JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Amity Business School, Gautambudh Nagar through its Authorized Signatory as well as Ritanand Balved Education Foundation, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, through its General Secretary, has approached this Court, questioning the validity of show cause notice dated 18.8.2005 and action taken pursuant thereto on 17.9.2005 by All India Council for Technical Education and any other consequential action taken pursuant thereto. 2. Brief background of the case, as disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition, is that petitioners have been running PGDM ( PT-2 years) and PGDM (PT) courses since the year 1995. It has been contended that All India Council for Technical Education is statutory body established under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, for the purposes of laying down norms and standard for the programmes of institutions giving approval for setting up of new technical institutions and introduction of new programmes in the existing technical institutions, prescribing guidelines for admission of students and charging of fees etc. It has been contended that approval was accorded to the petitioners’ institution and last extension of approval was extended for the period 2004-06. Existing annual intake capacity of the students has been 150 in PGDM (FT) and 60 students for PGDM (PT). Petitioners have contended that each and every prerequisite terms and conditions has been fulfilled by them before establishment and starting of its courses. It has been stated that in the afternoon of 26.7.2005 a fax message was received under the signature of Advisor (UG/PG) All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, intimating to the petitioners 27.7.2005 as the date for inspection under Section 10 (p) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act by Expert Committee to verify the maintenance of norms and management of the Technical Education. As notice period was short, requisite information could not be furnished to the said Expert Committee, who visited the institution on 26.7.2005, and thereafter another communication dated 1.8.2005 was received through fax fixing 5.8.2005 as the date of inspection. Petitioners have contended that Committee Members who visited the petitioners’ institution on 5.8.2005 were apparently satisfied and were also having high opinion about the institution. Petitioners have contended that Committee Members who visited the petitioners’ institution on 5.8.2005 were apparently satisfied and were also having high opinion about the institution. Petitioners have contended that letter dated 18.8.2005 surprised them, wherein petitioners were asked to show cause within ten days as to why action, including withdrawal of approval for the academic session 2005-06, be not taken alleging serious deficiencies mentioned therein. Petitioners have contended that allegations made in the notice was based on flimsy ground and were motivated, inasmuch as between the date of grant of approval vide letter dated 14.5.2004 and the date of issuance of notice, there was no change in the circumstances with reference to faculty, fees structure, built up area, process/procedure of admissions etc. In this background, it was asserted that show cause notice itself was misuser of the authority. The said notice was initially replied on 23.8.2005 briefly dealing with compliance of All India Council for Technical Education Regulations, and thereafter on 29.8.2005, petitioners submitted detailed reply. The All India Council for Technical Education passed order on 17.9.2005 withdrawing approval for the conduct of courses of PGDM (FT) and PGDM (PT) for academic session 2005-06, and other directives were issued for attachment of students in nearby area. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. 3. On presentation of writ petition, this Court passed following order, which is being quoted below: “Sri Ajit Kumar Singh has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, learned standing counsel appears for respondents No. 3 and 4. Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the impugned order dated 17.9.2005 has been passed by the All India Council for Technical Education without considering the reply submitted by the petitioners. He further contended that petitioners were not aware of the Expert Committee report which inspected the premises on 27.7.2005 and 5.8.2005. Under Section 11 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 it was incumbent upon the respondents to communicate the result of inspection. He submitted that before withdrawing the recognition which is based on the basis of Expert Committee report dated 27.7.2005 and 5.8.2005 the petitioner was entitled for two opportunities, i. e. the copy of the report of the Expert Committee and also the show cause notice as contemplated under Regulation 8 (1) empowering withdrawal of the approval. He submitted that before withdrawing the recognition which is based on the basis of Expert Committee report dated 27.7.2005 and 5.8.2005 the petitioner was entitled for two opportunities, i. e. the copy of the report of the Expert Committee and also the show cause notice as contemplated under Regulation 8 (1) empowering withdrawal of the approval. Sri R.N. Singh further contended that by the impugned order direction has been issued to transfer and distribute the students with other approved institutions whereas there is no power with the All India Council for Technical Education to transfer the students. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order has been passed after giving show cause notice. He has submitted that in the report of the Expert Committee serious deficiencies were revealed in the institutions and there being violation of norms and standards prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education Act, the order has rightly been passed for withdrawing the recognition. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh prays for time to produce before the Court the reports of the Committee dated 27.7.2005 and 5.8.2005 to satisfy the Court that the Expert Committee made inspection and was satisfied with regard to violation of norms and standards. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh prays for and is allowed two weeks time to file counter affidavit List on 21st of October, 2005. Looking to the nature of the dispute raised in the writ petition, it is made clear that the wit petition itself may be disposed of on the next date. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh may also produce before the Court the reports of the Expert Committee and the records pertaining to petitioners’ institution. Till the next date fixed, the transfer and distribution of the students to other appropriate institutions, if not already made, shall not take place.” 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of All India Council for Technical Education, respondent Nos. Till the next date fixed, the transfer and distribution of the students to other appropriate institutions, if not already made, shall not take place.” 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of All India Council for Technical Education, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been contended that All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (Act No. 52 of 1987) was enacted by Parliament to provide for establishment of the Council with view to achieve the objects of planned and co-ordinated development of technical education system throughout the country, promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned qualitative growth , regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standard in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith. In this connection reference has been made of Section 2 (g) and 2 (h) of the Act, which defines “Technical Education” and “Technical Institutions”. In this respect it has been contended that management education is also covered with the definition of Technical Education. Chapter III of the Act enumerates powers and functions of the Council, and Section 10 empowers the Council to take up such steps as it may think fit for ensuring guaranteed development of technical education maintenance of norms. Steps which can be undertaken have been detailed out and further reference has also been given in regard to Regulation making powers under Section 23 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. In the background of these provisions, it has been submitted that it is entirely within the domain of the Council to grant approval to a new course or to recognize a new institute for imparting technical education and for fixation of intake capacity of the students in the technical education. The norms, standard and guidelines framed by the All India Council for Technical Education are binding on all technical institutions and in case any technical institution is found to be contravening any of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, the Council has authority to withdraw its approval after making necessary inquiry and after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to such institution. It has been contended that terms and conditions have been clearly mentioned in the letter of approval dated 16.12.1994. The petitioners have violated the terms and conditions with impunity. It has been contended that terms and conditions have been clearly mentioned in the letter of approval dated 16.12.1994. The petitioners have violated the terms and conditions with impunity. Background of the case has also been set up to suggest that time and again opportunity has been provided to the petitioners to mend their ways by removing deficiencies, but at no point of time steps have been undertaken in this direction. It has been contended that High Level Expert Committee visited the institution on 27.7.2005, and on the said date, petitioner institution failed to provide relevant material/information about compliance of standard and norms before the Expert Committee. In all fairness another inspection was arranged on 5.8.2005 enabling the petitioner to facilitate the visit of Expert Committee with requisite information and documents, which were needed and deficiencies which were found have been detailed out, and it has been asserted that show cause notice was based on the same. It has been contended that reply was submitted on 29.8.2005, and therein conduct of unapproved courses in the same premises utilizing the same infrastructure and other facilities intended for All India Council for Technical Education approved courses has been admitted, and thus, standard of education has been diluted. It has been contended that reply of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, and thereafter, order impugned has been passed. In this background, it has been contended that procedure which has been adopted is free and fair one, as such no interference is warranted by this Court. 5. To this counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit has been filed, and therein the contents mentioned in the counter affidavit have been rebutted, and it has been contended that All India Council for Technical Education has no authority to withdraw the approval and further it has been contended that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing impugned order dated 17.09.2005. It has been reiterated that after grant of approval in the year 1994, petitioners have been running the institution by fulfilling all norms and standard as laid down and further whenever deficiencies have been pointed out by the All India Council for Technical Education, the same have been fulfilled and the directions have been complied with. It has been reiterated that after grant of approval in the year 1994, petitioners have been running the institution by fulfilling all norms and standard as laid down and further whenever deficiencies have been pointed out by the All India Council for Technical Education, the same have been fulfilled and the directions have been complied with. It has been further contended that deliberately and wilfully attempt has been made by the respondents to mislead and make wild allegations on the question of opportunities being granted during the period of approval from 1994 till date. It has been complained that opportunity of hearing is mandatory, and here the All India Council for Technical Education has failed to provide opportunity while passing the order of withdrawal of approval. Further it has been contended that action of respondents is actuated by mala fide and not in public interest. Petitioner institution is one of the best institution having exceptionally good infrastructure and faculty etc. and this fact is reflected from the circumstances that even before award of distinction and