JUDGMENT A. K. GANGULY, CJ. : Four writ petitions have been filed challenging constitutional validity of the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Ordinance, 2007 ( hereinafter referred to as the “said Ordinance”). During the course of hearing of the matter before the Court, the said Ordinance was replaced by an Act and came to be known as Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regula¬tion of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007 ( hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). Out of the four writ petitions, in W.P.(C) No. 4073 of 2007 Article 15(5) of the Constitution which has come by way of 93rd Amendment to the Constitution has also been challenged. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however later on gave up the said challenge. 2. But, in all these writ petitions the constitutional validity of the said Ordinance as replaced by the said Act was challenged. 3. First of these four writ petitions was registered as W.P.(C) No. 2446 of 2007, which was filed by the Orissa Manage¬ment Colleges Association. That is an Association of 22 Private Unaided Professional Educational Institutions claiming to impart education in management studies and the said Association is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3203 of 2007 is Kanakmanjari Trust, a Trust established to impart education in Pharmacy through its private unaided educational institution, which is in existence since 1982. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4073 of 2007 is also a registered Association under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is an Association of Private Unaided Engineering Colleges of Orissa and is engaged in imparting education in different courses in the subject of Engineering and Management. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3689 of 2007 is an Association of Private Unaided Medical and Dental Colleges in Orissa claiming to impart educa¬tion from the academic session 2006-07 to the Medical students and claiming to impart education to Dental students from 2005-06. Since in all the writ petitions, the point of law is the same and the questions of fact are almost identical, by this common judg¬ment all those questions are decided. 4. Since in all the writ petitions, the point of law is the same and the questions of fact are almost identical, by this common judg¬ment all those questions are decided. 4. It has been common case of all the petitioners that all the institutions have been established after obtaining necessary permission and approval of All India Council for Technical Educa¬tion as also of the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India, as the case may be. All these Councils have been con¬stituted under the Central Laws and all such Central Laws empower the concerned Council to frame Regulations from time to time. The admission to different institutions are covered by such Regula¬tions. 5. It is not in dispute that being guided by such Regula¬tions, all these petitioners were carrying on admission procedure which was commonly known as Common Entrance Test ( hereinafter referred to as “CET”). The Government, in so far its own institu¬tions are concerned, was also carrying on admission under Joint Entrance Examination (Engineering & Medical) ( hereinafter re¬ferred to as “JEE (E&M)”). Both CET and JEE (E&M) were simultane¬ously going on. The holding of test known as CET at the instance of the private unaided Engineering educational institutions in the last year (2006) has been sought to be abolished under the Ordinance, later on replaced by the said Act: The said abolition of admission system and the total control of the fee structure are the two principal areas of challenge. 6. Learned counsel for all the petitioners have challenged the provisions of the said Act on two principal grounds except the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3689 of 2007. Mr. Bagchi, the learned counsel arguing for the petitioner in that case did not urge that State has no legislative compe¬tence to enact the said Act. Mr. Bagchi, urged that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai foundation v. State of Karnataka & others: (2002) 8 SCC 481 , it has been held that the right to establish and run a private unaided educational institution is a fundamental right within the sweep of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The said fundamen¬tal right is only subject to laws imposing reasonable restric¬tions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution on the grounds specified therein. The said fundamen¬tal right is only subject to laws imposing reasonable restric¬tions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution on the grounds specified therein. The restrictions imposed under the said Act are not reasonable restrictions nor is it covered under the heads of restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the other petitioners argued this in the alternative. 7. But the main argument of the petitioners in other three writ petitions is that the area of education with which the petitioners herein are concerned is higher and technical educa¬tion. Entry 66, List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitu¬tion of India enables the Parliament to legislate in that field. In so far as the State Legislature is concerned, it has no compe¬tence to legislate in this area under the State List. Previously Entry 11 of the State List (List II) provided for legislation in this area. But the said Entry has been deleted with effect from 3.1.77 by 42nd amendment to the Constitution and now the State’s legislative power in this area is to be derived from Entry 25 of the Concurrent List as amended by the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. The said Entry 25 of the Concurrent List has been made expressly subject to the provision of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. 8. It has been argued that this being the constitutional dispensation, the State does not have legislative competence to legislate in an area where there is a pre-existing of Central Law and Regulations framed thereunder governing the field. It has been argued that under various Central Acts, regulations and instructions issued thereunder from time to time, the admission procedure and the fee structure of these institutions are guided and governed under those regulations. Therefore that area is already occupied by those Guidelines/ Regulations/Instructions issued under laws made by Parliament, and the same must be treat¬ed to be a field occupied by those laws. In that area, the State does not have any competence to legislate. The said Act being a legislation by the State Legislative Assembly in the aforesaid occupied area, is unconstitutional inasmuch as it purports to trench upon and overlap the law made by the Parliament. The said Act, being thus opposed to the scheme of distribution of legisla¬tive power under the Constitution is unconstitutional and bad in law. 9. The said Act being a legislation by the State Legislative Assembly in the aforesaid occupied area, is unconstitutional inasmuch as it purports to trench upon and overlap the law made by the Parliament. The said Act, being thus opposed to the scheme of distribution of legisla¬tive power under the Constitution is unconstitutional and bad in law. 9. The said Act was notified on 17th April, 2007 being Orissa Act 4 of 2007. This was done in the course of hearing of these petitions. After the Act was notified, necessary amendment petitions were filed by the petitioners and the amendments were allowed. 10. The said Act has 19 Sections. A perusal of the preamble of the said Act makes it clear that the enactment is inspired by the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3724 and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in ( 2005 ) 6 SCC 537 and also the 93rd Amend¬ment of the Constitution of India by which Clause 5 to Article 15 of the Constitution was added. 11. The said Act was deemed to have come into force on 2nd March, 2007 (Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act). In the said Act the academic year commences from the 1st day of June every year. Under Section 2(f) of the said Act, a Committee called Fee Structure Committee has been set up. The said Commit¬tee is constituted under Section 6 of the said Act. Under Section 2(k) of the said Act “Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)” has been defined to mean entrance test conducted by the Policy Planning Body for all professional educational institutions, for determi¬nation of merit of the candidates followed by centralized coun¬selling for the purpose of admission to such institutions through a single window system. 12. Under Section 2 (S), “Private Professional Educational Institution” has been defined to mean professional educational institution which is not established and managed by Government, Union Government or Government of any other State. 12. Under Section 2 (S), “Private Professional Educational Institution” has been defined to mean professional educational institution which is not established and managed by Government, Union Government or Government of any other State. “Professional Educational Institution” has been defined under Section 2(u) to mean college or school or an institute, by whatever name called, imparting professional education or conducting professional educational courses leading to the award of a degree, diploma or a certificate by whatever name called, and in several sub-clauses various disciplines have been mentioned. The petitioners are coming within those disciplines mentioned under Section 2 (u). "Qualifying examination” has been defined to mean examination as may be determined by the Policy Planning Body as qualifying for the purpose of appearing in JEE. Under Section 2 (z), “single window system” has been defined to mean the centralized system for admission administered by the Policy Planning Body. Section 3 makes it very clear that the admission of students in all private professional educational institutions, Government institutions and sponsored institutions to all seats including lateral entry seats, shall be made through JEE conducted by the Policy Planning Body (hereinafter referred to as the “said Body”). The same will be followed by centralized counselling in order of merit in accordance with such procedure as recommended by the said Body and approved by the Government. The composition of the Policy Planning Body under Section. 4 shows it will consist of members who are nominated by the Government. Almost all the members are Government nominees and two members of the Orissa Legislative Assembly shall be elected from among themselves as members of the said Body. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 mandates that no person who is associated with any private professional educational institution can become a member of the said Body. A member of the said Body shall be removed if in the opinion of the Government, he does any act which is unbecoming of a member of such Body and once a member is so removed he shall not be so re-nominated. A member of the said Body shall be removed if in the opinion of the Government, he does any act which is unbecoming of a member of such Body and once a member is so removed he shall not be so re-nominated. Under Sub-section (6) of Section 4 the Policy Planning Body has been allowed to perform the following functions: (a) regulate the admission; (b) formulate policy guidelines for holding JEE; (c) constitute one or more sub-committees for efficient dis¬charge of its functions in the matter of examination and admis¬sion; (d) formulate and recommend the reservation policy to Government for approval, which shall be with regard to reservation of seats in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, SEBC, green card holders, Ex-servicemen, sports persons and physically handicapped persons; (e) determine the eligibility criteria and qualifying examina¬tion required for admission; and (f) perform such other functions as may be prescribed. 