JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. The petitioner, a trust registered under the provision of the Bombay Public Trust Act, is engaged in managing educational institutions including the institute (Lokmanya College) which intends to offer Bachelor level degree course in Business Administration ("B.B.A.", for short). The petitioner is, as such, aggrieved by the order dated 15.6.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 University whereby the University declined to grant affiliation to the said institute (hereinafter referred to as the "college") of the petitioner trust on the ground that the college does not fulfill the requirements prescribed by University Grant Commission ("UGC" or "Commission" for short) under UGC (Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) Regulations 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "2009 Regulations"). Besides seeking relief against the said grievance, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s : "22 (A) .......declaring the U.G.C. (affiliation of colleges by Universities), Regulations 2009 as ultravires and inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956. (B)......declaring the U.G.C. (affiliation of colleges by Universities), Regulations 2009 as is not having any overriding effect over the provisions of Gujarat University Act, 1949. (C)......declaring the retrospective implementation of U.G.C. (affiliation of colleges by Universities), Regulations 2009 as arbitrary, discriminative and contrary to the provisions of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956. (D).....quashing and setting aside order/communication dated 15.6.2010 issued by Gujarat University against the petitioner by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and be further college at part with other affiliated college. (E)..... to (I)......" 2. Heard Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. V.D. Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 University and Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State, Mr. M.K. Shelat learned advocate has entered appearance for respondent No. 3 UGC. Having regard to the rival contentions, and perused the record, Rule. The learned advocates for the respondents have waived service of Notice of Rule. With the consent of the learned advocates, the petition is heard for final decision. 3. M.K. Shelat learned advocate has entered appearance for respondent No. 3 UGC. Having regard to the rival contentions, and perused the record, Rule. The learned advocates for the respondents have waived service of Notice of Rule. With the consent of the learned advocates, the petition is heard for final decision. 3. The relevant facts may be summarized thus:- 3.1 The petitioner claims that it is engaged in the activity of imparting education and had applied for affiliation of its said college (BBA course) for the academic year 2002-2003, with the respondent No.2 University which was rejected vide order dated 5.8.2002. 3.2 Almost four years after the aforesaid order dated 5.8.2002 the petitioner again applied for affiliation for its said college vide its communication dated 29.12.2006, for the academic year 2007-2008 and then vide communication dated 17.4.2007 the petitioner reiterated the request. 3.3 It appears from the record that in the meanwhile the meeting of the Committee of the university was held on 13.4.2007 to take decision about the applications seeking affiliation (year 2007-2008). In the said meeting, after considering all applications, including petitioner's application, it was decided that any affiliation for B.B.A. colleges in the developed area of Ahmedabad shall not be granted and the application for affiliation for colleges in semi developed area, under developed area of Ahmedabad and the rural area shall be considered. It also emerges from the record that in view of the said decision the petitioner's aforesaid application (for 2007-2008) did not qualify for affiliation and that therefore the fee deposited by the petitioner was returned. 3.4 After its said letter dated 17.4.2007 the petitioner remained passive for almost 2 years and then as if the university had not taken any decision regarding the aforesaid application seeking affiliation for 2007-2008, in 2009 it addressed a letter dated 2.6.2009. 3.5 In response, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 3.6.2009 by the University that all the applications received by the University for affiliation of B.B.A. colleges for the academic year 2007-2008, including petitioner's application, were placed for consideration and decision before the Committee in the meeting of the Committee held on 13.4.2007. The said letter dated 3.6.2009 also mentioned the aforesaid (para 3.3) policy decision and that affiliation to any B.B.A. College was not granted (page 32) and the affiliation fee paid by petitioner had been already returned to the petitioner. The said letter dated 3.6.2009 also mentioned the aforesaid (para 3.3) policy decision and that affiliation to any B.B.A. College was not granted (page 32) and the affiliation fee paid by petitioner had been already returned to the petitioner. The said policy decision has not been challenged in this petition. 3.6 The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said decision of the respondent-University. It is pertinent that in its Appeal-Memo (dated 9.6.2009) the petitioner had requested that its application seeking affiliation may be treated as application seeking affiliation for the year 2009-2010. 3.7 After considering the appeal, the respondent No.1, by its order dated 8.7.2009, remanded the matter to the University. After the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a writ petition being SCA No.4185 of 2010 which was dismissed by order dated 7.5.