Judgement DIPAK MISRA, J. :- Keeping in view the similarity and commonality of grievances of the writ petitioners and the homogeneity of the stand and stance put forth and regard being had to the combat put forth by the respondents in each case, the writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of convenience, clarity and plainness, the facts in Writ Petition No. 10713/2008 are adumbrated herein. 2. The petitioner, an educational society registered under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, developed an infrastructure for imparting education in engineering courses and established an Institute of Science and Technology in accordance with the norms fixed by All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), and eventually on satisfying the infrastructural necessities and other requisite criteria, submitted an application to the AICTE, the respondent No. 4 herein, to accord approval which was done as per communication dated 13-8-2008 with certain stipulations. The said authority granted approval with the intake capacity of 240 students. The said letter of approval was addressed to the Commissioner and Secretary, Manpower Planning Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The State Government has enacted M.P. Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for brevity 'the 2007 Act'). In exercise of powers conferred by Section 12 of the aforesaid Act, the State Government has framed a set of rules called Admission Rules, 2008 (for short 2008 Rules') which pertain to the eligibility of admission, manner of admission and allocation of seats in Private Unaided Professional Educational Institutions (including the reservation of seats for foreign and Non-Resident Indian candidates). 3. As pleaded, for the academic session 2008-09 the respondent commenced the counselling with effect from 20-8-2008. The first respondent issued an order on 20-8-2008, Annexure-P-4, stating, inter alia, that all the institutions which had been accorded approval by AICTE before the actual commencement of counselling would be included in the counselling for the academic session 2008-09. Because of the said decision taken by the State Government, number of institutions were included for counselling but the petitioner's grievance is that though it is similarly placed, yet it was not included. Because of the said decision taken by the State Government, number of institutions were included for counselling but the petitioner's grievance is that though it is similarly placed, yet it was not included. Due to non-inclusion, the petitioner approached the authorities but nothing fruitful ensued as a consequence of which the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court for issue of a command to the respondent to allow the petitioner to admit the students for the academic year 2008-09. 4. This Court, while taking up the matter for admission on 4-9-2008, had passed the following order :- "Heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms. Ruth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the State Government by letter dated 20-8-2008 has relaxed Rule 4(1)(b) of the Admission Rules, 2008 as a result of which new institutions who have got approval from all India Council for Technical Education (for short 'the AICTE') on the date of commencement of counselling to be entitled to participate in the counselling. Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 submitted that the State Government could not have relaxed the same as the Regulations of AICTE clearly provides that if a letter of approval is issued after 30-6-2008, the same shall not be valid for the current academic year but shall be valid for next two academic years. Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. counsel submitted that the State Government has the power to relax the rules and rightly has relaxed. He has invited our attention to Annexure P-5 whereby nine colleges have been extended the benefit to be included in counselling when the petitioner college has been, for no manifest reason, excluded. Let an affidavit be filed by the Secretary of Technical Education and Training Department to clarify the position as regards relaxation. Let the affidavit be filed on or by 8th September, 2008. The respondent No. 4 shall also file an affidavit by 8-9-2008. At this juncture, Mr. Mishra submitted that the petitioner-college is not included despite being similarly placed with the colleges who have been granted approval after 30-6-2008. Let the affidavit be filed on or by 8th September, 2008. The respondent No. 4 shall also file an affidavit by 8-9-2008. At this juncture, Mr. Mishra submitted that the petitioner-college is not included despite being similarly placed with the colleges who have been granted approval after 30-6-2008. Regard being had to the totality of facts and circumstances, as presently advised, it is directed as an interim measure that the petitioner institute shall be permitted in the on-going counselling subject to the result of this petition. Let the matter be placed on 9-9-2008 for further hearing." In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the concerned Secretary filed an affidavit indicating that at the highest level a decision was taken to relax Rule 4(1)(b) which postulates that if during counselling permission is granted to any institution or the number of seats in any institution are varied by the Appropriate Authority on or before 30th June of that year, the same may be incorporated in counselling and the candidates who have already been taken admission prior to change in intake capacity, shall not be entitled to admissions to newly sanctioned seats'. 