13. Under Sub-section (7) of Section 4 the said Body has been authorized to supervise and guide the entire process of admission of students to the Government Institutions, private professional educational institutions and sponsored institutions with a view to ensuring that the process is fair, transparent, merit-based and non-exploitative. Under Sub-section (8) of Sec¬tion 4 the said Body has been authorized to hear complaints with regard to admission in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or Orders or Guidelines made thereunder. The said Body has been authorized to make recommendation to the State Govern¬ment for imposing fine on any institution if it finds that there has been any contravention in admission of the said Act by any private professional educational institution. Under Sub-section (10) of Section 4 the said Body has been authorized to declare, apart from the power of imposition of fine, that admission made in respect of any or all seats in a particular professional educational institution to be invalid and recommend to the Uni¬versity or Statutory Body concerned for withdrawal of affiliation or recognition, as the case may be, of such institution. Under Sub-section (11) of Section 4 the said Body has been given the power to regulate its own procedure in all matters relating to discharge of its functions and has been authorized for the pur¬pose of making any inquiry under the said Act with some of the powers of a Civil Court and under Sub-section (12) any proceeding before the said Body shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 and Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act prohibits collection of capitation fee from any candidate by any profes¬sional educational institution or by any person who is in charge of the management of the institution. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 provides that if the said Body receives any complaint or is otherwise satisfied that the management of the institution or any person, in charge of the management of the institution, has contravened the provisions of Sub-section (1), the Body may, after making due enquiry in the manner prescribed, recommend to the Government for imposition of fine not exceeding ten lakhs on the management of the concerned institution for such contraven¬tion. Section 6 of the said Act provides for the constitution of a committee known as Fee Structure Committee for determination of fee for admission to the private professional educational insti¬tutions and sponsored institutions. Such Committee shall consist of almost all the Government officials and the Vice Chancellor of Biju Patnaik University of Technology shall be the Chairperson of that Committee. In the said Committee also there will be two Members from the Legislative Assembly, who shall be elected from themselves and will become Members of that Committee. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 equally mandates that no person associated with any private professional educational institution can be a Member of the said Committee. A Member of the said Committee can also be removed in a similar manner as a Member of the said Body. The power of the Fee Structure Committee is detailed in Sub-section (6) of Section 6. A Member of the said Committee can also be removed in a similar manner as a Member of the said Body. The power of the Fee Structure Committee is detailed in Sub-section (6) of Section 6. Under Sub-section (7) of Section 6 it is made clear that the fees fixed by the Committee after Government approval shall be binding on all the institutions for a period of three years and the candidate who is admitted to such institution in that academic year shall pay the said fee and it shall not be revised till completion of the course of such candidate in such institution. The Fee Structure Committee shall have the power to regulate its own procedure for discharge of its functions and for the purpose of making any enquiry under the Act it shall have some of the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and every proceeding before such Committee shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193, 228 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Under Section 7 of the said Act, the factors which such Committee shall consider for determination of the fee have been mentioned. There are provisions for every professional educational institution for following the reservation policy of the Government which shall be notified for the said purpose. Of course minority institutions have been exempted from following the reservation policy of the Government. Under Section 11 it is made clear that any admission made in violation, of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be invalid. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 it has been made clear that whoever contravenes the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder shall, on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to rupees ten lakhs. The Rule making power of the Government is provided under Section 17. But, this Court has not yet been informed whether the Rules have been made or not. This is substantially the structure of the said Act which is being challenged in these writ petitions. 15. The Rule making power of the Government is provided under Section 17. But, this Court has not yet been informed whether the Rules have been made or not. This is substantially the structure of the said Act which is being challenged in these writ petitions. 15. The learned counsel for all the petitioners submitted that such provisions have been made in the State law when there are already existing Central law under which the petitioners are governed. Reference in this connection was made to the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 which was enacted by the Parliament. The All India Council for Technical Education Act (hereinafter called as ‘the AICTE Act’) establishes a Council under Section 3 thereof. Under Section 10 of Chapter - III of the said Act the functions of the Council have been enumerated under various sub-sections. Sub Sections (b), (j), (k), (1) and (o) which are relevant in the context of the present case are set out below : “10. Functions of the Council- xx xx xx. (b) co-ordinate the development of technical education in the country at all levels; xx xx xx (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; (l) 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; xx xx xx (o) provided guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education.” 16. The Council under the said Act had issued necessary guidelines. Those guidelines have been issued by the Council in exercise of its power under Section 23 read with Section 10(b) and 10(o) of the said Act. This Court has been handed over a copy of the guidelines for Common Entrance Test (s) for admission to Degree level Engineering, Architecture/Planning and Pharmacy Programmes in the country, for the academic year 2004-05, on¬wards. This Court has been handed over a copy of the guidelines for Common Entrance Test (s) for admission to Degree level Engineering, Architecture/Planning and Pharmacy Programmes in the country, for the academic year 2004-05, on¬wards. Under Clause (4) of the said guidelines it is provided as follows : “(4) States may conduct their own common entrance test (s) for admission to institutions conducting Degree Engineering, Architecture/Planning and Pharmacy Programmes within their States or join the AIEEE. State level tests shall, however, be restrict¬ed to fill up seats from the students of their own States only.” The preamble of the said Guidelines is as follows: . “No.F. 37-3/Legal (vi)/2003.- In pursuance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered on October 31, 2002 and August 14, 2003 and in terms of Policy Framework laid down by the Ministry of HRD in the Department of Secondary and Higher Educa¬tion, Government of India vide No. F.17-18/2002-TS.l dated Octo¬ber 15, 2003 and in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec¬tion 10(b) and 10(o) of AICTE Act, 1987 (52 of 1987), the All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE ) hereby makes the following guidelines on Common Entrance Test(s) for admission to Engineering, Architecture / Planning and Pharmacy Programmes in the country.” 17. It is clear from the aforesaid preamble that under the Guidelines issued by AICTE the Common Entrance Test was allowed. The said guidelines have also allowed the students to take their own Common Entrance Test and the said Guidelines also provide for All India basis Common Entrance Test. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that under the said Act the Common Entrance Test has been abolished even though the said Test is permissible under the Central law. The said Act thus seeks to encroach upon the area which is already occupied by the Central law. In fact, acting under the said Ordinance the Government of Orissa in the Finance Department had already issued an order dated 15th March, 2007 for the academic session 2007-08. 19. In W.P.(C) No. 2446 of 2007, it has been contended that the colleges and the institutions which are registered under the said Society are recognized institutions by the All India Council for Technical Education and affiliated to Biju Patnaik University of Technology. 19. In W.P.(C) No. 2446 of 2007, it has been contended that the colleges and the institutions which are registered under the said Society are recognized institutions by the All India Council for Technical Education and affiliated to Biju Patnaik University of Technology. It is also stated that in view of such position it is the AICTE which prescribes the sitting capacity providing for admission of students and Biju Patnaik University of Technology (in short, “BPUT”) accords affiliation for those disciplines which are covered by the programmes of the University. It has been alleged that the provisions of the said Act will curtail the rights of those professional institutions to carry on the admis¬sion procedure in accordance with the AICTE Regulations. 20. In W.P.(C) No. 4073 of 2007 the petitioner has referred to the objects of the guidelines issued under the AICTE Act and made a clear averment that the said Act has been made in order to prescribe the guidelines for admission of students and for charg¬ing of fees etc. with a view to maintaining the standards and to provide recognition or withdrawal of recognition of such institu¬tions. It was the normal practice of the petitioner Association to conduct the Common Entrance Test for admitting the students to respective institutions as well as to admit students from Joint Entrance Examination conducted by the State Government. It was averred that the Common Entrance Test conducted by the petitioner during the previous years was done under the direct control and supervision of the State Government till a Committee was formed comprising a retired High Court Judge, which controlled and supervised such admission through Common Entrance Test to respec¬tive institutions. It has also been stated that the petitioner’s institutions are regulated by AICTE Act. 21. In W.P.