completion of two years course the students were offered placement in good companies. It has been contended that as report of the Expert Committee had not been supplied, hence petitioners could not submit any reply. However, as and when any shortcoming was pointed out, the same was rectified. It has also been contended that society in question has been granted approval permanently till 7.8.2006. In respect of running of classes in Saket New Delhi, it has been contended that no classes had ever been conducted. Again it has been reiterated that the deficiencies pointed out have been rectified. It has also been contended that All India Council for Technical Education in its manual has itself specifically mentioned that in order to fully utilize the facilities, multi-sharing of the facilities should be done to achieve the better economy and maximum utilization. It has been reiterated that report of the Expert Committee had never been communicated to the petitioners, and whatever deficiencies have been pointed out, the same have been rectified and the conditions laid down in the letter of approval at all points of time have been fulfilled. It has been reiterated that report of the Expert Committee had never been communicated to the petitioners, and whatever deficiencies have been pointed out, the same have been rectified and the conditions laid down in the letter of approval at all points of time have been fulfilled. It has been asserted that unnecessary impression has been sought to be created that petitioner institution has been grossly flouting the terms and conditions of approval by making excess admission and also not making payment to the teaching faculty as per All India Council for Technical Education pay scales. In this connection, it has been contended that when show cause notice was issued the same was adequately replied, and thereafter no action was taken, as the authorities were satisfied on all front to grant extension of approval by letter dated 14.5.2004. It has been further asserted that for academic session 2005-06 admission process started in October, 2004 as per approved intake limit, and courses have commenced in the month of June, 2005. Complaint has been made in respect of the information, which was carried out by the Expert Committee, and it has been sought to be contended that the said report cannot be made foundation and basis for non-suiting the claim of petitioners. It has been contended that entire action is unwarranted and uncalled for and is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and in this background, it has been contended that writ petition be allowed. 6. Additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the All India Council for Technical Education, and therein it has been contended that Regulations are valid and all along same has been followed. It has been contended that plea of mala fide has been unnecessarily set up, whereas action has been undertaken in public interest. The deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Committee were always communicated to the petitioners’ institution and same were reflected in the show cause notice. It has been contended that land in question was initially allotted for running 10+2 school only. However, petitioners in violation of the conditions of allotment started several other programmes including business school, and permission by NOIDA Authority for running business school in the same premises does not entitle the petitioners to violate the All India Council for Technical Education norms. It has been contended that land in question was initially allotted for running 10+2 school only. However, petitioners in violation of the conditions of allotment started several other programmes including business school, and permission by NOIDA Authority for running business school in the same premises does not entitle the petitioners to violate the All India Council for Technical Education norms. In this background, it has been contended that the action taken is rightful action and is within the legal parameter. As far as report of the Expert Committee is concerned, the same is based on the report submitted by the petitioner institution itself. 7. After pleadings aforementioned have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. The original record, as directed by this Court on 7.10.2005 has also been produced to apprise and satisfy the Court that Expert Committee which made spot inspection was satisfied with regard to violation of norms and standard. 8. Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assailed the validity of action undertaken by the All India Council for Technical Education by contending that said action is totally unwarranted and unjustified and arbitrariness is reflected on the face of it, inasmuch as in passing impugned order no reasons, whatsoever, have been assigned, and conclusions have been arrived at without adverting to the reply filed pursuant to show cause notice by the petitioner and coupled with this, the copy of report of the Expert Committee, which has been made foundation and basis for passing the impugned order, has not at all been supplied to the petitioners, and on this ground, impugned order is unsustainable. Apart from this, it has been contended that even on merits, the view which has been taken is perverse and unreasonable, and opportunity ought to have been afforded to petitioner for rectifying the deficiencies, if any, and straightaway such a drastic action of withdrawal ought not to have been taken, and in this background, it has been urged that writ petition in all eventuality is liable to be allowed. 9. Sri Ravindra Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, representing the All India Council for Technical Education, on the other hand, contended that Council has authority to take such necessary steps as may be required for the compliance of its direction, and further principles of natural justice has been complied with. 9. Sri Ravindra Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, representing the All India Council for Technical Education, on the other hand, contended that Council has authority to take such necessary steps as may be required for the compliance of its direction, and further principles of natural justice has been complied with. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, principles of natural justice cannot be put in straight-jacket formula and requirement of principles of natural justice must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of inquiry, the rules under which authority is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so forth. While complaining violation of principles of natural justice, party is not only required to show that it has no notice but also that it was seriously prejudiced thereby, and here no prejudice has been established, coupled with this entire records as per earlier order of this Court are here, and on the own admission of the petitioner only irresistible conclusion, which could be drawn, is that the terms and conditions of affiliation has been flouted, as such no interference is warranted by this Court, writ petition is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed. 10. In order to appreciate the respective arguments as advanced by the parties, Sections 10, 11 and 23 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 are being quoted below: “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 co-ordinated and integrated development of technical 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; (c) allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Council such grant on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to— I. technical institutions, and II. universities imparting technical education in co-ordination with the Commission; (d) promote innovations research and development in established and new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet developmental requirements and for overall improvement of educational processes; (e) formulate schemes for promoting technical education for women, handicapped and weaker sections of the society; (f) promote an effective link between technical education system and other relevant systems including research and development organizations, industry and the community; (g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical institution and Universities imparting technical education, incorporating norms and mechanism for enforcing accountability; (h) formulate schemes for the initial and in-service training of teachers and identify institutions or centers and set up new centers for offering staff development programmes including continuing education of teachers; (i) lay down norms and standards for course, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualification, quality instructions, assessment and examinations; (j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees; (k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned; (I) advice the Central Government in respect of grant of charter to any professional body or institution in the field of technical education conferring powers, rights and privileges on it for the promotion of such profession in its field including conduct of examination and awarding of membership certificates; (m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions; (n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of technical education; (o) provided guidelines for admission of students to technical institution and Universities imparting technical education; (p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution; (q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses, programmes to such technical institutions which fail to comply with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated period of time and take such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council; (r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations and to set up new organizations to ensure effective discharge of the Council’s responsibilities and to create positions of professional, technical and supporting staff based on requirements; (s) declare technical institutions at various levels and types offering courses in technical education fit to receive grants; (t) advice the Commission for declaring any institution imparting technical education as a deemed University; (u) set up a National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it and to make recommendation to it, or to the Council or to the Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition or derecognition of the institution or the programme; (v) perform such other functions as may be prescribed. 11. Inspection—(1) For the purpose of ascertaining financial needs of technical institution or a University or its standards of teaching, examination and research, the Council may cause an inspection of any department of departments of such technical institution or University to be made in such manner as may be prescribed and by such person or persons as it may direct. (2) The Council shall communicate to the technical institutes or University the date on which any inspection under sub-section (1) is to be made and the technical institution or University shall be entitled to be associated with the inspection in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The Council shall communicate to the technical institution or the University, its views in regard to results of any such inspection and may, after ascertaining the opinion of that technical institution or University, recommend to that institution or University the action to be taken as a result of such inspection. (4) All communications to a technical institution or University under this Section shall be made to the executive authority thereof and the executive authority of the technical institution or University shall report to the Council the action, if any, which is proposed to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation as is referred to in sub-section (3). 23. Power to make regulations.—(1) The Council may, by notification in the official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and the rules generally to carry out the purpose of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters namely— (a) regulating the meetings of the Council and the procedure for concluding business thereunder; (b) the terms and conditions of service of the officers and employees of the Council; (c) regulating the meetings of the Executive Committee and the procedure for conducting business thereat; (d) the area of concern, the constitution and powers and functions of the Board of Studies; (e) the region for which the Regional Committee be established and the institution and functions of such committee.” 