5. Be it noted, the AICTE had filed an affidavit contending, inter alia, that AICTE has the power to issue a letter of approval round the year as contemplated under the All India Council For Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short 'the 1987 Act') and on the recommendation of the Expert Committee, the said authority granted approval to the petitioner-college with intake capacity of 240 seats in different branches of engineering by approval letter dated 13-8-2008 which is valid for two years. It is put forth that even after getting approval the petitioner is required to obtain affiliation from the University and the concerned State Government. It is further put forth in the return that in case the petitioner fails to commence course in two years' period, then fresh application for grant of approval shall be made before the answering respondent which will be processed afresh. It is the further stand in the return that AICTE has no role in the process of counselling and its role is confined to approval. It is averred that the said body prescribes norms and standards for the institution imparting technical education and framed guidelines as per Section 10 of the 1987 Act. 6. A return has been filed by the respondents Nos. It is averred that the said body prescribes norms and standards for the institution imparting technical education and framed guidelines as per Section 10 of the 1987 Act. 6. A return has been filed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 5 stating, inter alia, that the State Government has issued a circular which clearly postulates that only those colleges which have been given approval prior to the date of counselling and applied to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for getting approval would be included in the counselling which would commence from 20-8-2008. It is contended that the State Government has relaxed the rule only for one year. It is urged that if the petitioner would be included it would affect the merit of the candidates. It is also put forth that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner-institution was included in the on-going counselling but they have to obtain affiliation from the University and it is the duty of the University to see that the institution to which affiliation is granted fulfils the requirement. Emphasis has been laid on the suffering that will be faced by the students and how the cut off date given by AICTE is violated. The guidelines framed with regard to the process of approval has been brought on record as Annexure-R-1. 7. When the matter was taken up on 16-9-2008, keeping in view the various aspects, this Court had directed the competent authority of AICTE to file an affidavit as to how it understands its guidelines. 8. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, an affidavit has been filed by AICTE, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- "2. That, AICTE has notified the Regulations vide notification dt. 14-9-2006, these regulations are called the AICTE for Grant of Approval for Starting New Technical Institutions/Introduction of Courses/Programme and Increase/Variation of Intake Capacity of Seats for the Course or Programme and Extension of Approval for the Existing Institution Regulations, 2006. The Chapter 9 pertains to Policy Decision of Council with regard to the approval process. The clause 9.8 pertains to Effective date of approval, the provision specifically meant that the Act does not have any provision for retrospective approval. The approval granted to any institution for whatsoever purpose shall have prospective effect from the date the letter of approval is issued. 3. The clause 9.8 pertains to Effective date of approval, the provision specifically meant that the Act does not have any provision for retrospective approval. The approval granted to any institution for whatsoever purpose shall have prospective effect from the date the letter of approval is issued. 3. That, clause 9.12 pertains to Approval received by an institution after the last date of admission, clause (a) specifically mention that the grant of approval shall be communicated to the institutions throughout the year. Any institution (applicant) who applied for establishment of new institutions has to submit the application on or before 31st December 2007 and the letter of approval issued on or before 30th June 2008, the institution shall be eligible for starting new institutions for the academic year 2008-09 and the letter of approval issued after 30th June 2008 the applicant institution shall be eligible to start technical institution from the next academic year. Further the letter of approval issued for the applications received after 31st December 2007 and letter of approval issued after 30th June 2008 shall be eligible for starting the new institution from next academic year i.e. 2009-10. 4. That, clause 9.12 (b) pertains to grant of approval for starting new programmes/ increase/variation in intake, the application received at the Council on or before 31st December 2007 shall be eligible for starting new programmes/increase/variation in intake for the academic year 2008-09. The letter of approval issued of the applications received after 31st December 2007 shall be eligible for starting new programmes/increase/variation in intake from the next academic year i.e. 2009-10. 5. That, the Council has not issued any letter relaxing the statutory provision as mandate in clause 9.12(a) or (b) neither in M.P. nor in any other States. 6. That, the AICTE has no role to play in the counselling, the counselling is conducted by the State Government. The State Government can make regulations in respect of counselling." 9. We have heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned senior counsel along with Mr. H. K. Upadhyay, Mr. Arvind Chouksey, Mr. J. K. Pillai, Mr. Manoj Chansoriya and Mr. Ankit Saxena, Advocates for the petitioners, Mr. R. N. Singh, learned Advocate General and Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate for the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionary, Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-Rajeev Gandhi Technological University and Engineering Courses Counselling Authority, Bhopal and Mr. Arvind Chouksey, Mr. J. K. Pillai, Mr. Manoj Chansoriya and Mr. Ankit Saxena, Advocates for the petitioners, Mr. R. N. Singh, learned Advocate General and Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate for the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionary, Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-Rajeev Gandhi Technological University and Engineering Courses Counselling Authority, Bhopal and Mr. Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for All India Council for Technical Education. 10. Submission of Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned senior counsel, who has led the argument is that the guideline 9.12 does not prescribe a cut off date for counselling or admission and if the heading of the said guideline is properly appreciated, it would mean that any institute getting approval till the date of admission or even after the last date of admission can admit students. Learned senior counsel has submitted that there is no distinction between getting Letter of Approval for a new institution and for grant of approval for new programmes/increase/variation in intake capacity and, therefore, in clause 9.12(b) of the guidelines, the date 30-6-2008 has not been mentioned. It is also canvassed by him that the heading of the provision or guideline has to be considered as its significance cannot be marginalized. It is propounded by him that the State Government has unnecessarily extended the date to 20-8-2008. It is also proponed by him that as the petitioner-institution has received the approval within the extension period it cannot be deprived to be treated at par with other institutions. To bolster his submission learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Raichurmatham Prabhakar v. Rawatmal Dugar, (2004) 4 SCC 766 : ( AIR 2004 SC 3625 ). 11. Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate has submitted that regard being had to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the time was extended and before doing that information was sought from the Member Secretary of the AICTE and he had clearly stated that it was within the purview of the State Government and, therefore, the decision was taken. It is put forth by him that the petitioner's approval had not reached the State Government and, therefore, it was not included. It is put forth by him that the petitioner's approval had not reached the State Government and, therefore, it was not included. It is his further submission that some of the institutions have got approval on 2nd or 3rd of September, 2008 but they have been permitted by this Court as an interim measure and thereby the students are affected. 12. Mr. Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for AICTE has submitted that the guidelines are statutory in nature and are absolutely clear and unambiguous and, therefore, the heading of the guidelines is not to be taken note of and in any case, the State Government has no authority to extend the period. 13. Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel for the University has submitted that the approval requires affiliation from the University and, therefore, the course can only commence after affiliation is granted on satisfying the conditions. 14. To appreciate the rivalised submissions raised at the bar, it is apposite to analyse the scheme of the 1987 Act. The said Act was enacted with a view to the proper planning and coordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvements of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith. 15. Section 3 of the Act deals with the establishment of the Council. Section 10 describes the powers and functions of the Council. The said provision stipulates that it is the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and management education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under the Act and for all purposes, the Council has been authorised to take certain actions. Under Section 10(i), the Council has been empowered to lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations. Section 10(j) confers power on the Council to fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees. Section 10(o) empowers the Council to provide guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education. Section 10(j) confers power on the Council to fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees. Section 10(o) empowers the Council to provide guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education. Under Section 22 of the Act, the Central Government has been endowed with the responsibility to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 23 enables the Council to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and rules generally to carry out the purposes of this Act and specifically to address itself to take such regulatory measures which deal with the functions of the Board of Studies. 16. In pursuance of the power conferred under Section 10(o), guidelines have been framed. Guideline 9.8 deals with the effective date of approval. It reads as follows :- "9.8 Effective Date of approval The Act has no provision for retrospective approval. All approval for establishment of new Institution/Introduction of new courses or programmes in Technical Education/variation in Intake capacity and recognition shall be with prospective effect. 17. Guideline 9.12 which deals with the approval received by an institution after the last date of admission is as under :- "9.12 Approval received by an Institution after the last date of admission .- a) The decision on grant of approval or otherwise for establishment of new institution shall be communicated to the applicant Society/Trust/Institutions throughout the year. However, the applicants whose applications received at the Council on or before 31st December 2007 and the Letters of Approval issued on or before 30th June 2008 shall be eligible for starting of new institutions for the academic year 2008-09. All other Letters of Approval issued for the applications received after 31st December 2007 and/or the Letters of Approval issued after the 30th June 2008 shall be eligible for starting the new institutions from the next academic year i.e. 2009-10 or beyond. It shall be the responsibility of the Applicant Society/Trusts/Institutions to obtain necessary affiliation/permission from the concerned affiliating University/State Govt. etc. as per the prescribed schedule of the University/ Admission Authority. b) The decision on grant of approval or otherwise