(C) No. 3203 of 2007, it has been stated that the petitioner’s institution follows the AICTE norms and recogni¬tion and that is why it was graded as ISO 9001 and issued ICI certificate. It is imparting education in Pharmaceutical Sciences in the state of Orissa to be honoured with ISO certificate, The petitioner’s institute is also affiliated to Biju Patnaik Univer¬sity of Technology and it offers Diploma, Degree and Post Gradu¬ate Courses in Pharmaceutical Sciences. It has been further stated that the Orissa Pharmacy College Association has already issued a brochure for Common Entrance Test, 2006. The said bro¬chure is available in the website. It has been further stated that the Orissa Pharmacy College Association has already issued a brochure for Common Entrance Test, 2006. The said bro¬chure is available in the website. They have also annexed the admit cards for such Common Entrance Test which was held in 2006 and the application form for such test which was held in 2006. 22. So far as the M. Pharma application form of 2007 is concerned, the admission form has also been annexed. The peti¬tioner has also annexed a notification dated 14.9.2006 which was issued by All India Council for Technical Education in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 read with Section 10 (b)(g)(i)(k)(p) and (v) and Section 11 of the AICTE Act making certain Regulations. Under Clause (b) of the said notification it is provided that ‘technical institution’ means the institution of Government, Government Aided and Private (self financing) institutions conducting the Courses/Programmes in the field of technical education, training and research In Engineer¬ing, Technology including MCA, Architecture, Town Planning, Management, Pharmacy, Hotel Management etc. In Clause 2.5(4) it has been provided that no admission authority/body/institution shall permit admission of students to a course/ programme of technical institution not approved by AICTE. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that such Regulations which have been framed by the Central Act are directly hit by the provisions of the said Act which are under challenge. If any admission is made to any technical institution in contravention of the provisions of the said Act, same has been made a punishable offence. But the regulations framed by the Central Act provide if admission is made contrary to those regu¬lations, the affiliation of such technical education under the AICTE Act will be withdrawn. Relying on the aforesaid Regula¬tions, it has been said that the said Act clearly seeks to over¬ride the regulations framed under AICTE and seeks to create a conflict by encroaching upon the field occupied by the Central law and the Regulations issued thereunder. 24. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3689 of 2007 has urged that in 2006 the CET examination in association with Orissa Private Medical and Dental Colleges Association \vas held and in connection with the said examination the fee structure was decid¬ed by the Judge’s Committee, and it has been urged that the institutes are affiliated with Medical Council of India. 24. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3689 of 2007 has urged that in 2006 the CET examination in association with Orissa Private Medical and Dental Colleges Association \vas held and in connection with the said examination the fee structure was decid¬ed by the Judge’s Committee, and it has been urged that the institutes are affiliated with Medical Council of India. It was also stated that under the Medical Council of India Regulations, these new colleges have to undergo the periodical annual inspec¬tion, and as such the said Act will affect the right of manage¬ment of the petitioner to hold the Common Entrance Test as it was held in the last year. 25. The Dentists Act, 1948 was enacted for the purpose of laying down standards of education and training in Dental col¬leges. After the Constitution was brought into effect, the said Act suffered several amendments, once in 1955, then in 1972 and lastly in 1993. The objects and reasons of 1993 amendment would indicate that the same was done for incorporating in the original Act certain provisions with prior permission of the Central Government and those provisions must be followed by the State Government for establishing a new Dental College and starting new or higher courses or training in those colleges. The admission capacity of such institutions are controlled by the said amend¬ment. Under the said Dentists Act, the Dental Council has been constituted under Section 3 of the said Act. The said Council has the power to make regulation under Section 20. Such regulations are to be framed with the approval of the Central Government and are to be published by notification in the Official Gazette and under Section 20(1)(g) the said Council has the authority to make regulation for prescribing the standard curricula for training and the conditions for admission to course of such training. 26. Similarly under Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council has been established under Section 3 of the said Act. The said Council has the power to frame regulation under Section 33 and under Section 33(1) the said Council has been empowered to make regulation for the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations. 27. The said Council has the power to frame regulation under Section 33 and under Section 33(1) the said Council has been empowered to make regulation for the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations. 27. It is therefore clear that by laws made by the Central Government such as the Dentists Act, Medical Council Act, All India Council for Technical Education Act, Pharmacy Act, the field of higher and Technical education has been occupied by the Central laws. Under such Central Legislations, the maintenance of standard of such higher education is governed by regulations made by several Councils which are authorised to do so under the said Act namely, Dental Council created under the Dentists Act, 1948, Medical Council created under the Medical Council Act, 1956, All India Council for Technical Education created under the All India Council for Technical Education Act and Pharmacy Council created under the Pharmacy Act. 28. The Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Central Government also supported the petitioners’ argument of occupied field and submitted that since the field is occupied by the Central Legislation, the State Government is not competent to legislate on the said occupied field. 29. Learned counsel appearing for the State Government did not factually dispute the aforesaid contention that the insti¬tutes which have filed petitions before this Court are affiliated and recognized under the Central law nor was it disputed that till 2006, these institutes were carrying on common entrance test on the basis of various regulation framed under the Central Law. Learned counsel for the State Government has urged that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Islamic Education and P.A. Inamdar, the State Government is authorized to make laws and the State Law has been made in response to such mandate of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the State has also placed reliance on the very same judgment on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned coun¬sel submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioners mis¬construed the judgments of the Supreme Court and erroneously urged that the State Government does not have legislative compe¬tence to legislate the said Act. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the State Government has enacted the legislation in the interest of the students so that they do not suffer by way of appearing in two entrance test by giving fees in both the examination. It has also been stated that the State Government has undertaken the legislation to give relief to the students from exploitative entrance test and from paying huge exploitative fees to the Private Institutions for their admission. Therefore, the State Government is motivated by concerns of social justice in enacting the law in question. It is also submitted that the said Act is protected by the provisions of Article 15(5) of the Constitution. 30. Since the question of legislative competence prominent¬ly figures in the argument advanced in this case, for better appreciation of the points involved, the Entries on the basis of which legislative competence of the State is debated are set out hereinbelow. Entry 66, List I runs as follows: “66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in insti¬tutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.” Previously the State by virtue of Entry 11 was empowered to legislate in the field of higher education. Entry 11, List II as it existed prior to its deletion with effect from 3.1.1977 by 42nd Amendment to the Constitution was as follows: “Education including Universities subject to the provisions of items 63,64, 65 and 66 of List I and 25 of List III.” 31. After the deletion of the aforesaid Entry by 42nd Amendment, the State’s power to legislate in the field of higher education is contained only in the Concurrent List. Entry 25, List III as amended by the 42nd Amendment is set out below: “Education, including technical education, medical education and universities subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour.” 32. When an Entry either in the State List or in the Con¬current List is made ‘subject to’, an Entry in the Union List, the question of construing such an Entry fell for consideration before the Supreme Court on more than one occasions. 33. When an Entry either in the State List or in the Con¬current List is made ‘subject to’, an Entry in the Union List, the question of construing such an Entry fell for consideration before the Supreme Court on more than one occasions. 33. In The Hingir-Rampur Coal Co., Ltd. and others v. The State of Orissa and others, ( AIR 1961 SC 459 ), the aforesaid question came up in the context of construing Entry 23 in the State List ( List II) which was about regulation of mines and mineral development, as the same was made subject to Entry 54 of List I which was in respect of regulation of mines and mineral development under the control of the Union. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court while considering the effect of reading two Entries together opined that the jurisdiction of the State Legis¬lature under Entry 23 being subject to limitation imposed by later part of Entry 54, the power of the State to legislate in the area covered by the Central Act is obviously not there. In such a situation the validity of the State Act vis-a-vis the Central Act has been summed up as follows: “... if a Central Act has been passed which contains a declaration by Parliament as required by Entry 54, and if the said declaration covers the field occupied by the impugned Act (meaning the State Act), the impugned Act would be ultra vires, not because of any repugnance between the two statutes, but because the State Legislature had no jurisdiction to pass the law this position is not in dispute. “ (Pages 469-470, para 23 of the report) Subsequently the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Uni¬versity and another v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and others, reported in AIR 1963 SC 703 , relied on the principles in the case of Hingir Rampur Coal Company and held that “the expres¬sion ‘subject to’ in item 11 of List II of the Seventh Schedule clearly indicates that legislation in respect of excluded matters cannot be undertaken by the State Legislatures”. 34. The learned Judges further explained “power of the State to legislate in respect of education including Universities must to the extent to which it is entrusted to the Union Parlia¬ment, whether such power is exercised or not, be deemed to be restricted”. 