11. A bare perusal of Section 10 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act would go to show that a duty has been cast upon the Council to take such steps as it may think fit ensuring co-ordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act. The Council has been vested with the authority to 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; and co-ordinate the development of technical education in the country at all levels; and to promote an effective link between technical education system and other relevant systems including research and development organisations, industry and the community; and to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical institution and Universities imparting technical education, incorporating norms and mechanism for enforcing accountability. The Council has been vested with the authority to withhold or discontinue or discontinue grants in respect of courses, programmes to such technical institutions which fail to comply with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated period of time and take such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council. 12. Section 11 of the Act deals with the power of inspection for the purpose of ascertaining financial needs of technical institution or a University or its standards of teaching, examination and research, the Council may cause an inspection of any department of departments of such technical institution or University to be made in such manner as may be prescribed and by such person or persons as may be directed. The Council is thereafter obliged to communicate views in regard to results of any such inspection and may, after ascertaining the opinion of that technical institution or University, recommend to that institution or University the action to be taken as a result of such inspection. Thereafter all communications to a technical institution or University under this Section has to be made to the executive authority thereof and the executive authority of the technical institution or University shall report to the Council the action, if any, which is proposed to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation as is referred to in sub-section (3). Thereafter all communications to a technical institution or University under this Section has to be made to the executive authority thereof and the executive authority of the technical institution or University shall report to the Council the action, if any, which is proposed to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation as is referred to in sub-section (3). Section 23 of the Act deals with the Regulation making powers and in pursuance of this regulations have been framed, which are known as Regulations, 2004, which have been published on 6.1.2005, which deals with the withdrawal of approval also by mentioning if any technical institution contravenes any of the provisions of these regulations, the Council may after making such inspection, as it may consider proper and after giving the technical education concerned opportunity of hearing, withdraw the approval granted under these regulations. 13. In the light of these provisions, submissions advanced on behalf of the parties are being adverted to. Much stress has been laid on fact that the impugned order does not contain any reason and the reply submitted by the petitioners has not at all be adverted to, and the copy of the report, which has been made foundation and basis of the impugned order has not been supplied. In this connection impugned order in question, which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition has been perused. The impugned order in question reflects that the reply which was submitted by the petitioners has been considered and it has been found that courses approved by the All India Council for Technical Education are being conducted in gross violation of the norms and standard prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education, and further the Amity Business School is conducting large number of unapproved courses in the same premises utilizing the infrastructure, faculty and other facilities intended for by the All India Council for Technical Education approved courses, and thus, diluting the standard of education. Thus, in the present case, reply has been considered though not very elaborately, but the finding has been returned that large number of unapproved courses are being run in the same premises utilizing the infrastructure, faculty and other facilities intended for the All India Council for Technical Education approved courses, and thus, diluting the standard of education. Thus, in the present case, reply has been considered though not very elaborately, but the finding has been returned that large number of unapproved courses are being run in the same premises utilizing the infrastructure, faculty and other facilities intended for the All India Council for Technical Education approved courses, and thus, diluting the standard of education. Original record has also been produced, and it reveals that representative of the petitioner has admitted that large number of unapproved courses are being run in the same campus. Smt. Balwinder Shukla, who is the Deputy Director General, Amity Business School, Noida, on 5.8.2005 has certified that report which has been prepared, is based on factual information furnished by Institution and cross checked by the Committee through physical inspection. In column No. 10 of the Institutional Details, the question posed is whether the institution is sharing its facilities/premises with any other institution or running any unapproved programme and the same has been ticked as “yes” and coupled with this name of institution which is sharing the facility, has also been disclosed as (1) ‘Amity University Raipur (2) Amity University U.P. (3) Centre for International Business (4) Centre for CRM and Marketing (5) Centre for E & H. At the point of time when approval had been accorded in the year 1994, there was specific condition that no other courses would be run without the permission of the AICTE. Here, the other courses are being run in the same premises, which are unapproved without taking permission from the AICTE, and this fact has been admitted by the petitioners, and if this is not in dispute that in the same campus unapproved courses are being run, and the Expert Committee, on the basis of the same has concluded that standard of eduction is being diluted, then same cannot be