for starting of new programmes/ increase/variation in intake shall be communicated to the Applicant Society/Trusts/ Institutions throughout the year. It shall be the responsibility of the Applicant Society/Trusts/Institutions to obtain necessary affiliation/permission from the concerned affiliating University/State Govt. etc. as per the prescribed schedule of the University/ Admission Authority. b) The decision on grant of approval or otherwise for starting of new programmes/ increase/variation in intake shall be communicated to the Applicant Society/Trusts/ Institutions throughout the year. However the applicants whose applications received at the Council on or before 31st December, 2007 shall be eligible for starting of new programmes/increase/variation intake for the academic year 2008-09. All other Letters of Approval issued for the applications received after 31st December 2007 shall be eligible for starting of new programmes/increase/variation in intake from the next academic year i.e. 2009-10 or beyond. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant institutions to obtain necessary affiliation/ permission from the concerned affiliating University/State Govt. etc. as per the prescribed schedule of the University/Admission Authority etc." 18. Submission of Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms. Ruth Rao appearing for the petitioner, is that if these guidelines are read in a harmonious manner regard being had to the provisions of the Act and Regulations framed by the AICTE, there can be no shadow of doubt that conferral of benefit of approval is an ongoing process and if approval is received before the commencement of admission process, the institution can be considered for allocation of the seats in respect of the courses for which the approval is given. It is further submitted by him that as far as revised programme and increase/variation of intake capacity of seats is concerned it is not related to the cut off date as mentioned in guideline 9.9. 19. In this context, it is apposite to refer to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Admission Rules which is relevant for the present purpose and reads as under :- "4. 19. In this context, it is apposite to refer to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Admission Rules which is relevant for the present purpose and reads as under :- "4. Admission Rules - Admission rules for year 2008-09 onward - In all professional institutions the procedure for admission shall be as under : (1) Availability of seats - (a) Number of seats available in various professional educational institutions and as approved by appropriate authority shall be given in the common entrance test booklet; (b) If during counselling permission is granted to any institution or the number of seats in any institution are varied by the Appropriate Authority on or before 30th June of that year same may be incorporated in counselling and the candidates who have already taken admission prior to change in intake capacity, shall not be entitled for admissions to newly sanctioned seats. 20. Learned Govt. Advocate for the State submitted that the State Government has relaxed the said rule for the year 2008-09. 21. Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the question of relaxation of Rule does not arise as the guidelines clearly postulate about the ongoing grant of approval and if the guidelines contained in Guideline 9.12 are read in purposive manner, it would clearly convey that an institution can participate in the counselling after the last date of admission or at least till the last date of admission. He has laid immense emphasis on the heading to the guidelines. 22. To appreciate the said submission of the learned Senior Counsel, we have bestowed our anxious consideration and scanned the anatomy of the said guideline. The fulcrum of the matter is whether in a case of the present nature, the heading of the guidelines can be taken aid and assistance of. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision rendered in The Commissioner of In - ax, Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co. Bombay, AIR 1950 SC 134 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows :- "Marginal notes in an Indian statute, as in an Act of Parliament, cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the statute. Nor can the title of a chapter be legitimately used to restrict the plain terms of an enactment. 23. Bombay, AIR 1950 SC 134 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows :- "Marginal notes in an Indian statute, as in an Act of Parliament, cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the statute. Nor can the title of a chapter be legitimately used to restrict the plain terms of an enactment. 23. In M/s. Frick India Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 689 , a two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held as under :- "8. It is well-settled that the headings prefixed to sections or entries cannot control the plain words of the provision; they cannot also be referred to for the purpose of construing the provision when the words used in the provision are clear and unambiguous; nor can they be used for cutting down the plain meaning of the words in the provision. Only, in the case of ambiguity or doubt the heading or sub-heading may be referred to as an aid in construing the provision but even in such a case it could not be used for cutting down the wide application of the clear words used in the provision." 24. In M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 2002 (3) JT (SC) 551 : ( AIR 2002 SC 1706 ) it is observed as under :- "10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used. It is said that every statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary principle of interpreting any word while considering a statute is to gather the means or sententia legis of the legislature. Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the Court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering/alternating the statutory provisions. Wherever the language is clear the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used." 25. Wherever the language is clear the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used." 25. In Raichurmatham Prabhakar v. Rawatmal Dugar, (2004) 4 SCC 766 : ( AIR 2004 SC 3625 ) the Apex Court held as under :- "14. The view is now settled that the Headings or Titles prefixed to sections or group of sections can be referred to in construing an Act of the Legislature. But conflicting opinions have been expressed on the question as to what weight should be attached to the Headings or Titles. According to one view, the Headings might be treated as preambles to the provisions following them so as to be regarded as giving the key to opening the mind of the draftsman of the clauses arranged thereunder. According to the other view, resort to Heading can only be taken when the enacting words are ambiguous. They cannot control the meaning of plain words but they may explain ambiguities. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G. P. Singh, Ninth Edition, 2004, pp. 152, 155). In our opinion, it is permissible to assign the heading or Title of a section a limited role to play in the construction of statutes. They may be taken as very broad and general indicators of the nature of the subject-matter dealt with thereunder. The Heading or Title may also be taken as a condensed name assigned to indicate collectively the characteristics of the subject-matter dealt with by the enactment underneath, though the name would always be brief having its own limitations. In case of conflict between the plain language of the provision and the meaning of the Heading or Title, the Heading or title would not control the meaning which is clearly and plainly discernible from the language of the provision thereunder." 26. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, there can be no scintilla of doubt that if there is absence of any kind of ambiguity in the provision under consideration, the heading prefixed to the main provision would not control the same. In case of ambiguity or doubt, the heading or sub-heading may be referred to as an aid in constructing the provision. In the case at hand, the provision is crystal clear. In case of ambiguity or doubt, the heading or sub-heading may be referred to as an aid in constructing the provision. In the case at hand, the provision is crystal clear. The guideline 9.12(a) clearly postulates that the institutions whose applications are received at the Council on or before 31st December, 2007 and the Letters of Approval issued on or before 30th June 2008 shall be eligible for starting of new institutions for the academic session 2008-09. All other Letters of Approval issued for the applications received after 31st December, 2007 and/or the Letters of Approval issued after the 30th June 2008 shall be eligible for starting the new institutions from the next academic year i.e. 2009-10 or beyond. We may note with profit that Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, has laboured hard to draw some inspiration from guideline 9.12(b) and proposed that as there is no mention of 30th June, 2008 therefore, it is not 30th June 2008, is the pivotal or governing factor. Submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that if an application had been submitted on or before 31-12-2007 by an institution which gets the Letter of Approval after 30th June 2008, it can be allowed to participate in the counselling. The aforesaid submission suffers from an inherent fallacy. Clause (a) does not permit any new institution to start if the Letter of Approval is received after 30th June 2008. It is prohibitory in nature. Once an institution cannot start functioning, the question of participating in the counselling or admitting the students does not arise. Be it noted, though we are really not concerned in the present case with clause 9.12(b) yet as immense emphasis has been laid, we would like to say that the institutions whose applications are received at the Council on or before 31st December 2007 shall be eligible for starting new programme/increase/variation for the academic year 2008-09. The said clause stipulates that all other Letters of Approval issued for the applications received after 31st December shall be eligible for starting of new programmes/increase/variation in intake from the next academic year 2009-10 or beyond. Thus, the conditions stipulated therein are that the Letters of Approval issued for the institutions whose applications are received after 31st December, 2007 cannot start the course for the academic year 2008-09. Thus, emphasis has been laid on the factum of receipt of application by the AICTE. Thus, the conditions stipulated therein are that the Letters of Approval issued for the institutions whose applications are received after 31st December, 2007 cannot start the course for the academic year 2008-09. Thus, emphasis has been laid on the factum of receipt of application by the AICTE. From the aforesaid, it is discernible that if a Letter of Approval is issued in respect of an application received before 31st December 2007 and a Letter of Approval is issued, then the institution can start new programmes/intake for the academic year 2008-09. In that context, it would not be inapposite to state that the said institutions can participate in the ongoing counselling. We are inclined to think so, when a Letter of Approval is issued in respect of a new institution, certain conditions are required to be fulfilled including obtainment of affiliation from the University, filling up the post of faculty members or other conditions as incorporated. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner leaves us unimpressed and we are inclined to hold that the language employed in guideline 9.12(a) is absolutely clear and unambiguous and any institution that has been issued a Letter of Approval beyond 30th June 2008 cannot start a new institution for the academic year 2008-09. 