34. The learned Judges further explained “power of the State to legislate in respect of education including Universities must to the extent to which it is entrusted to the Union Parlia¬ment, whether such power is exercised or not, be deemed to be restricted”. The learned Judges clearly said “ if a subject of legislation is covered by items 63 to 66 even if it otherwise falls within the larger field of education including universities (as was the position prior to 42nd Amendment), the power to legislate on that subject must lie with the Parliament. (See paragraph 23 at page 715). 35. Now State’s exclusive power to legislate in the field of education is not available. Even when such power was available prior to 42nd Amendment, Supreme Court held that the power under Item 11 of List II and Item 66 of List I must be harmoniously construed as the power under two Entries may overlap, but to the extent of overlapping, the power conferred by Item 66 List I must prevail over the power of the State under item 11 of List II. (See Paragraph 23, page 715). 36. In R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and others, re¬ported in AIR 1964 SC 1823 the validity of the order made by the Government of Mysore in respect of admission to Engineering and Medical Colleges in the then State of Mysore was in issue. In the then State of Mysore most of the Engineering and Medical Colleges were Government Colleges and few of them were Government aided colleges. The State Government appointed a Common Selection Committee for conducting admissions to the Engineering colleges and another common selection committee for conducting admissions to Medical Colleges. In the matter of admission to those colleges the Government issued several directions. One of the contentions in that case was that the Government had no power to appoint the Common Selection Committee for admitting students to colleges on the basis of higher or different qualifications than those pre¬scribed by the University and, therefore, the orders made by the Government in respect of admissions were illegal. This argument was based on the proposition that co-ordination and determination of standards of a university is a Union subject and the State Legislature has no constitutional competence to make a law for maintaining the standards of university education. This argument was based on the proposition that co-ordination and determination of standards of a university is a Union subject and the State Legislature has no constitutional competence to make a law for maintaining the standards of university education. As such the conflict between Entry 11 of List II which existed at that point of time and Entry 66 of List I of the 7th Schedule came up for consideration. In that background, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court relied on the decision in the case of Gujarat University and held that if a law is made by the State by virtue of Entry 11 of List II of the 7th Schedule, which power the State does not have now, makes it impossible or difficult for the exercise of legislative power of the Parliament under Entry 66, List I in that case the State law may be bad. (See paragraph 7, at page 1830). The learned Judges held that this cannot obviously be decided on speculative and hypothetical reasoning. But if the impact of the State law is so heavy on devastating on the law made in exercise of the power under Entry 66, List I as to wipe out or appreciably abridge the central law, the State law is to be struck down. 37. In the instant case, the said Act, which has been dis¬cussed above has totally prohibited the admission procedure under the Central laws. Therefore, following the ratio in the case of R. Chitralekha and other decisions discussed above, the inescapa¬ble conclusion is that in the facts of the instant case, the State law definitely seeks to encroach upon the field occupied by the regulations framed under pre-existing central laws. In the case of R.Chitralekha, the Supreme Court opined that the State Government has power to prescribe a machinery and criteria for admission of students in the medical and engineering colleges run by the Government and with the consent of the management of the Government aided colleges in respect of those colleges also. (See paragraph 10 at page 1831). But in the instant case, the proce¬dure for admission which has been made under the said Act has been made applicable in the case of all the private colleges and the consent of the private colleges obviously has not been taken. 38. (See paragraph 10 at page 1831). But in the instant case, the proce¬dure for admission which has been made under the said Act has been made applicable in the case of all the private colleges and the consent of the private colleges obviously has not been taken. 38. In the case of State of Orissa and another v. M/s. M.A. Tulloch and Co., reported in AIR 1964 SC 1284 , the Supreme Court laid down the test of repugnancy between the two enactments. In that case also, Entry 54, List I of the 7th Schedule and Entry 23, List II of the said Schedule came up for consideration and the principle laid down in Hingir-Rampur Coal Company was reiter¬ated. The learned Judges in paragraph 15 held that the question of repugnancy arises when two enactments within the competence of two Legislatures collide. Where the Constitution expressly or by necessary implication provides that the enactment of one Legisla¬ture has superiority over the other then to the extent of the repugnancy the one supersedes the other. But the Supreme Court has expanded the concept to the extent that the two enactments may be repugnant to each other even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other. The Supreme Court further explained by saying that existence of contradictory provisions is not the only test of repugnancy. According to the Supreme Court, the real test is “if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legis¬lation an intention to cover the whole field, the enactments of the other legislature whether passed before or after would be overborne on the ground of repugnance”.’ The Supreme Court said that in such a case the inconsistency is demonstrated not by a “detailed comparison of provisions of the two statutes but by the mere existence of the two pieces of legislation”. (Para 15, page 1291-92 of the report). In the instant case, those principles are squarely attracted. 39. The question of repugnancy in the field of education between the State Law and the Central Law came up for considera¬tion before the Apex Court again in Osmania University Teachers’ Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 671 . In that case, the Apex Court considered the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986, enacted by the State Legislature. In that case, the Apex Court considered the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986, enacted by the State Legislature. The Supreme Court found it to be a duplicate of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and held that Entry 25, List III and Entry 66, List I should be read together. In paragraph 15 of the said judgment, the learned Judges after construing these two Entries in paragraph 14 made the following observations which are set out below: “The Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with re¬spect to matters included in List 1. The State has no power at all in regard to such matters. If the State legislates on the subject falling within List I that will be void, inoperative and unenforceable.” 40. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment, the observation in Gujarat University’s case was quoted in extenso. In Osmania University’s case, after discussing various provisions of the Commissionerate Act, the learned Judges in paragraph 26 held that the State Act has been passed as a parallel enactment under Entry 25 of List III and it encroaches upon Entry 66, List I and such an encroachment is patent and obvious. In view of such opinion of the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that in the said Act encroachment on the occupied field is also obvious, and which makes the said Act unconstitutional as it is beyond the legisla¬tive competence of the State. 41. The same question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others, reported in (1995 )4 SCC 104. It was held in the said judgment that The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 falls within Entry 66, List I and Entry 25, List III of the 7th Schedule. It was, there¬fore, held that on the subjects covered by the All India Council for Technical Education Act, the State cannot make a law either under entry 11 of List II, which is prior to the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution nor can it make a law under Entry 25 of List III which has come into existence after the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution. In paragraph 22 of the said judgment, it has been held that the Central Act, namely, All India Council for Techni¬cal Education Act obviously has been enacted for coordinated and integrated development of the technical education system at all levels throughout the country and is enjoined to promote qualita¬tive improvement of such education in relation to planned quanti¬tative growth. In the said paragraph it has been held “That the Council is also required to provide guidelines for admission of students and has power to withhold or discontinue grants and to de-recognize the institutions where norms and standards laid down, by it and directions given by it from time to time are not followed”. It was made clear towards the end of paragraph 22 that on the subjects covered by the said Act, the State could not legislate under Entry 11 of List II prior to 42nd Amendment nor can it do so under Entry 25 of List III after the 42nd Amendment. 42. Apart from the aforesaid decisions, there is a still more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra and another reported in AIR 2004 SC 1943 . In paragraph 16 at page-1947 of the report, the Supreme Court made it clear that within the concepts of coordina¬tion and determination of standards, the entire gamut of admis¬sion will fall. While saying so the Supreme Court clarified that if any aspect of admission of students in colleges falls within Entry 66, it necessarily stands excluded from the competence of State to legislate on the same as has been held in the Gujarat University’s case (supra) and the learned Judges approvingly quoted from the Gujarat University’s case. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment, the learned Judges made it very clear that the power to legislate in regard to those aspects are entirely carved out of the subject of education and vested in Parliament even at a time when ‘Education’ fell under List II. Now that education is no longer within List II they found no reason not to accept the arguments that once the institution comes within the scope of Entry 66 of List I, it falls outside the control of the provi¬sions of Entry 25 of List Ill. Now that education is no longer within List II they found no reason not to accept the arguments that once the institution comes within the scope of Entry 66 of List I, it falls outside the control of the provi¬sions of Entry 25 of List Ill. In the instant case, all the institutions run by the petitioners fall under Entry 66 of List I in view of the statutory provisions made under the AICTE Act and the Medical Council Act and the regulations made thereunder as discussed above. JUDGMENT A. K. GANGULY, CJ. : Four writ petitions have been filed challenging constitutional validity of the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Ordinance, 2007 ( hereinafter referred to as the “said Ordinance”). During the course of hearing of the matter before the Court, the said Ordinance was replaced by an Act and came to be known as Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regula¬tion of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007 ( hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). Out of the four writ petitions, in W.P.