Judgment :- B. RAJENDRAN, J 1. Both the writ appeals arise out of the common order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 5973 and 7065 of 2010. Both the writ petitions were allowed by the learned single Judge which resulted in filing of the present writ appeals by All India Council for Technical Education (in short AICTE). 2. St. Johns College of Engineering and Technology for Women, respondent in W.A. No. 1105 of 2010, has filed the writ petition in WP No. 5973 of 2010 praying for a Mandamus directing the respondents therein to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 30.01.2010 seeking permission to convert the womens college into one of Co-education college from the academic year 2010-2011. 3. Paramasivam Palanisamy Charitable Trust, respondent in W.A. No. 1106 of 2010, has filed WP No. 7065 of 2010 praying for a Writ of Declaration to declare that the decision of the first respondent council taken in its 61st and 62nd meeting of the Executive Committee to the effect that "AICTE not to allow conversion of womens institution to co-educational institutions, henceforth" and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 19.03.2010 bearing F.No.06/ 05/ TN/ & T(W)/ 2008/07 as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and is violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the first respondent to consider the petitioners application dated 14.10.2009 and grant approval for conversion of the petitioner college – Maharaja Engineering College for Women, Erode Road, Perundurai – 638 052 to co-educational institution in the name of Maharaja College of Engineering and Technology from the academic year 2010-2011. 4. The averments in WP No. 5973 of 2010 was to the effect that the College was established by Sudeshi Seva Trust in the year 2008 and approval was accorded to the college, by an order dated 30.06.2009, for four courses namely Computer Science and Engineering, Electrical & Electronics Engineering, Electronics & Communication Engineering and Information Technology with an intake of 60 students each. The Anna University also granted affiliation by order dated 28.07.2009. As there were lesser number of students to join the said courses offered by the college for women, the management of the college has submitted a representation dated 15.09.2009, by complying with all mandatory requirements, requesting to convert the institution into a co-educational institution from 2010-2011. The Anna University also granted affiliation by order dated 28.07.2009. As there were lesser number of students to join the said courses offered by the college for women, the management of the college has submitted a representation dated 15.09.2009, by complying with all mandatory requirements, requesting to convert the institution into a co-educational institution from 2010-2011. Since there was no response to the representation dated 15.09.2009 submitted by the college, another application dated 30.07.2010 has been submitted. Even after lapse of two months, since no order has been passed, WP No. 5973 of 2010 came to be filed for a Mandamus. 5. The averments in WP No. 7065 of 2010 was to the effect that Maharaja Engineering College for Women was established by Paramasivam Palanisamy Charitable Trust, Perundurai, Erode District. The said College was granted approval by AICTE on 02.06.2008 with an intake of 90 students each in the branches of B.E. Electronics and Communication Engineering, B.E. Computer Science and Engineering, B.E. Electrical and Electronics Engineering and B.Tech Information Technology for the year 2008-2009 and for 2009-2010, intake was increased to 120 for first two courses and approval was granted to MBA Course with an intake of 60 students. In the said Engineering College, only few seats were filled up and large number of seats remained vacant for both years i.e., 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and hence, the college management has submitted a representation dated 14.10.2009 to AICTE seeking permission to convert the said Womens College into one of co-education Engineering College from the academic year 2010-2011. The Regional Office of AICTE, Chennai by letter dated 21.10.2009 forwarded the said representation to AICTE. Since the request for conversion was not considered, the College has filed WP No. 26035 of 2009 before this Court for a Mandamus. By order dated 23.12.2009, this Court directed AICTE to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.10.2009 and pass orders thereon. Pursuant to such direction, an order dated 19.03.2010 was passed by AICTE informing that the proposal for conversion of women institution into a co-educational institute cannot be acceded to as the representation of the institution dated 14.10.2009 was submitted after the decision of the Executive Committee of AICTE dated 06.10.2009. Therefore, the present WP No. 7065 of 2010 came to be filed seeking to declare the decision of AICTE taken on 06.10.2009 as unconstitutional and void. 6. Therefore, the present WP No. 7065 of 2010 came to be filed seeking to declare the decision of AICTE taken on 06.10.2009 as unconstitutional and void. 6. The learned single Judge, taking into consideration the submissions made by both sides found that the writ petitioners/respondents herein have not availed any concessions granted to the institutions. The learned single Judge therefore held that when such concessions have not been availed by the writ petitions/respondents herein for establishment of women college, naturally, their request for conversion has to be granted and allowed the writ petitions. The learned single Judge also held that the resolution passed by the AICTE in banning the conversion is illegal and accordingly the decision taken by the AICTE in the executive committee meeting was declared as void. 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 5973 and 7065 of 2010, the present writ appeals are filed by AICTE. 