termed to be arbitrary exercise of authority. One of the reasons mentioned in the impugned order is that the same premises is being used for running unapproved courses utilizing the same infrastructure, and thus diluting the standard of education. Thus, this reason in itself is enough to justify the action taken by the AICTE. Apart from this record in question reveals that after reply was submitted by petitioner, a comparative chart dated 2.9.2005 has been prepared, containing three columns. In the first column, the deficiencies communicated have been taken note of. Thus, this reason in itself is enough to justify the action taken by the AICTE. Apart from this record in question reveals that after reply was submitted by petitioner, a comparative chart dated 2.9.2005 has been prepared, containing three columns. In the first column, the deficiencies communicated have been taken note of. In the second column, reply qua the same submitted by the petitioner has been taken note of. In the third column, conclusions/observations qua the same have been mentioned, indicating brief reasons why petitioner’s claim is not being accepted. On the basis of the same and other records decision has been taken, which has been duly ratified by E.C. Sub-Committee vide Resolution No. 4 in meeting dated 16.9.2005, and thereafter communication dated 17.9.2005 has been sent, containing brief reasons for conclusions arrived at. Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioners on the fact that report was not given, as such principles of natural justice was violated grievance of the petitioners has to be decided in the light of the provisions of Section 11 of the AICTE Act, 1987. There is no obligation cast upon the Council to supply copy of the inspection report, rather to the contrary obligation is that the Council shall communicate to the technical institution its views in regard to result of any such inspection, and here gist of the report has been mentioned in the show cause notice and the same was replied by the petitioner and the said reply did not find favour, as such it is incorrect to suggest that cause of the petitioner was in any way prejudiced on account of non-supply of copy of inspection report, which had been prepared on the basis of material supplied by petitioner themselves and qua which certification has been made by Dr. Balwinder Shukla that same is based on information furnished by Institution and cross checked by Committee by physical inspection. Thus, in the fact of present case natural justice has been complied with, reasons are there in the record and brief reasons have been indicated in the impugned order. The series of judgments cited by petitioner, namely, (1) Masiuddin v. Commissioner, 1972 A.LJ. Thus, in the fact of present case natural justice has been complied with, reasons are there in the record and brief reasons have been indicated in the impugned order. The series of judgments cited by petitioner, namely, (1) Masiuddin v. Commissioner, 1972 A.LJ. 573, (2) Union of India v. M.L. Capoor and others, AIR 1974 SC 87 , (3) Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 , (4) S.N. Mukherji v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 194, (5) Anwari Begum v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (3) ESC 1336 (SC) (6) Tarlochan Deo Sharma v. State of Punjab and others, 2001 (6) SCC 260 , (7) Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences, 2002 (5) ESC 233 (SC) and (8) Smt. R.S. Khan v. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (1) ESC 105 (SC) do not come to rescue of petitioner in any manner, whatsoever, as in the present case reasons are there, reply submitted by petitioner has been adverted to; non-supply of report has not prejudiced the case of petitioner and coupled with this it was not obligation to supply copy of report; show cause notice was issued and pursuant thereto action has been taken. 14. Here, in the present case record has been produced and perused. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagat Ram Patnaga v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1571 , wherein order was attacked on the ground that no reasons were there was repelled. The said argument in view of the fact that Full Bench of High Court went through the file produced before it by the State and has come to the conclusion that there is clear indication that representation of appellants were taken into consideration and account before passing of impugned order and representation had been rightly rejected. Similarly, in the case of Grosons Pharmaceutical (Pvt) Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (8) SCC 604 , Hon’ble Apex Court repelled the argument of there being no reason on the ground that High Court had summoned the record, and found that reasons were there on record. Here also, chart has been prepared which is clearly indicative of the reasons, apart from the own admission made by petitioner. 15. Here also, chart has been prepared which is clearly indicative of the reasons, apart from the own admission made by petitioner. 15. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of IITT College of Engineering v. State of H.P., 2003 (4) ESC 587 (SC) has taken the view that it is open to the AICTE/University Authorities to call upon the petitioner to remedy the deficiencies that may be persisting at the time of granting affiliation/approval in the future and in case of non-compliance, to take such action as is open to them under law. Two courses were open to AICTE i.e. either to direct the petitioner to remove deficiencies or in the alternative withdraw affiliation. AICTE in its wisdom had chosen to withdraw recognition, as such its action being well within its bound, is not being interfered with. However, in the facts of the present case, as recognition is limited only up to academic session 2005-06, and students are already pursuing their course on the strength of interim order passed by this Court, liberty is given to petitioner to represent the matter before AICTE after removing all the deficiencies, and it would be open to AICTE to take appropriate decision on the same, if it is satisfied that deficiencies mentioned have been removed, in accordance with law. This liberty does not entitle the petitioner to run the courses. 16. Subject to observations made above, present writ petition is dismissed. 17. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. ——–