(C) No. 4073 of 2007 Article 15(5) of the Constitution which has come by way of 93rd Amendment to the Constitution has also been challenged. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however later on gave up the said challenge. 2. But, in all these writ petitions the constitutional validity of the said Ordinance as replaced by the said Act was challenged. 3. First of these four writ petitions was registered as W.P.(C) No. 2446 of 2007, which was filed by the Orissa Manage¬ment Colleges Association. That is an Association of 22 Private Unaided Professional Educational Institutions claiming to impart education in management studies and the said Association is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3203 of 2007 is Kanakmanjari Trust, a Trust established to impart education in Pharmacy through its private unaided educational institution, which is in existence since 1982. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4073 of 2007 is also a registered Association under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is an Association of Private Unaided Engineering Colleges of Orissa and is engaged in imparting education in different courses in the subject of Engineering and Management. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4073 of 2007 is also a registered Association under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is an Association of Private Unaided Engineering Colleges of Orissa and is engaged in imparting education in different courses in the subject of Engineering and Management. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3689 of 2007 is an Association of Private Unaided Medical and Dental Colleges in Orissa claiming to impart educa¬tion from the academic session 2006-07 to the Medical students and claiming to impart education to Dental students from 2005-06. Since in all the writ petitions, the point of law is the same and the questions of fact are almost identical, by this common judg¬ment all those questions are decided. 4. It has been common case of all the petitioners that all the institutions have been established after obtaining necessary permission and approval of All India Council for Technical Educa¬tion as also of the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India, as the case may be. All these Councils have been con¬stituted under the Central Laws and all such Central Laws empower the concerned Council to frame Regulations from time to time. The admission to different institutions are covered by such Regula¬tions. 5. It is not in dispute that being guided by such Regula¬tions, all these petitioners were carrying on admission procedure which was commonly known as Common Entrance Test ( hereinafter referred to as “CET”). The Government, in so far its own institu¬tions are concerned, was also carrying on admission under Joint Entrance Examination (Engineering & Medical) ( hereinafter re¬ferred to as “JEE (E&M)”). Both CET and JEE (E&M) were simultane¬ously going on. The holding of test known as CET at the instance of the private unaided Engineering educational institutions in the last year (2006) has been sought to be abolished under the Ordinance, later on replaced by the said Act: The said abolition of admission system and the total control of the fee structure are the two principal areas of challenge. 6. Learned counsel for all the petitioners have challenged the provisions of the said Act on two principal grounds except the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3689 of 2007. Mr. Bagchi, the learned counsel arguing for the petitioner in that case did not urge that State has no legislative compe¬tence to enact the said Act. Mr. 6. Learned counsel for all the petitioners have challenged the provisions of the said Act on two principal grounds except the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3689 of 2007. Mr. Bagchi, the learned counsel arguing for the petitioner in that case did not urge that State has no legislative compe¬tence to enact the said Act. Mr. Bagchi, urged that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai foundation v. State of Karnataka & others: (2002) 8 SCC 481 , it has been held that the right to establish and run a private unaided educational institution is a fundamental right within the sweep of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The said fundamen¬tal right is only subject to laws imposing reasonable restric¬tions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution on the grounds specified therein. The restrictions imposed under the said Act are not reasonable restrictions nor is it covered under the heads of restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the other petitioners argued this in the alternative. 7. But the main argument of the petitioners in other three writ petitions is that the area of education with which the petitioners herein are concerned is higher and technical educa¬tion. Entry 66, List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitu¬tion of India enables the Parliament to legislate in that field. In so far as the State Legislature is concerned, it has no compe¬tence to legislate in this area under the State List. Previously Entry 11 of the State List (List II) provided for legislation in this area. But the said Entry has been deleted with effect from 3.1.77 by 42nd amendment to the Constitution and now the State’s legislative power in this area is to be derived from Entry 25 of the Concurrent List as amended by the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. The said Entry 25 of the Concurrent List has been made expressly subject to the provision of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. 8. It has been argued that this being the constitutional dispensation, the State does not have legislative competence to legislate in an area where there is a pre-existing of Central Law and Regulations framed thereunder governing the field. 8. It has been argued that this being the constitutional dispensation, the State does not have legislative competence to legislate in an area where there is a pre-existing of Central Law and Regulations framed thereunder governing the field. It has been argued that under various Central Acts, regulations and instructions issued thereunder from time to time, the admission procedure and the fee structure of these institutions are guided and governed under those regulations. Therefore that area is already occupied by those Guidelines/ Regulations/Instructions issued under laws made by Parliament, and the same must be treat¬ed to be a field occupied by those laws. In that area, the State does not have any competence to legislate. The said Act being a legislation by the State Legislative Assembly in the aforesaid occupied area, is unconstitutional inasmuch as it purports to trench upon and overlap the law made by the Parliament. The said Act, being thus opposed to the scheme of distribution of legisla¬tive power under the Constitution is unconstitutional and bad in law. 9. The said Act was notified on 17th April, 2007 being Orissa Act 4 of 2007. This was done in the course of hearing of these petitions. After the Act was notified, necessary amendment petitions were filed by the petitioners and the amendments were allowed. 10. The said Act has 19 Sections. A perusal of the preamble of the said Act makes it clear that the enactment is inspired by the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3724 and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in ( 2005 ) 6 SCC 537 and also the 93rd Amend¬ment of the Constitution of India by which Clause 5 to Article 15 of the Constitution was added. 11. The said Act was deemed to have come into force on 2nd March, 2007 (Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act). In the said Act the academic year commences from the 1st day of June every year. Under Section 2(f) of the said Act, a Committee called Fee Structure Committee has been set up. The said Commit¬tee is constituted under Section 6 of the said Act. In the said Act the academic year commences from the 1st day of June every year. Under Section 2(f) of the said Act, a Committee called Fee Structure Committee has been set up. The said Commit¬tee is constituted under Section 6 of the said Act. Under Section 2(k) of the said Act “Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)” has been defined to mean entrance test conducted by the Policy Planning Body for all professional educational institutions, for determi¬nation of merit of the candidates followed by centralized coun¬selling for the purpose of admission to such institutions through a single window system. 12. Under Section 2 (S), “Private Professional Educational Institution” has been defined to mean professional educational institution which is not established and managed by Government, Union Government or Government of any other State. “Professional Educational Institution” has been defined under Section 2(u) to mean college or school or an institute, by whatever name called, imparting professional education or conducting professional educational courses leading to the award of a degree, diploma or a certificate by whatever name called, and in several sub-clauses various disciplines have been mentioned. The petitioners are coming within those disciplines mentioned under Section 2 (u). "Qualifying examination” has been defined to mean examination as may be determined by the Policy Planning Body as qualifying for the purpose of appearing in JEE. Under Section 2 (z), “single window system” has been defined to mean the centralized system for admission administered by the Policy Planning Body. Section 3 makes it very clear that the admission of students in all private professional educational institutions, Government institutions and sponsored institutions to all seats including lateral entry seats, shall be made through JEE conducted by the Policy Planning Body (hereinafter referred to as the “said Body”). The same will be followed by centralized counselling in order of merit in accordance with such procedure as recommended by the said Body and approved by the Government. The composition of the Policy Planning Body under Section. 4 shows it will consist of members who are nominated by the Government. Almost all the members are Government nominees and two members of the Orissa Legislative Assembly shall be elected from among themselves as members of the said Body. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 mandates that no person who is associated with any private professional educational institution can become a member of the said Body. Almost all the members are Government nominees and two members of the Orissa Legislative Assembly shall be elected from among themselves as members of the said Body. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 mandates that no person who is associated with any private professional educational institution can become a member of the said Body. A member of the said Body shall be removed if in the opinion of the Government, he does any act which is unbecoming of a member of such Body and once a member is so removed he shall not be so re-nominated. Under Sub-section (6) of Section 4 the Policy Planning Body has been allowed to perform the following functions: (a) regulate the admission; (b) formulate policy guidelines for holding JEE; (c) constitute one or more sub-committees for efficient dis¬charge of its functions in the matter of examination and admis¬sion; (d) formulate and recommend the reservation policy to Government for approval, which shall be with regard to reservation of seats in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, SEBC, green card holders, Ex-servicemen, sports persons and physically handicapped persons; (e) determine the eligibility criteria and qualifying examina¬tion required for admission; and (f) perform such other functions as may be prescribed. 