8. The learned senior counsel for the appellant/AICTE submitted that the respondents institution, even in the first year, sought for further enhancement in the seat and by order dated 30.06.2009, AICTE accorded approval for increase of intake by 30 seats each in respect of two courses namely B.E. Electronics and Communication Engineering and B.E. Computer Science and Engineering and also for new M.B.A. Course with an intake of 60 seats from the academic year 2009-2010. Furthermore, the respondents have availed concession while getting the approval for the respective courses either with respect to land or building. It was further contended that the respondents have taken advantage of the benefit of the relaxed norms and established Engineering College for women. Having availed such concession, they cannot now seek for conversion of the women college into one of Co-education college. Further, the Executive Committee of AICTE took a decision that the colleges, which were started after availing all the concessions, if at later stage seek to convert it into a regular college, it is unethical and it also amounts to by-passing the queue. Further, when such colleges, having taken advantage of certain concessions and or benefits, it is not open for them to seek for re-conversion. Therefore, AICTE passed a resolution to that effect which is sought to be declared as void in WP No. 7065 of 2010. 9. Further, when such colleges, having taken advantage of certain concessions and or benefits, it is not open for them to seek for re-conversion. Therefore, AICTE passed a resolution to that effect which is sought to be declared as void in WP No. 7065 of 2010. 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants specifically brought to our notice that in so far as starting of a college, exclusively for women, the Government has offered certain concessions, which are contained in clause 9.28 of the policy decision of the AICTE, relaxing norms in respect of new technical education for women, which is as follows:- "9.28. Establishment of new Technical Institutions for Women: For establishment of new technical institutions exclusively set up for women certain norms have been relaxed, which are as follows:- (a) Land: For the technical institutions, exclusively set up for women, the land norms prescribed for establishment of all other Technical Institutions have been relaxed upto 50% in rural category and 20% in Metro and State Capital category and 10% in Mega Cities category. (b) FDR and Processing Fee : 20% relaxation are allowed in FDR amount and processing fees for establishment of new technical institutions exclusively set up for women. (c) Built up area & number of courses and intake : The total built up area required for setting up of new institutions are as per existing norms. However, to start with institutions for women will be allowed upto 5 courses with total annual intake of 300 with each course intake not exceeding 90. (d) Single window system for processing proposals : Two copies of the application shall be submitted to the Member Secretary, AICTE along with a proof of having submitted a copy of the application each to the affiliating University and State Government and a demand draft of Rs.5,000/- drawn on a nationalised bank in favour of The Member Secretary, AICTE payable at New Delhi. One copy of the application shall be directly submitted each to the affiliating University and the State Government either in person or through Speed/Registered Post." 10. The learned senior counsel for the appellants also pointed out that even in the affidavit filed in support of WP No. 7065 of 2010, in para-8, the writ petitioner/respondent herein would contend that they have availed certain concessions. Para-8 runs as follows:- "8. The learned senior counsel for the appellants also pointed out that even in the affidavit filed in support of WP No. 7065 of 2010, in para-8, the writ petitioner/respondent herein would contend that they have availed certain concessions. Para-8 runs as follows:- "8. (a) Land : Only five acres of land has been earmarked for exclusive womens engineering colleges Our trust possess more than 25 acres land in the same premises. For this conversion, 5 more acres of land is additionally required. Hence, our trust has agreed and passed a resolution vide our trust meeting held on 18.09.2009 to earmark the additional 5 acres vacant land in the same premises which is available in a single plot. (b) Endowment Fund : A joint fixed deposit of Rs.28,00,000/-has been created instead of Rs.35,00,000/- One trust has agreed and passed a resolution to create additional joint FDR for Rs.7,00,000/- vide our trust meeting held on 18.09.2009. Thus, the total FDR is for Rs.35,00,000/-. (c) Courses and intake : An approval was granted for 4 branches of B.E./B.Tech courses with an intake of 300 seats. In this connection, we wish to surrender the additional seats granted under exclusive womens engineering college as per the direction of AICTE." 11. Similarly, in para-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the WP No. 5973 of 2010, it was stated as follows:- "4. I respectfully submit that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements of the regulation for a Co-educational institution. The existing endowment of Rs.28,00,000/-(Twenty Eight Lakhs Only) had been increased to the required quantum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Thirty Five Lakhs Only). In likemanner, the land holding of the institution had been increased from 5 to 11 acres which is the norms for a co-educational institution. I state that the petitioner had complied with all the required norms. The conversion fee of Rs.25,000/- had also been remitted to the respondent on 30.01.2010. However, the respondent had not passed any orders on the petitioners application. 