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Misc. Civil Application No.1301 of 2010 wherein the order dated 13.5.2010 was passed. The relevant directions read thus:- "4.....we direct the University to decide the question of grant of affiliation to the petitioner - College by 15th June, 2010..... The Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of." (emphasis supplied) 3.8 In view of the order dated 13.5.2010 a meeting of the University's Committee was held on 8.6.2010 wherein it was resolved to constitute a Local Inspection Committee (the "Committee" for short). In pursuance of such decision the Committee, comprising four members, was constituted and it was instructed to carry out inspection of the infrastructure and other facilities in the proposed college in light of 2009 Regulations and to submit its report. The said committee carried out the inspection (in presence of petitioner's representative) of the college on 9/6/2010 and submitted its report dated 10.06.2010 wherein the Committee mentioned several deficiencies in the infrastructural facilities in view of which the committee submitted negative opinion. Then, upon considering the said report, and on its basis, the university passed the impugned order dated 15.6.2010 declining to grant affiliation to the petitioner's college. Hence, present petition. The petitioner moved draft amendment dated 30.9.2010 4. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's application (December 2006/April 2007) seeking affiliation for the college was left unattended for long time and was decided in June-2010 by applying 2009 Regulations. Hence, present petition. The petitioner moved draft amendment dated 30.9.2010 4. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's application (December 2006/April 2007) seeking affiliation for the college was left unattended for long time and was decided in June-2010 by applying 2009 Regulations. He submitted that the provision requiring ownership of land has been retrospectively applied, which is impermissible, instead it should have been decided in light of the provisions which were prevailing on the date of application. He also submitted that the university has granted affiliation to various institutes without insisting for compliance of said condition resulting into discrimination against the petitioner. Reliance is placed on unreported decision dated 7.7.1990 in LPA No. 435 of 1998. 4.1 Per contra, Mr. Shelat, learned Senior Counsel for the University submitted that the University is statutorily obliged to apply UGC directions, including the rules framed by UGC in the matter of affiliation to the colleges. He further submitted that the committee found the petitioner wanting in fulfilling not only the requirement prescribed under Rule 3.1.1 of 2009 Regulation but several other infirmities and deficiencies (narrated in the report dated 10.6.2010) were also noticed by the Committee. Mr. Shelat also submitted that the impugned order dated 15.6.2010 is passed after taking into consideration the said report dated 10.6.2010. He submitted that the date when such application is taken-up for decision/is decided would be the relevant date and the Rules prevailing on such relevant date will be applicable, hence the University has not committed any mistake in deciding petitioner's application in light of the provision prevailing at the relevant time. Mr. Shelat relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case between State of Tamilnadu v. M/s. Hind Stone etc. [ AIR 1981 SC 711 ], judgment in the case between T. Vijayalakshmi and others v. Town Planning Member and another [ AIR 2007 SC 25 ] and the judgment in the case between Laxmi Sharma and others v. Vice Chancellor, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj, University [ AIR 2006 SC 3619 ]. 4.2 Despite the process of Notice having been served on all respondents including U.G.C. (respondent No.3) and inspite of the fact that in the petition, the petitioner has challenged 2009 Regulations unfortunately respondent No.3-U.G.C. has, even after entering appearance, chosen to not to make any submissions or to even file any reply-affidavit. 4.2 Despite the process of Notice having been served on all respondents including U.G.C. (respondent No.3) and inspite of the fact that in the petition, the petitioner has challenged 2009 Regulations unfortunately respondent No.3-U.G.C. has, even after entering appearance, chosen to not to make any submissions or to even file any reply-affidavit. Re: Application and Applicable Rules : - 5. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the petitioner has claimed that its application seeking affiliation for the academic year 2007- 2008 remained unattended and undecided for long time, until the impugned order dated 15.06.2010 came to be passed. However, from conjoint reading of the respondent University's two replies-one dated 3.6.2009 addressed to the petitioner (page 32/Annexure-B) and another dated 3.7.2009 addressed to the respondent No.2 (page 38/Annexure 'D') it comes out that the petitioner's application was considered (with other applications) and disallowed/not accepted in view of the policy decision in the meeting held on 13.4.2007 and the said decision was ratified by the Executive Council in the meeting held on 5.5.2007. The petitioner's application fee was also returned. 5.1 In this context, it is pertinent to note that in the appeal preferred by the petitioner in June, 2009 (i.e. about two years against the said decision) the petitioner had requested and stipulated in the memo dated 9.6.2009 that its application be treated as application seeking affiliation for 2009-10. In view of such specific request, the said application would no more be, and would not continue to be nor the petitioner can claim it to be the application for affiliation for 2007-2008 but in view of its own stipulation in the appeal memo the said application was converted into and it had to be treated as application seeking affiliation for 2009-10. 