13. Under Sub-section (7) of Section 4 the said Body has been authorized to supervise and guide the entire process of admission of students to the Government Institutions, private professional educational institutions and sponsored institutions with a view to ensuring that the process is fair, transparent, merit-based and non-exploitative. Under Sub-section (8) of Sec¬tion 4 the said Body has been authorized to hear complaints with regard to admission in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or Orders or Guidelines made thereunder. The said Body has been authorized to make recommendation to the State Govern¬ment for imposing fine on any institution if it finds that there has been any contravention in admission of the said Act by any private professional educational institution. Under Sub-section (10) of Section 4 the said Body has been authorized to declare, apart from the power of imposition of fine, that admission made in respect of any or all seats in a particular professional educational institution to be invalid and recommend to the Uni¬versity or Statutory Body concerned for withdrawal of affiliation or recognition, as the case may be, of such institution. Under Sub-section (11) of Section 4 the said Body has been given the power to regulate its own procedure in all matters relating to discharge of its functions and has been authorized for the pur¬pose of making any inquiry under the said Act with some of the powers of a Civil Court and under Sub-section (12) any proceeding before the said Body shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 and Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act prohibits collection of capitation fee from any candidate by any profes¬sional educational institution or by any person who is in charge of the management of the institution. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 provides that if the said Body receives any complaint or is otherwise satisfied that the management of the institution or any person, in charge of the management of the institution, has contravened the provisions of Sub-section (1), the Body may, after making due enquiry in the manner prescribed, recommend to the Government for imposition of fine not exceeding ten lakhs on the management of the concerned institution for such contraven¬tion. Section 6 of the said Act provides for the constitution of a committee known as Fee Structure Committee for determination of fee for admission to the private professional educational insti¬tutions and sponsored institutions. Such Committee shall consist of almost all the Government officials and the Vice Chancellor of Biju Patnaik University of Technology shall be the Chairperson of that Committee. In the said Committee also there will be two Members from the Legislative Assembly, who shall be elected from themselves and will become Members of that Committee. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 equally mandates that no person associated with any private professional educational institution can be a Member of the said Committee. A Member of the said Committee can also be removed in a similar manner as a Member of the said Body. The power of the Fee Structure Committee is detailed in Sub-section (6) of Section 6. A Member of the said Committee can also be removed in a similar manner as a Member of the said Body. The power of the Fee Structure Committee is detailed in Sub-section (6) of Section 6. Under Sub-section (7) of Section 6 it is made clear that the fees fixed by the Committee after Government approval shall be binding on all the institutions for a period of three years and the candidate who is admitted to such institution in that academic year shall pay the said fee and it shall not be revised till completion of the course of such candidate in such institution. The Fee Structure Committee shall have the power to regulate its own procedure for discharge of its functions and for the purpose of making any enquiry under the Act it shall have some of the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and every proceeding before such Committee shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193, 228 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Under Section 7 of the said Act, the factors which such Committee shall consider for determination of the fee have been mentioned. There are provisions for every professional educational institution for following the reservation policy of the Government which shall be notified for the said purpose. Of course minority institutions have been exempted from following the reservation policy of the Government. Under Section 11 it is made clear that any admission made in violation, of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be invalid. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 it has been made clear that whoever contravenes the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder shall, on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to rupees ten lakhs. The Rule making power of the Government is provided under Section 17. But, this Court has not yet been informed whether the Rules have been made or not. This is substantially the structure of the said Act which is being challenged in these writ petitions. 15. The Rule making power of the Government is provided under Section 17. But, this Court has not yet been informed whether the Rules have been made or not. This is substantially the structure of the said Act which is being challenged in these writ petitions. 15. The learned counsel for all the petitioners submitted that such provisions have been made in the State law when there are already existing Central law under which the petitioners are governed. Reference in this connection was made to the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 which was enacted by the Parliament. The All India Council for Technical Education Act (hereinafter called as ‘the AICTE Act’) establishes a Council under Section 3 thereof. Under Section 10 of Chapter - III of the said Act the functions of the Council have been enumerated under various sub-sections. Sub Sections (b), (j), (k), (1) and (o) which are relevant in the context of the present case are set out below : “10. Functions of the Council- xx xx xx. (b) co-ordinate the development of technical education in the country at all levels; xx xx xx (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; (l) 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; xx xx xx (o) provided guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education.” 16. The Council under the said Act had issued necessary guidelines. Those guidelines have been issued by the Council in exercise of its power under Section 23 read with Section 10(b) and 10(o) of the said Act. This Court has been handed over a copy of the guidelines for Common Entrance Test (s) for admission to Degree level Engineering, Architecture/Planning and Pharmacy Programmes in the country, for the academic year 2004-05, on¬wards. This Court has been handed over a copy of the guidelines for Common Entrance Test (s) for admission to Degree level Engineering, Architecture/Planning and Pharmacy Programmes in the country, for the academic year 2004-05, on¬wards. Under Clause (4) of the said guidelines it is provided as follows : “(4) States may conduct their own common entrance test (s) for admission to institutions conducting Degree Engineering, Architecture/Planning and Pharmacy Programmes within their States or join the AIEEE. State level tests shall, however, be restrict¬ed to fill up seats from the students of their own States only.” The preamble of the said Guidelines is as follows: . “No.F. 37-3/Legal (vi)/2003.- In pursuance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered on October 31, 2002 and August 14, 2003 and in terms of Policy Framework laid down by the Ministry of HRD in the Department of Secondary and Higher Educa¬tion, Government of India vide No. F.17-18/2002-TS.l dated Octo¬ber 15, 2003 and in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec¬tion 10(b) and 10(o) of AICTE Act, 1987 (52 of 1987), the All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE ) hereby makes the following guidelines on Common Entrance Test(s) for admission to Engineering, Architecture / Planning and Pharmacy Programmes in the country.” 17. It is clear from the aforesaid preamble that under the Guidelines issued by AICTE the Common Entrance Test was allowed. The said guidelines have also allowed the students to take their own Common Entrance Test and the said Guidelines also provide for All India basis Common Entrance Test. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that under the said Act the Common Entrance Test has been abolished even though the said Test is permissible under the Central law. The said Act thus seeks to encroach upon the area which is already occupied by the Central law. In fact, acting under the said Ordinance the Government of Orissa in the Finance Department had already issued an order dated 15th March, 2007 for the academic session 2007-08. 19. In W.P.(C) No. 2446 of 2007, it has been contended that the colleges and the institutions which are registered under the said Society are recognized institutions by the All India Council for Technical Education and affiliated to Biju Patnaik University of Technology. 19. In W.P.(C) No. 2446 of 2007, it has been contended that the colleges and the institutions which are registered under the said Society are recognized institutions by the All India Council for Technical Education and affiliated to Biju Patnaik University of Technology. It is also stated that in view of such position it is the AICTE which prescribes the sitting capacity providing for admission of students and Biju Patnaik University of Technology (in short, “BPUT”) accords affiliation for those disciplines which are covered by the programmes of the University. It has been alleged that the provisions of the said Act will curtail the rights of those professional institutions to carry on the admis¬sion procedure in accordance with the AICTE Regulations. 20. In W.P.(C) No. 4073 of 2007 the petitioner has referred to the objects of the guidelines issued under the AICTE Act and made a clear averment that the said Act has been made in order to prescribe the guidelines for admission of students and for charg¬ing of fees etc. with a view to maintaining the standards and to provide recognition or withdrawal of recognition of such institu¬tions. It was the normal practice of the petitioner Association to conduct the Common Entrance Test for admitting the students to respective institutions as well as to admit students from Joint Entrance Examination conducted by the State Government. It was averred that the Common Entrance Test conducted by the petitioner during the previous years was done under the direct control and supervision of the State Government till a Committee was formed comprising a retired High Court Judge, which controlled and supervised such admission through Common Entrance Test to respec¬tive institutions. It has also been stated that the petitioner’s institutions are regulated by AICTE Act. 21. In W.P.