Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. Connected appeals are filed by the Mahatma Gandhi University against the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding entitlement of the first respondent College for affiliation for the additional course started by it, viz., Degree in Management. 2. We have heard the Standing Counsel appearing for the University and the Senior Counsel Sri R.D. Shenoy appearing for the 1st respondent College and also the standing Counsel for AICTE. 3. The undisputed facts are that the State Government granted NOC to the first respondent college to commence two additional Degree courses of their choice. Pursuant to the Government Order, the University directed the first respondent college to exercise their option and in terms of the request they applied for commencing two courses under the self-financing scheme, one for M.A. English and another for MBA. Admittedly, the first respondent applied for affiliation to the University in the prescribed form, i.e, in Form No.4, in terms of the University Statute. Even though the University granted affiliation for one of the courses started by the college namely, M.A. English, for the other course namely, Degree in Management, the University declined permanent affiliation for the reason that that course is started under the name of new Institute called “Albertian Institute of Management” and not by the existing college. The order under challenge, namely, Ext.P30 was vacated by the Single Judge against which these Write Appeals are filed. 4. After hearing both parties and after perusing the judgment and orders, we find that the only objection raised by the University for declining affiliation to the Degree course in Management started by the 1st respondent is that it started the same as a separate institute of management, by name “Albertian Institute of Management”. 5. Counsel for the University submitted that even though the application for affiliation was submitted before the University by the existing institution, namely, the college, while approaching the All India Council for Technical Education for approval of the degree Course in Management they submitted applications as a new institute. Therefore, according to the University, affiliation cannot be granted to the new institution established by the 1st respondent. Therefore, according to the University, affiliation cannot be granted to the new institution established by the 1st respondent. We are of the view that the objection of the University is on account of a misconception that the 1st respondent is eligible to be treated as an existing institution by AICTE making them eligible to apply for approval of a new course in Management. However, the fact is that since the existing college of the first respondent was not conducting any technical or management course, they are not in the rolls of AICTE. Therefore, when applied to AICTE for the first time for approval of a course started by the College – Management, they rightly applied for approval of the course as a new institute. Probably, if an engineering college or a college of management already approved and under the control of AICTE applies for additional course or for increasing the strength of students, then the application has to be submitted by them as an existing institution with the AICTE. In this case, since, for the first time, the 1st respondent was starting a course study requiring the approval from the AICTE, they rightly applied as a new institute which was considered and granted by AICTE. The contention of the University that the Degree course in Management is not commenced by the 1st respondent college is absolutely without any basis and it is only on account of their misunderstanding that the new name adopted for the Management course namely “Albertian Institute of Management” has a separate existence different from the management that runs the college. It is very common they very many colleges which start Management Institutes give new name for their institutes so that they can develop an independent name and reputation for the Management Institute. Admittedly, the Institute of Management in this case, though under separate name, is under the control and management of the 1st respondent and the University has no case that it is in any way different or independent from the 1st respondent institution. So much so, the objection raised by the University in declining affiliation is only on technical ground for adopting a new name for running the management course and it was rightly found untenable by the learned Single Judge. So much so, the objection raised by the University in declining affiliation is only on technical ground for adopting a new name for running the management course and it was rightly found untenable by the learned Single Judge. The management of 1st respondent college is absolutely within their power to give separate name for any department of the college and so much so there is nothing wrong in their giving separate name for the management course. From the institute’s name “Albertian Institute of Management” itself, it is obvious that it is part and parcel of the 1st respondent management and the University has no case to the contrary. 6. Another aspect brought to our notice is that the institute of management is commenced by the first respondent college in a separate building and that is also a ground for denial of affiliation. It is conceded that under the AICTE norms, the Management course cannot be run along with other courses in the same building and, the institute of management must have its own building, campus etc. Obviously, setting up of an institute under a separate building is in terms of the norms of the AICTE and, therefore, we do not find this ground can justify the denial of affiliation. We therefore, confirm the judgment of the Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeals.