Judgment 1. The petitioners obtained recognifion of Lalit Narayan Mithila University to impart B.Ed. Course to students enrolled by it. This was obtained by the petitioners in terms of an order passed by this Court and accepted by the said University. With effect from 17th August, 1995, the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 became operative and by reason thereof the affiliation as obtained by the petitioners from the said University continued for a period of six months more. In terms of the provisions of the said Act it was a requirement for the pelilioners to apply to the National Council for Teacher Education to obtain affiliation for the pruposc of continuing to impart Teachers Education Course as the petitioners were rendering at the time when the said Act came into force. The petitioners applied for and obtained such recognition of the National Council for Teacher Education. While such recognition was accorded, the inlake capacity of the petitioners was fixed at 150 students per Academic Session. The petitioners contend that the same was reduced unjustly by the National Council for Teacher Education from 250. In support of the said contention, the petitioners are seeking to rely upon a letter issued by the said University to the petitioners on 20th February, 1996 whereby and under the petitioners were permitted to enroll 250 students from the Academic Session 1994-95. This letter having been written by the University after 20lh February, 1996 did not authorise the petitioners to enroll any student from the Academic Session 1996-97 in excess of 150 as was granted by the National Council tor Teacher Education. 2. In view of the provisions contained in the said Act and by virtue thereof on and from 17th August, 1996, no other organization but the National Council fa Teacher Education alone, became entitled to consider intake capacity of a recognized lnstitution. It appears that on 24th December, 2004, the petitioner Institution applied for increasing the intake capacity of the students. It is claimed that before 24th December, 2004, similar such applications had been made. The fact remains that those applications were not responded to by the National Council for Teacher Education and the petitioners either did not press the same or those were rejected. Ultimately the petitioners, as aforesaid, applied on 24th December, 2004 for the said purpose. It is claimed that before 24th December, 2004, similar such applications had been made. The fact remains that those applications were not responded to by the National Council for Teacher Education and the petitioners either did not press the same or those were rejected. Ultimately the petitioners, as aforesaid, applied on 24th December, 2004 for the said purpose. In response to the said request, the National Council for Teacher Education did not move at all. The petitioner institution was forced to file C.W.J.C. No. 10873 of 1999 in this Court which was disposed of by an order dated 11.2.2005 directing the Eastern Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education to consider the said application of the petitioner and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of service of a copy of the said order. A copy of the said order having been served upon the Eastern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education, it by a letter dated 21st April, 2005 called upon the petitioner to produce Certificate of Accreditation from NAAC with a grade of B+ on a nine-point scale developed by NAAC. 3. Initially the present writ petition was filed by the petitioners challenging the demand for the said certificate of accreditation. It was contended that there is no requirement of law for obtaining and supplying any such certificate. Subsequently it having come to the notice of the petitioners that on 21st August, 2003, by a notification, the regulation was altered and in terms thereof such certificate became mandatory requirement for increasing the intake capacity of a recognized institution, the petitioners have challenged the said notification on two grounds, namely, the said notification was not placed before the Parliament in violation of Section 33 of the Act and that the said regulation has been made to augment the agreement entered by National Council for Teacher Education and National Assessment & Accreditation Council (NAAC). 4. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the said notification was placed before the Parliament and the same remained for being considered by the Parliamentarians for 30 days as prescribed in Section 33 of the Act, but the same having not been touched upon by the Parliamentarians, the notification has been notified and in terms of Section 33 of the Act, the same became enforceable. Although the petitioners have denied such assertion in the rejoinder but such denial is of no effect having regard to what has been stated by the National Council for Teacher Education in its counter affidavit. Furthermore, the denial, as made in the rejoinder, is a bare denial without any particulars. In any event, the Secretary of the Parliament is not a party to the present writ petition nor the petitioners have made any effort to obtain any information from the Secretary of the Parliament contrary to the assertions made in the counter affidavit filed by the National Council for Teacher Education. 5. In those circumstances, it would be difficult for this Court to proceed on the bare assertion, contrary to specific assertion made by the National Council for Teacher Education, to proceed on the basis that the said notification was not placed before the Parliament for a period of three months, as is the requirement of the Act. 6. It is true that the agreement in between the National Assessment & Accreditation Council and the National Council for Teacher Education preceded the notification, but then in order to give effect to the amendment that was sought to be incorporated in the regulation by the notification, such an agreement was a must. The agreement made the National Assessment & Accreditation Council in assistance with National Council for Teacher Education to lay down accreditation norms and obliged National Assessment & Accreditation Council to ascertain whether the Institution recognized or to be recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education has achieved such norms or not. In the absence of such an agreement, the amended regulation would have become inoperative for in terms of the Act, National Assessment & Accreditation Council is not required to act on the basis of the directions of National Council for Teacher Education. In those circumstances, there being nothing in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. 7. It is hoped and expected that the Petitioner Institution shall imporve its standards for the purpose of achieving accreditation norms prescribed by the National Assessment & Accreditation Council for similar Institutions and the petitioners will upon application obtain such accreditation and then shall make a request to the National Council for Teacher Education to consider its application for increasing its intake capacity. 8. This disposes of the writ petition.