12. The learned senior counsel for the appellant would contend that the writ petitioners/respondents herein have availed the concession extended for setting up an exclusive womens college. The conversion fee of Rs.25,000/- had also been remitted to the respondent on 30.01.2010. However, the respondent had not passed any orders on the petitioners application. 12. The learned senior counsel for the appellant would contend that the writ petitioners/respondents herein have availed the concession extended for setting up an exclusive womens college. But, at the time of passing the common order in the writ petitions, since two other cases were also disposed of by the learned single Judge, where those two writ petitioners have not availed any concessions, it was so recorded that the respondents herein have not availed any concession or they have not sought for relaxation of rules, which is factually incorrect. Even in that case, the learned single Judge has only directed the respondents to consider the representation of the respondents herein. 13. The learned senior counsel further stated that in so far as the appeal, which arise out of WP No. 7065 of 2010 is concerned, by letter dated June 2, 2008, AICTE has stated as under:- "As per the Regulations notified by the Council vide F.No.37-3/Legal/ 2004 dated 14th September 2006 and norms, standards, procedures and conditions prescribed by the council from time to time and based on the recommendations of the Expert Committee and EC Sub-Committee, I am directed to convey the approval fo the council to Paramasivam Palanisamy Charitable Trust, 119, Bhavani Road, Erode for establishment of Maharaja Engineering College for Women, Erode Road, Perundurai Pin 638 052 for conduct of the following courses and intake. S.No. Name of Course Intake 1. Computer Science & Engineering 90 2. Electronics & Communicatin Engineering 90 3. Information Technology 60 4. Electrical & Electronics Engineering 60 300 Note: The approval is valid for two years from the date of issue of this letter for getting affiliation with respective University and fulfilling State Government requirements of admission. 14. The learned senior counsel for the appellants also brought to our notice that by letter dated 30.06.2009, the respondents institution namely Maharaja Engineering College for Women was given a revised intake for the year 2009-2010 on the basis of the application made by the institution for enhancing the intake for the existing courses and adding M.B.A. as a new course with an intake of 60 seats. In the first year namely academic year 2008-09, the institution was granted approval with intake of 300 students, but the respondent could only admit 157 students only leaving 143 seats unfilled. It is not known that even though the respondents could not fill up the sanctioned strength for the first year, in which 50% of the seats remained unfilled, how they applied for additional seats and sought for additional course as well. Therefore, the respondents are aware that their college, in future, would have adequate student strength and also the need for additional courses. Having obtained such an additional course as well as increase in accommodation, suddenly, by a letter dated 14.10.2009, the respondents sent a communication to the appellant herein stating that in the first year, they could not fill up 50% of the intake, but in the second year namely 2009-2010, they could only fill up 61 out of 121 seats in B.E., Electronics and Communication Engineering and they could not fill up even one seat in any other courses and there is a vacancy of 359 seats, which is more than 85% of the sanctioned strength and therefore sought for conversion of their college into one of Co-education college. They have also stated that they have already put up necessary building space and got land facility, laboratory, book facilities etc., which are required for establishing of a co-education college. The letter was given by the College only on 14.10.2009 and it was forwarded by the Southern Regional Office on 21.10.2009 and received by AICTE on 22.10.2009. Since the request for conversion was not considered, the College has filed WP No. 26035 of 2009 before this Court for a Mandamus. By order dated 23.12.2009, this Court directed AICTE to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.10.2009 and pass orders thereon. Pursuant to such direction, an order dated 19.03.2010 was passed by AICTE wherein, it was clearly stated that the executive committee of AICTE, in the meeting held on 06.10.2009 itself has taken a decision regarding conversion of women institute to co-educational institute, as follows:- "The Executive committee noted that AICTE has a scheme to grant approval to institutions exclusively for women based on certain relaxed norms with all the objects to promote education for women and granted approvals to a number of institutions under this scheme. The Executive Committee observed that if the proposals to convert these institutions exclusively for women on relaxed norms into co-educational institutions are entertained and accepted, it shall defeat the very objective of the scheme. Further, such practice i.e., to start the institutions as a women institute to avail the benefit of relaxed norms and thereafter convert it into a co-educational institution may not be ethically healthy practice. It was therefore decided that in future no proposal to convert a women institution into a co-educational institution should be entertained. The Executive Committee has resolved that henceforth the Letter of Approvals, in case of fresh approvals for women institution, should have a clear condition that it cannot be converted into a co-educational institution at any stage. The Executive Committee also directed to dispose off the pending proposals for conversion of Women Institution to coeducational institutions accordingly. 15. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the decision of the appellant/AICTE is a policy decision and any direction issued, contrary to such a decision taken by the AICTE, would amount to compelling the statutory body to give a go-by to its policies. Moreover, the respondents, having admittedly availed certain concessions, cannot be permitted to turn around and seek for conversion of the college into one of co-educational institution and prayed for allowing the writ appeals. 16. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent in WA No. 1105 of 2010 would contend that the respondent institution has satisfied the requisite norms without any relaxation iand therefore they can admit both male and female students. Therefore, a blanket policy decision, as taken in this case by AICTE to ban conversion of women college into co-education college is arbitrary and illegal. The appellant/AICTE failed to note that during the last two academic year, the substantial seats remain unfilled and under those circumstance, an application for conversion has been filed by the respondents for converting the colleges into a co-educational colleges. There is no impediment or embargo for the appellant to permit the respondents to convert the women college into a co-educational college. When there are substantial number of seats remained vacant or unfilled, the respondents legitimate expectation to fill those unfilled seats by admitting male students cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. There is no impediment or embargo for the appellant to permit the respondents to convert the women college into a co-educational college. When there are substantial number of seats remained vacant or unfilled, the respondents legitimate expectation to fill those unfilled seats by admitting male students cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. In the approval granted to the respondents college, no where it is stated that the colleges are disentitled to get conversion of the college for women into one of co-education college and therefore, the request of the respondents for conversion is legal and valid. Under those circumstances, the order passed by the learned single Judge is well founded and prayed for dismissal of the writ appeals. 17. We have heard the counsel for both sides. In the counter filed in the writ petition, AICTE has clearly stated that concession was given to the colleges exclusively established for women. The concession are in the form of reducing the extent of land, amount into half so that the feasibility of establishing or setting up women colleges or institution near the city or town where there is a dense human settlement would be more and thereby the women student need not be subject to extensive travel at a long distance. Further, even the deposit amount was reduced so as to enable the persons like the respondents to take up the task of setting up the institution exclusively for women at the earliest point of time. The respondents, having availed such concessions, it is not open to them to now turn around and say that they are not able to meet the necessary students strength and seek for conversion on that ground. 18. It is seen from the records that the respondents institution, immediately after getting approval in the year 2008-2009 had applied to AICTE seeking for enhancement of intake of seats in all branches and also additional course in M.B.A. If really the respondents institution was under the impression that the women folk are not taking up the course, they would not have sought for additional intake of seats and for additional course without knowing the ground realities. After successive failure on the part of the respondents to fill up the sanctioned strength of seats, for the first time, a representation was made on 14.10.2009 and it was sent to the regional office on 21.10.2009. After successive failure on the part of the respondents to fill up the sanctioned strength of seats, for the first time, a representation was made on 14.10.2009 and it was sent to the regional office on 21.10.2009. Even before such representation was received, AICTE, in its executive committee meeting held on 06.10.2009 passed a resolution that if any proposal to convert the institution, which are exclusively established for women, is received, it shall not be entertained as it will defeat the very object of the scheme for setting up exclusive womens college. AICTE also resolved that such an exercise, if it is allowed, it may not be a worthy practice besides it will be unethical. The respondents, having come to know of this resolution, which was passed on 06.10.2009, have sent a representation. Since no order has been passed on their representation, they approached this Court by filing a writ petition for Mandamus. In that writ petition, by virtue of a direction issued by this Court, the representation was sought to be disposed of. Thereafter, by an order dated 19.03.2010, the respondents were informed about the decision taken by the AICTE on 06.10.2009 and a copy of the same was also enclosed. In the said order dated 19.03.2010, it was stated that in view of the decision of the Executive Committee of AICTE, it is informed that the proposal for conversion of women institution to coeducational institute cannot be acceded to as the representation dated 14.10.2009 is after the decision of the Executive Committee of AICTE dated 06.10.2009. 