus, the Regulations in question, which AICTE could not have made so as to bind universities/ugc within the confines of the powers conferred upon it, cannot be enforced against or bind a university in the matter of any necessity to seek prior approval to commence a new department or course and programme in technical education in any university or any of its departments and constituent institutions. " The Apex Court held that the grant of approval for establishment of technical institution is governed solely by AICTE Act, more particular Section 14 (k) thereof. Council established under the Act is the sole body authorised to grant approval. The provisions of any enactment conferring powers on State government or University consistent with AICTE Act would be void. State government is required to be consulted, however, under the Act along with the regulations framed thereunder provide the machinery for such consultation to decide the permission. The State Government refusing permission for establishment of College was not required either for establishment of the college or for its affiliation to the University. The State Governments refusal to grant permission is illegal and void. ( 24. ) CONSIDERING the fact that the State Government has refused to issue recommendation to All India Council for Technical Education because of the decision dated 15-12-2003 and not on merits or other grounds and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, respondent No. 4 has to decide the matter to grant permission to the petitioner for establishment of educational institution to run MCA and MBA course, the State Govt. s decision dated 15-12-2003 so far as it relates to the petitioner in not granting noc deserves to be quashed. The State Govt. cannot deny NOC to the petitioner merely by a change of decision in the same academic year when the petitioner acting on advertisement Annexure P/4 established educational institution for MBA and MCA courses applied and paid requisite fees. In this regard, the State Govt. The State Govt. cannot deny NOC to the petitioner merely by a change of decision in the same academic year when the petitioner acting on advertisement Annexure P/4 established educational institution for MBA and MCA courses applied and paid requisite fees. In this regard, the State Govt. s decision Annexure R/1 so far it relates to the petitioner (in both the cases) is hereby quashed and this petition is allowed and following directions are issued :- (i) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the matter of the petitioner for grant of no objection certificate/recommendation for the establishment of educational institution to the petitioner for MBA and MCA courses, if the petitioner is fulfilling all the norms and is having requisite parapharnalia in the institution, the State Govt. shall not refuse NOC/recommendation certificate to respondent no. 4 merely on the ground of decision dated 15-12-2003. (ii) The State Government shall decide the matter within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order to respondents 1 and 2. (iii) The State Govt. shall communicate its decision within the aforesaid period to the petitioner, and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. (iv) Respondent No. 3 on receiving the aforesaid shall consider the matter and if the petitioner-institution is fulfilling the norms and standards fixed by respondent No. 4, respondent No. 3 shall decide the matter in accordance with law. (v) Respondent No. 4 on receiving the aforesaid shall consider and decide the matter within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid communication. As a special case, respondent No. 4 shall grant relaxation to the petitioner in respect of time schedule fixed by it for consideration of the application. No order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.