27. Though we have interpreted the provisions yet the problem does neither end nor rest there. The State Government in its own wisdom has relaxed Rule 4(1)(b) though it had no power to relax the same as that would be running counter to the guidelines which have statutory force. A confusion has occurred as the State Government has sworn in an affidavit that it had entered into correspondence with the Member Secretary of AICTE and it was apprised that it is within the discretion of the State Government. Learned counsel for the AICTE has seriously refuted the same but nothing has been brought on record. In any case, the Member Secretary, AICTE, alone could not have made any communication or statement in that regard. If we permit ourselves to say so, the State Government has committed a Himalayan blunder. We are not at all impressed with the submissions of the learned Advocate General for the State that the State Government has done it in the better educational interest of the State. In a body polity, Rule of Law has to prevail. If we permit ourselves to say so, the State Government has committed a Himalayan blunder. We are not at all impressed with the submissions of the learned Advocate General for the State that the State Government has done it in the better educational interest of the State. In a body polity, Rule of Law has to prevail. The State Government has no power to encroach upon the guidelines. The Rule is in consonance with the guidelines. There is no question of relaxation. However, as a measure had been taken extending the period, counselling has commenced and other institutions had claimed parity, this Court has permitted the said institutions to participate in the counselling. The said direction has to be treated as one time measure. The Court has directed so as a one time measure. The authorities should not play with the provisions and should be guided by law. They should not act according to their whims, caprice or in a fanciful manner. No interest can violate the law. Interest of the collective or an institution cannot be beyond the law because in a civilised society, law reigns supreme. If the public good is thought of, that should be conceived within the parameters of law and not by an individual whim or fancy. However high the authority may be, it has to be guided by law. Neither sympathy nor any kind of empathy or kindness or mercy can bend the law. He who bends the law breaks the law and the law does not countenance the same. When it happens, as some would like to put it, she (justice) cries in agony. However, as a situation has cropped up, the same has to be taken note of. On the basis of the circular issued on 20-8-08, counselling had commenced. The number of institutions which had participated in the counselling is not on record. Because of the said situation, the Court had permitted the newly approved colleges to participate in the counselling. This has to be treated as one time measure and, we say so, because of the mistake committed by the State. Accordingly, we hold the counselling had to be valid. Because of the said situation, the Court had permitted the newly approved colleges to participate in the counselling. This has to be treated as one time measure and, we say so, because of the mistake committed by the State. Accordingly, we hold the counselling had to be valid. We would add that the authorities of the State Government shall not take such steps in future and be totally guided by the guidelines of the AICTE as published from the year to year and not commit any deviancy in their enthusiasm. It should be borne in mind that law does not permit any popular conception and does not pardon anyone to play foul with it. As long as law exists, everybody must serve at its altar unless it is altered as per the procedure laid down by law. 28. At this juncture, we are obliged to state that the Letter of Approval that has been issued by the AICTE incorporates certain conditions which stipulate that the Management of the Institute shall have adequate funds for development of land and building, infrastructural and instrumental and other facilities as per the Council norms. It also stipulates that admissions shall be made in accordance with the regulations notified by the Council from time to time and the admission to the Courses shall be made only after the affiliating University/State Board has given permission to start a course. Though there are other conditions, yet we have referred to these conditions as the principal condition pertains to obtaining of affiliation/permission from the University/State Board. Learned counsel for the University has made a grievous allegation with regard to affiliation on the ground foundation that it was difficult on the part of the University to give affiliation. Institutes were permitted by the State to participate in the counselling solely on the base/foundation of Letter of Approval by 20-8-08. There was no stipulation that they would be having affiliation. It does not require Solomon's wisdom that s per Letter of Approval, any institute cannot give admission without affiliation from the University or the State Board. Institutes were permitted by the State to participate in the counselling solely on the base/foundation of Letter of Approval by 20-8-08. There was no stipulation that they would be having affiliation. It does not require Solomon's wisdom that s per Letter of Approval, any institute cannot give admission without affiliation from the University or the State Board. As the picture is not clear, we are inclined to direct that the institutes which were permitted to participate in the counselling by the State and the institutions which have been permitted by the order of this Court shall be treated at par and there should not be any relaxation whatsoever with regard to the facet of affiliation. We repeat at the cost of repetition that we have not cancelled the counselling though it is contrary to the guidelines as the State has entered into the sanctuary or errors. And that is why it has been thought apposite and condign to permit other institutions because a cut off date could not have been provided by the State. Be it noted, this is done as one time measure and the authorities should be cautious not to play with the Rules at their humour and hubris in future. 29. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.