(C) No. 3203 of 2007, it has been stated that the petitioner’s institution follows the AICTE norms and recogni¬tion and that is why it was graded as ISO 9001 and issued ICI certificate. It is imparting education in Pharmaceutical Sciences in the state of Orissa to be honoured with ISO certificate, The petitioner’s institute is also affiliated to Biju Patnaik Univer¬sity of Technology and it offers Diploma, Degree and Post Gradu¬ate Courses in Pharmaceutical Sciences. It has been further stated that the Orissa Pharmacy College Association has already issued a brochure for Common Entrance Test, 2006. The said bro¬chure is available in the website. It has been further stated that the Orissa Pharmacy College Association has already issued a brochure for Common Entrance Test, 2006. The said bro¬chure is available in the website. They have also annexed the admit cards for such Common Entrance Test which was held in 2006 and the application form for such test which was held in 2006. 22. So far as the M. Pharma application form of 2007 is concerned, the admission form has also been annexed. The peti¬tioner has also annexed a notification dated 14.9.2006 which was issued by All India Council for Technical Education in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 read with Section 10 (b)(g)(i)(k)(p) and (v) and Section 11 of the AICTE Act making certain Regulations. Under Clause (b) of the said notification it is provided that ‘technical institution’ means the institution of Government, Government Aided and Private (self financing) institutions conducting the Courses/Programmes in the field of technical education, training and research In Engineer¬ing, Technology including MCA, Architecture, Town Planning, Management, Pharmacy, Hotel Management etc. In Clause 2.5(4) it has been provided that no admission authority/body/institution shall permit admission of students to a course/ programme of technical institution not approved by AICTE. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that such Regulations which have been framed by the Central Act are directly hit by the provisions of the said Act which are under challenge. If any admission is made to any technical institution in contravention of the provisions of the said Act, same has been made a punishable offence. But the regulations framed by the Central Act provide if admission is made contrary to those regu¬lations, the affiliation of such technical education under the AICTE Act will be withdrawn. Relying on the aforesaid Regula¬tions, it has been said that the said Act clearly seeks to over¬ride the regulations framed under AICTE and seeks to create a conflict by encroaching upon the field occupied by the Central law and the Regulations issued thereunder. 24. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3689 of 2007 has urged that in 2006 the CET examination in association with Orissa Private Medical and Dental Colleges Association \vas held and in connection with the said examination the fee structure was decid¬ed by the Judge’s Committee, and it has been urged that the institutes are affiliated with Medical Council of India. 24. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3689 of 2007 has urged that in 2006 the CET examination in association with Orissa Private Medical and Dental Colleges Association \vas held and in connection with the said examination the fee structure was decid¬ed by the Judge’s Committee, and it has been urged that the institutes are affiliated with Medical Council of India. It was also stated that under the Medical Council of India Regulations, these new colleges have to undergo the periodical annual inspec¬tion, and as such the said Act will affect the right of manage¬ment of the petitioner to hold the Common Entrance Test as it was held in the last year. 25. The Dentists Act, 1948 was enacted for the purpose of laying down standards of education and training in Dental col¬leges. After the Constitution was brought into effect, the said Act suffered several amendments, once in 1955, then in 1972 and lastly in 1993. The objects and reasons of 1993 amendment would indicate that the same was done for incorporating in the original Act certain provisions with prior permission of the Central Government and those provisions must be followed by the State Government for establishing a new Dental College and starting new or higher courses or training in those colleges. The admission capacity of such institutions are controlled by the said amend¬ment. Under the said Dentists Act, the Dental Council has been constituted under Section 3 of the said Act. The said Council has the power to make regulation under Section 20. Such regulations are to be framed with the approval of the Central Government and are to be published by notification in the Official Gazette and under Section 20(1)(g) the said Council has the authority to make regulation for prescribing the standard curricula for training and the conditions for admission to course of such training. 26. Similarly under Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council has been established under Section 3 of the said Act. The said Council has the power to frame regulation under Section 33 and under Section 33(1) the said Council has been empowered to make regulation for the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations. 27. The said Council has the power to frame regulation under Section 33 and under Section 33(1) the said Council has been empowered to make regulation for the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations. 27. It is therefore clear that by laws made by the Central Government such as the Dentists Act, Medical Council Act, All India Council for Technical Education Act, Pharmacy Act, the field of higher and Technical education has been occupied by the Central laws. Under such Central Legislations, the maintenance of standard of such higher education is governed by regulations made by several Councils which are authorised to do so under the said Act namely, Dental Council created under the Dentists Act, 1948, Medical Council created under the Medical Council Act, 1956, All India Council for Technical Education created under the All India Council for Technical Education Act and Pharmacy Council created under the Pharmacy Act. 28. The Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Central Government also supported the petitioners’ argument of occupied field and submitted that since the field is occupied by the Central Legislation, the State Government is not competent to legislate on the said occupied field. 29. Learned counsel appearing for the State Government did not factually dispute the aforesaid contention that the insti¬tutes which have filed petitions before this Court are affiliated and recognized under the Central law nor was it disputed that till 2006, these institutes were carrying on common entrance test on the basis of various regulation framed under the Central Law. Learned counsel for the State Government has urged that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Islamic Education and P.A. Inamdar, the State Government is authorized to make laws and the State Law has been made in response to such mandate of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the State has also placed reliance on the very same judgment on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned coun¬sel submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioners mis¬construed the judgments of the Supreme Court and erroneously urged that the State Government does not have legislative compe¬tence to legislate the said Act. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the State Government has enacted the legislation in the interest of the students so that they do not suffer by way of appearing in two entrance test by giving fees in both the examination. It has also been stated that the State Government has undertaken the legislation to give relief to the students from exploitative entrance test and from paying huge exploitative fees to the Private Institutions for their admission. Therefore, the State Government is motivated by concerns of social justice in enacting the law in question. It is also submitted that the said Act is protected by the provisions of Article 15(5) of the Constitution. 30. Since the question of legislative competence prominent¬ly figures in the argument advanced in this case, for better appreciation of the points involved, the Entries on the basis of which legislative competence of the State is debated are set out hereinbelow. Entry 66, List I runs as follows: “66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in insti¬tutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.” Previously the State by virtue of Entry 11 was empowered to legislate in the field of higher education. Entry 11, List II as it existed prior to its deletion with effect from 3.1.1977 by 42nd Amendment to the Constitution was as follows: “Education including Universities subject to the provisions of items 63,64, 65 and 66 of List I and 25 of List III.” 31. After the deletion of the aforesaid Entry by 42nd Amendment, the State’s power to legislate in the field of higher education is contained only in the Concurrent List. Entry 25, List III as amended by the 42nd Amendment is set out below: “Education, including technical education, medical education and universities subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour.” 32. When an Entry either in the State List or in the Con¬current List is made ‘subject to’, an Entry in the Union List, the question of construing such an Entry fell for consideration before the Supreme Court on more than one occasions. 33. When an Entry either in the State List or in the Con¬current List is made ‘subject to’, an Entry in the Union List, the question of construing such an Entry fell for consideration before the Supreme Court on more than one occasions. 33. In The Hingir-Rampur Coal Co., Ltd. and others v. The State of Orissa and others, ( AIR 1961 SC 459 ), the aforesaid question came up in the context of construing Entry 23 in the State List ( List II) which was about regulation of mines and mineral development, as the same was made subject to Entry 54 of List I which was in respect of regulation of mines and mineral development under the control of the Union. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court while considering the effect of reading two Entries together opined that the jurisdiction of the State Legis¬lature under Entry 23 being subject to limitation imposed by later part of Entry 54, the power of the State to legislate in the area covered by the Central Act is obviously not there. In such a situation the validity of the State Act vis-a-vis the Central Act has been summed up as follows: “... if a Central Act has been passed which contains a declaration by Parliament as required by Entry 54, and if the said declaration covers the field occupied by the impugned Act (meaning the State Act), the impugned Act would be ultra vires, not because of any repugnance between the two statutes, but because the State Legislature had no jurisdiction to pass the law this position is not in dispute. “ (Pages 469-470, para 23 of the report) Subsequently the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Uni¬versity and another v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and others, reported in AIR 1963 SC 703 , relied on the principles in the case of Hingir Rampur Coal Company and held that “the expres¬sion ‘subject to’ in item 11 of List II of the Seventh Schedule clearly indicates that legislation in respect of excluded matters cannot be undertaken by the State Legislatures”. 