Judgment :- (W.P.No.29482/2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in respect of the impugned order passed by the respondent in letter No.42713/Affln.I (1)/02 dated 30.8.2005, quash the same and direct the respondent University to process the application of the petitioner dated 15.2.2005 and grant affiliation to the petitioner College for an additional intake of 10 seats i.e. from 50 to 60 in B.Pharm degree course from the academic year 2005-2006. W.P.No.30617/2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent issued in Lr.No.42713/Affln.I (1)/02, dated 30.8.2005, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to grant affiliation to the petitioner Pharmacy College for the increase of intake from 40 to 60 students in B.Pharmacy course from 2005-2006 forthwith. ) COMMON ORDER The petitioners in both the writ petitions are Pharmacy Colleges and they have sought for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash individual orders passed by the respondent Dr.M.G.R.Medical University rejecting their request for increase of seats in B.Pharmacy Degree Course on the ground that prior mandatory permission of the Tamil Nadu Government for increase of seats was not obtained and to direct the University to grant affiliation for the increase of seats as sought for. 2. The point for consideration in both the writ petitions is one and the same and hence they were heard together and a Common Order is passed. 3. The petitioner College in W.P.No.29482/2005 was established in the year 1992-1993 and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) as well as Pharmacy Council of India gave approval as well as permission to conduct B.Pharm Degree Course with annual intake of 50 students. The petitioner applied to both the Authorities seeking for increase of seats and AICTE by their order dated 29.8.1997 permitted an intake of 60 students and thereafter the Pharmacy Council of India by their order dated 27.5.2003 has also raised the seats to 60 from the academic year 2003-2004. The petitioner applied to both the Authorities seeking for increase of seats and AICTE by their order dated 29.8.1997 permitted an intake of 60 students and thereafter the Pharmacy Council of India by their order dated 27.5.2003 has also raised the seats to 60 from the academic year 2003-2004. The petitioner made an application before the respondent University on 15.2.2005 seeking for grant of affiliation for the additional intake of 10 seats from the academic year 2005-2006 and that has been rejected by the impugned order dated 30.8.2005 stating that the proposal for increase of seats cannot be entertained for want of prior permission of the State Government which is mandatory. 4. The petitioner College in W.P.No.30617/2005 was established in the year 1995 and granted permission for an annual intake of 40 students and the petitioner applied for increase of intake of students from 40 to 60 and the AICTE by their letter dated 16.6.2005 granted that approval for an intake of 60 students and the Pharmacy Council of India also in order dated 29.6.2005 granted the approval for an intake of 60 students. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondent University for grant of affiliation for 60 students and that has been rejected by the impugned order dated 30.8.2005 stating that the proposal for increase of seats cannot be entertained for want of prior mandatory permission of the State Government. 5. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions have challenged the impugned orders on the ground that prior permission from the State Government for increase of seats is not required since the petitioners have obtained approval from AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India and insisting of such a demand is illegal as held by the Supreme Court and on that ground the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 6. 6. The respondent University has filed independent counter affidavits in both the writ petitions stating that Proviso to Section 5(5) of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, Chennai, Act, 1987 states that no college shall be affiliated unless the permission of the State Government to establish such college has been obtained and Section 42 of the Act empowers the Governing Council of the University to frame statutes and the amended provision in the statute of the University was assented to by the Chancellor and came into force with effect from 24.2.2004 and it requires the prior approval of the State Government for increase of intake of students in the colleges run by the petitioners. It is further stated that the notification dated 6.1.2005, said to have been issued by the AICTE, has to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament and be published in the Official Gazette and only then, the same would be enforceable in terms of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the petitioners have to prove the same and the order of AICTE permitting the increase of seats has been passed unilaterally and the same is not enforceable in law. 7. Mr.Paul Vasanthakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.30617 of 2005 and Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.29482 of 2005 contended that the grant of approval having been vested with the All India Council for Technical Education and the Pharmacy Council of India, the respondent University has no jurisdiction to insist upon the production of prior permission of the State Government for increase of intake of students and such a demand of prior permission was already held illegal by the Supreme Court in the decision in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1996 SC 2384 ) and hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the respondent University has to be directed to consider the applications of the petitioners and grant affiliation for increase of intake of students as sought for. 8. 8. Proviso to Section 5(5) of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai, Act, 1987 requiring prior permission of the State Government for establishing a college was held to be repugnant to Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by the Apex Court in the decision referred to above and it has been declared that after the grant of permission by the Central Government, a further permission of the State Government under the proviso to Section 5(5) of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai, Act, 1987 would not be required for the purpose of affiliation. Moreover, it is now stated that the All India Council for Technical Education Grant of approval for starting new technical institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and variation of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes and continuation of approval for the existing technical institutions Regulations, 2004 has come into force on and from 29.1.2005 and by virtue of the same, the requirement of prior permission from the State Government, no longer exists. 9. Mr.Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for Dr.M.G.R. Medical University fairly conceded that prior permission of the State Government under the proviso to Section 5(5) of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai, Act, 1987 may not be necessary for the purpose of obtaining affiliation in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, but contended that the Regulations mentioned in the notification dated 6.1.2005 to become enforceable, have to be published in the Official Gazette and also should be laid before both the Houses of Parliament and the petitioners have to establish the same. 10. Though the All India Council for Technical Education is not a party in the writ petitions, notice was issued and Mr.Muralikumaran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appeared for them and the Regional Director of the AICTE, situated at Chennai, filed affidavit stating that the Notification, dated 6.1.2005, was gazetted on 29.1.2005 in the Gazette of India Part 3 Section 4 in Notification No.F.37-3/Legal/2004 and the Regulations were placed before the Lok Sabha on 3.5.2005 and Rajya Sabha on 9.5.2005 and the regulations are in force. Hence, there is no doubt about the legal position. 11. Hence, there is no doubt about the legal position. 11. All India Council for Technical Education has granted approval for the increase of intake of students by orders dated 21.6.2005 and 16.6.2005 to the petitioners and both the orders of approval have been issued under the Regulations referred above. In such circumstances, the impugned orders stating that the proposal for increase of seats cannot be entertained for want of prior permission of the State Government and it is mandatory for the grant of provisional affiliation, are unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the respondent Dr.M.G.R.Medical University is directed to consider the applications of the petitioners for the increase of seats in B.Pharmacy Degree Course and pass orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. No costs. Connected WPMP.Nos.32281, 32282 and 33510 of 2005 are closed.