Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of petitioner no. 2 for recognition and its affiliation. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act and its aim and objectives are to develop, uplift and promote the educational standard of rural area and keeping in view the object of the society it opened Mirza Galib Teachers Training (B.Ed.) College, situate in village Janipur in the District of Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as "Training College"), which has sufficient infra-structures and number of teaching and non-teaching staff have been appointed and the students have been admitted for the training course. The President of the Society applied before the State Government for grant of recognition/affiliation and deposited the inspection fee as far back as on 15.10.1988 and when nothing was being done several applications were filed by the President requesting the State authority to grant recognition/affiliation. The State authorities, however, constituted a committee for inspection vide order dated 31.12.1996. Subsequently, the convenor of the committee was changed and prior intimation was given to the college in question for inspection on 15.9.1997. The committee inspected the college in question and prepared a report, as contained in annexure 8, which justified for recognition/affiliation by the State Government, but for the reasons best known to the State authority, formal recognition/affiliation was not granted. In the meantime, in view of the provisions of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as "1993 Act") the petitioners approached the Director, National Council for Teachers Education, Eastern Region, Bhuwaneshwar (hereinafter to be referred to as "Council"), and requested it to send the relevant forms, etc. for filing application for recognition. The application forms thereafter were filled up and were submitted by the petitioners on 25.8.1998 along with demand draft of rupees one thousand and thereafter the Director of the Council made several queries regarding "No Objection Certificate" granted by the State and about its affiliation by the University concerned. for filing application for recognition. The application forms thereafter were filled up and were submitted by the petitioners on 25.8.1998 along with demand draft of rupees one thousand and thereafter the Director of the Council made several queries regarding "No Objection Certificate" granted by the State and about its affiliation by the University concerned. The petitioners satisfied the queries made by the Council, but, somehow or the other, the Council started making queries after queries though the petitioners had requested the Council that the "No Objection Certificate" would not be necessary for grant of recognition by the Council and the question of its affiliation to the concerned University would arise later on. But the matter remained pending before the Council, which necessitated the petitioners to file this writ application. 4. It is further submitted that during pendency of this writ application, the State Government vide letter dated 30th January, 1999, as contained in annexure 20, rejected the request of the petitioners for its recognition and likewise the Council vide its letter dated 14.1.1999, as contained in annexure 21, has asked the petitioners to submit "No Objection Certificate" granted by the State and the order of affiliation passed by the concerned University by 3.2.1999, else the case will be treated as closed. The orders, as contained in annexures 20 and 21 have been challenged by way of an amendment application, which has been allowed. 5. Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh learned counsel for the petitioners, in the background of the case, as referred to above, submitted that since the college in question is a minority institution established under Article 30 of the Constitution the same would be governed by the Central Act in view of coming into force of 1993 Act, and, therefore, the formal "No Objection Certificate" of the State of Bihar necessarily would not be required and the College would be affiliated to the concerned University only after its recognition by the Council. Mr. Singh, learned counsel, besides this question also urged that the attitude of the State appears to be discriminatory, inasmuch as that many like institutions have been recognised, but the recognition, so far this college is concerned, has been refused, though it is a weil established institution and has all. necessary infra-structures, which would be apparent from the inspection report, as referred to above. 6. Mr. necessary infra-structures, which would be apparent from the inspection report, as referred to above. 6. Mr. S.N. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent Council, with reference to the counter affidavit submitted that the Council from time to time is asking the college in question to furnish "No Objection Certificate" from the State Government and the affiliation order of the concerned University, but the petitioners are not complying with the requirement, and, therefore,.no decision has been taken in the matter and the chapter appears to have been closed. Learned counsel, however, submitted that in case, the petitioners apply afresh with the required documents, the Council would consider the question of grant of recognition to the college in question in accordance with law. 7. From the facts, as enumerated above, it appears that the request of the petitioners for grant of recognition by the State Government has been rejected vide communication, as contained in annexure 20, and the Council at the same time has also asked the petitioners to furnish further details with "No Objection Certificate" and the order of affiliation by the concerned University. 8. The question now remains to be considered as to whether an institution established under Article 30 of the Constitution and after coming into force of the 1993 Act would be required to obtain "No Objection Certificate" from the State authorities for its recognition by the Council. 9. This question had come up for determination before the Apex Court in various cases. In cases of State of Tamil Nadu and another V/s. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and Others, [1995(4) Supreme Court Cases 104], Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigai Medical Educational & Charitable Trust V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. [1996(3) Supreme Court Cases, 15] and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust V/s. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and another. [2000(5) Supreme Court Cases, 231], the Apex Court while dealing with cases of Technical Education under All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and under the Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993, held that State legislation falling under Entry 25 of List-III to the extent it is in conflict with Central legislation or subordinate legislation under the same Entry 66 of List-I, would be void. 10. 10. Again the Apex Court while disposing of Civil Appeal No. 2194 of 1996 (Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.) keeping in view the judgments of the Apex Court, as rendered in cases of Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust (supra) and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra) observed: "The basic underline theory engrafted in the aforesaid two decisions is that when Parliament enacts an Act in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, in respect of the field covered by Central Law, no State Legislation could be made in respect of that field." 11. In the case at hand, it appears that the State Government has refused recognition to the College in question vide communication made under Annexure 20, whereas in law the State Government within whose jurisdiction the college in question is situate is required to grant "No Objection "Certificate" and in case the State Government refuses to grant the same, it must assign sufficient reasons and in view of its inspection report, as contained in annexure 8, "No Objection Certificate", in my opinion, normally could not have been refused. However, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court, as referred to above, the Council may consider the case of the college in question for its recognition in accordance with law even in absence of "No Objection Certificate", which, according to my opinion, would not be mandatory and thus, "No Objection Certificate" by the State Government would not be ground for the Council to await for grant of final approval to the institute. 12. The question of affiliation of the College in question will arise at a later stage after recognition granted by the Council, and, therefore, the Council, in my opinion, should not ask the college in question to produce the affiliation order, as per the provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the legal propositions, as noticed above, I find force in the submission of Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 14. In the result, this application is allowed and the order, as contained in annexure 20, refusing to grant recognition to the college in question, which is without any reason, is set aside. Respondent no. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 14. In the result, this application is allowed and the order, as contained in annexure 20, refusing to grant recognition to the college in question, which is without any reason, is set aside. Respondent no. 4, National Council for Teachers Education, Eastern Region, is directed to consider the case of the college in question for its recognition on the basis of the details furnished by it in accordance with law without waiting for the no "No Objection Certificate" of the State Government within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15. No order as to costs.