19. In the decision taken by AICTE on 06.10.2009, it is clearly stated that even the executive committee has directed to dispose of the pending proposals for conversion of women college into a Co-education college as per the resolution. It was also resolved by AICTE that in future, even in the approval, it should be clearly noted that it is not open for a college, to which approval was granted to exclusively for setting up womens college, to seek for conversion. Therefore, the challenge made by the respondents institutions in the writ petition against the resolution passed by AICTE on the ground that it affects their fundamental rights is legally not sustainable. Therefore, the challenge made by the respondents institutions in the writ petition against the resolution passed by AICTE on the ground that it affects their fundamental rights is legally not sustainable. Even in the grounds of writ petitions, it was stated that the respondents would no longer continue to avail the concession extended to the institutions which exclusively establish college for women. Therefore, it is clear that the respondents have availed the concession for establishing the women college and under those circumstances, it is not open to them to seek for conversion. When AICTE has taken a policy decision relating to non-conversion or not to entertain any request for conversion, the relief sought for by the respondents in the writ petition is unsustainable in law. If really the respondents institution wants to set up a co-education college, they can do so by submitting necessary application for approval to start such co-education institution afresh, but they are restrained from converting the existing institution, which was exclusively set up for imparting education for women folk. 20. The learned senior counsel for the respondents in W.A. No. 1105 of 2010 relied on the decision of a single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court made in (Shree Siddhivinayak Educational Trust vs. State of Haryana and others) C.W.P. No. 8318 of 2009 dated 15.07.2009 and pointed out that a similar request made by the petitioner therein was turned down by AICTE and challenging the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition and the learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the decision of AICTE. It is seen from that judgment the learned single Judge of the Punjah and Haryana High Court held that no Rules, Regulations or norms or policy decision has been brought to his notice with regard to the conversion of the girls institutions into co-education institution and on that ground, the decision of the AICTE was set aside. The said judgment was rendered on 15.07.2009 and on that date, admittedly, the impugned resolution dated 06.10.2009 of the AICTE was not passed. Therefore, on the date when the decision was rendered by the learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the decision dated 06.10.2009 was not made. The said judgment was rendered on 15.07.2009 and on that date, admittedly, the impugned resolution dated 06.10.2009 of the AICTE was not passed. Therefore, on the date when the decision was rendered by the learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the decision dated 06.10.2009 was not made. Under those circumstance, the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, relied on by the learned senior counsel for the respondent in WA No. 1105 of 2010, cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case. 21. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, when there are two kinds of norms in respect of approval for institution for women and co-education and when there is specific concession given to the respondents institution for setting up exclusive women college and the same was also admittedly availed by the respondents, the writ petitions filed by the respondents cannot be entertained. 22. It is seen from the records that the learned single Judge disposed of four writ petitions by the common order dated 16.04.2010. Out of the four petitioners, admittedly, two writ petitioners have availed certain concession for setting up exclusive college for women and they are before us as respondents. The other two writ petitioners before the learned single Judge have not availed any concession. While passing the common order, the learned single Judge has stated that the writ petitioners have not availed any concession, meaning thereby, all the writ petitioners before the learned single Judge have not availed any concession, which is factually incorrect. Therefore, as against the common order dated 16.04.2010, the appellants have filed the present writ appeals only as against WP Nos. 5973 of 2010 and 7065 of 2010 mainly on the ground that the respondents have availed certain concessions and therefore it is not open to them to seek for conversion. No appeal has been filed as against the other two writ petitions by AICTE. In any event, AICTE has taken a policy decision not to entertain applications for conversion of women college into co-education college, especially those who have availed certain concessions, which cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. The writ petitioner has not made out any case at all to declare the decision of the appellant/first respondent council at the executive committee meeting dated 06.10.2009 as void. The writ petitioner has not made out any case at all to declare the decision of the appellant/first respondent council at the executive committee meeting dated 06.10.2009 as void. Hence, the WP No. 7065 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed. 23. In W.A. No. 1105 of 2010 arising out of WP No. 5973 of 2010, the respondent has only sought for a Mandamus directing the respondents therein to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 30.01.2010 seeking permission to convert the womens college into one of Co-education college from the academic year 2010-2011. Such a conversion was sought by sending a representation dated 30.01.2010 on the ground that substantial number of seats out of the sanctioned strength remain vacant. The said representation dated 30.01.2010 is much after the AICTE has taken a policy decision not to entertain any such application for conversion of women colleges into one of co-educational colleges. When this Court has upheld the policy decision taken by the AICTE as valid and legal, the Mandamus sought for by the respondent in WP No. 5973 of 2010 cannot be granted. 24. In the result, we set aside the order passed by the learned single judge and allow both the writ appeals. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.