34. The learned Judges further explained “power of the State to legislate in respect of education including Universities must to the extent to which it is entrusted to the Union Parlia¬ment, whether such power is exercised or not, be deemed to be restricted”. 34. The learned Judges further explained “power of the State to legislate in respect of education including Universities must to the extent to which it is entrusted to the Union Parlia¬ment, whether such power is exercised or not, be deemed to be restricted”. The learned Judges clearly said “ if a subject of legislation is covered by items 63 to 66 even if it otherwise falls within the larger field of education including universities (as was the position prior to 42nd Amendment), the power to legislate on that subject must lie with the Parliament. (See paragraph 23 at page 715). 35. Now State’s exclusive power to legislate in the field of education is not available. Even when such power was available prior to 42nd Amendment, Supreme Court held that the power under Item 11 of List II and Item 66 of List I must be harmoniously construed as the power under two Entries may overlap, but to the extent of overlapping, the power conferred by Item 66 List I must prevail over the power of the State under item 11 of List II. (See Paragraph 23, page 715). 36. In R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and others, re¬ported in AIR 1964 SC 1823 the validity of the order made by the Government of Mysore in respect of admission to Engineering and Medical Colleges in the then State of Mysore was in issue. In the then State of Mysore most of the Engineering and Medical Colleges were Government Colleges and few of them were Government aided colleges. The State Government appointed a Common Selection Committee for conducting admissions to the Engineering colleges and another common selection committee for conducting admissions to Medical Colleges. In the matter of admission to those colleges the Government issued several directions. One of the contentions in that case was that the Government had no power to appoint the Common Selection Committee for admitting students to colleges on the basis of higher or different qualifications than those pre¬scribed by the University and, therefore, the orders made by the Government in respect of admissions were illegal. This argument was based on the proposition that co-ordination and determination of standards of a university is a Union subject and the State Legislature has no constitutional competence to make a law for maintaining the standards of university education. This argument was based on the proposition that co-ordination and determination of standards of a university is a Union subject and the State Legislature has no constitutional competence to make a law for maintaining the standards of university education. As such the conflict between Entry 11 of List II which existed at that point of time and Entry 66 of List I of the 7th Schedule came up for consideration. In that background, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court relied on the decision in the case of Gujarat University and held that if a law is made by the State by virtue of Entry 11 of List II of the 7th Schedule, which power the State does not have now, makes it impossible or difficult for the exercise of legislative power of the Parliament under Entry 66, List I in that case the State law may be bad. (See paragraph 7, at page 1830). The learned Judges held that this cannot obviously be decided on speculative and hypothetical reasoning. But if the impact of the State law is so heavy on devastating on the law made in exercise of the power under Entry 66, List I as to wipe out or appreciably abridge the central law, the State law is to be struck down. 37. In the instant case, the said Act, which has been dis¬cussed above has totally prohibited the admission procedure under the Central laws. Therefore, following the ratio in the case of R. Chitralekha and other decisions discussed above, the inescapa¬ble conclusion is that in the facts of the instant case, the State law definitely seeks to encroach upon the field occupied by the regulations framed under pre-existing central laws. In the case of R.Chitralekha, the Supreme Court opined that the State Government has power to prescribe a machinery and criteria for admission of students in the medical and engineering colleges run by the Government and with the consent of the management of the Government aided colleges in respect of those colleges also. (See paragraph 10 at page 1831). But in the instant case, the proce¬dure for admission which has been made under the said Act has been made applicable in the case of all the private colleges and the consent of the private colleges obviously has not been taken. 38. (See paragraph 10 at page 1831). But in the instant case, the proce¬dure for admission which has been made under the said Act has been made applicable in the case of all the private colleges and the consent of the private colleges obviously has not been taken. 38. In the case of State of Orissa and another v. M/s. M.A. Tulloch and Co., reported in AIR 1964 SC 1284 , the Supreme Court laid down the test of repugnancy between the two enactments. In that case also, Entry 54, List I of the 7th Schedule and Entry 23, List II of the said Schedule came up for consideration and the principle laid down in Hingir-Rampur Coal Company was reiter¬ated. The learned Judges in paragraph 15 held that the question of repugnancy arises when two enactments within the competence of two Legislatures collide. Where the Constitution expressly or by necessary implication provides that the enactment of one Legisla¬ture has superiority over the other then to the extent of the repugnancy the one supersedes the other. But the Supreme Court has expanded the concept to the extent that the two enactments may be repugnant to each other even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other. The Supreme Court further explained by saying that existence of contradictory provisions is not the only test of repugnancy. According to the Supreme Court, the real test is “if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legis¬lation an intention to cover the whole field, the enactments of the other legislature whether passed before or after would be overborne on the ground of repugnance”.’ The Supreme Court said that in such a case the inconsistency is demonstrated not by a “detailed comparison of provisions of the two statutes but by the mere existence of the two pieces of legislation”. (Para 15, page 1291-92 of the report). In the instant case, those principles are squarely attracted. 39. The question of repugnancy in the field of education between the State Law and the Central Law came up for considera¬tion before the Apex Court again in Osmania University Teachers’ Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 671 . In that case, the Apex Court considered the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986, enacted by the State Legislature. In that case, the Apex Court considered the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986, enacted by the State Legislature. The Supreme Court found it to be a duplicate of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and held that Entry 25, List III and Entry 66, List I should be read together. In paragraph 15 of the said judgment, the learned Judges after construing these two Entries in paragraph 14 made the following observations which are set out below: “The Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with re¬spect to matters included in List 1. The State has no power at all in regard to such matters. If the State legislates on the subject falling within List I that will be void, inoperative and unenforceable.” 40. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment, the observation in Gujarat University’s case was quoted in extenso. In Osmania University’s case, after discussing various provisions of the Commissionerate Act, the learned Judges in paragraph 26 held that the State Act has been passed as a parallel enactment under Entry 25 of List III and it encroaches upon Entry 66, List I and such an encroachment is patent and obvious. In view of such opinion of the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that in the said Act encroachment on the occupied field is also obvious, and which makes the said Act unconstitutional as it is beyond the legisla¬tive competence of the State. 41. The same question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others, reported in (1995 )4 SCC 104. It was held in the said judgment that The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 falls within Entry 66, List I and Entry 25, List III of the 7th Schedule. It was, there¬fore, held that on the subjects covered by the All India Council for Technical Education Act, the State cannot make a law either under entry 11 of List II, which is prior to the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution nor can it make a law under Entry 25 of List III which has come into existence after the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution. In paragraph 22 of the said judgment, it has been held that the Central Act, namely, All India Council for Techni¬cal Education Act obviously has been enacted for coordinated and integrated development of the technical education system at all levels throughout the country and is enjoined to promote qualita¬tive improvement of such education in relation to planned quanti¬tative growth. In the said paragraph it has been held “That the Council is also required to provide guidelines for admission of students and has power to withhold or discontinue grants and to de-recognize the institutions where norms and standards laid down, by it and directions given by it from time to time are not followed”. It was made clear towards the end of paragraph 22 that on the subjects covered by the said Act, the State could not legislate under Entry 11 of List II prior to 42nd Amendment nor can it do so under Entry 25 of List III after the 42nd Amendment. 42. Apart from the aforesaid decisions, there is a still more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra and another reported in AIR 2004 SC 1943 . In paragraph 16 at page-1947 of the report, the Supreme Court made it clear that within the concepts of coordina¬tion and determination of standards, the entire gamut of admis¬sion will fall. While saying so the Supreme Court clarified that if any aspect of admission of students in colleges falls within Entry 66, it necessarily stands excluded from the competence of State to legislate on the same as has been held in the Gujarat University’s case (supra) and the learned Judges approvingly quoted from the Gujarat University’s case. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment, the learned Judges made it very clear that the power to legislate in regard to those aspects are entirely carved out of the subject of education and vested in Parliament even at a time when ‘Education’ fell under List II. Now that education is no longer within List II they found no reason not to accept the arguments that once the institution comes within the scope of Entry 66 of List I, it falls outside the control of the provi¬sions of Entry 25 of List Ill. Now that education is no longer within List II they found no reason not to accept the arguments that once the institution comes within the scope of Entry 66 of List I, it falls outside the control of the provi¬sions of Entry 25 of List Ill. In the instant case, all the institutions run by the petitioners fall under Entry 66 of List I in view of the statutory provisions made under the AICTE Act and the Medical Council Act and the regulations made thereunder as discussed above.