5.2 Thus, when (a) the petitioner's application seeking affiliation (for 2007-08) was actually considered by the Committee of the respondent University in the meeting held on 13.4.2007 and was not granted in light of the policy decision and the "affiliation-application fee" was also refunded; and when (b) present petitioner had preferred appeal against the said decision after almost 2 years i.e. in June, 2009; and when (c) in its memo of its Appeal dated 9.6.2009, the petitioner trust itself, had requested that its application for affiliation should be treated as application for academic year 2009-2010, and when (d) the respondent State had remanded (in July 2009) the matter to university; then (i) any occasion or question of considering the application in light of the Rules prevailing and applicable in 2007-2008 would not arise or survive (ii) the claim that the application seeing affiliation remained unattended and undecided until the impugned decision dated 15.6.2010, would also not survive and (iii) the contention to the effect that the application should be decided as per the Rules prevailing in 2007 (i.e. on the date of application) and not 2009 Regulations, will not (and does not) have foundation and support of facts, particularly in view of its own stipulation in the appeal. In the aforesaid facts the said grievance of the petitioner is without merits and it must fail. 5.3 Having noticed that the facts of petitioner's do not support or justify its contention, we may, now, turn to the judicial precedents which would bring in light the legal position. The petitioner has relied on unreported judgment dated 07.07.1990 in LPA No.435 of 1988. In the cited case, much before the amendment in the Rules the entire selection process for the post of Armed Police Constable was concluded and the candidates also stood selected and the "select list" was already prepared/finalized before or on 31.12.1987 in accordance with the then prevailing Rules, whereas the relevant Rules came to be amended subsequently i.e. in February 1988. Inspite of such facts, the said select list, whose life was for 12 months i.e. until 31.12.1988, was cancelled in view of the amendment. Inspite of such facts, the said select list, whose life was for 12 months i.e. until 31.12.1988, was cancelled in view of the amendment. Whereas in the matter on hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that before the introduction of 2009 Regulations its application was already allowed and affiliation was finalized/granted in its favour, but it came to be cancelled after the introduction of and in view of 2009 Regulation. Actually, the petitioner's application was already rejected and against the said decision it had preferred appeal after 2 years. Since the facts of the cited case are materially different it will not help the petitioner in taking its case further, more particularly in view of the decisions mentioned below. 5.4 In this context, reference may be made to - (a) the judgment in the case between State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone [ AIR 1981 SC 711 ] wherein, while considering the rival contention in the backdrop of the application seeking renewal of lease and amendment in the relevant Rules [particularly insertion of Rule 8(C)] the Apex Court, in para 13 of the judgment, has observed thus:- "13. Another submission of the learned counsel in connection with the consideration of applications for renewal was that applications made sixty days or more before the date of G.O.Ms. No. 1312 (2-12-1977) should be dealt with as if Rule 8C had not come into force. It was also contended that even applications for grant of leases made long before the date of G.O.Ms. No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8C had not come into force. The submission was that it was not open to the Government to keep applications for the grant of leases and applications for renewal pending for a long time.... No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8C had not come into force. The submission was that it was not open to the Government to keep applications for the grant of leases and applications for renewal pending for a long time.... While it is true that such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable tune clothes an applicant for a lease with a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of the making o f the application ........an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt wit h according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that applications for the grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.O.Ms. No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8C did not exist. (emphasis supplied) (b) In the case between Union of India & Anr. v. Indian Charge Chrome [ (1999) 7 SCC 314 ] wherein the Apex Court considered the dispute, which had arisen in light of the provisions under Customs Act, observed that:- "mere making of an application for registration does not confer any vested right on the applicant. The application has to be decided in accordance with the law applicable in the date on which the authority granting the registration is called upon to apply its mind to the prayer for registration.". (emphasis supplied) (c) In the case between P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India ( AIR 1996 SC 3461 ) the Apex Court has, in para 4 and 5 of the judgment, observed that:- "4. An applicant has no vested right to have export or import licences in terms of the policies in force at the date of his making application.... 5. .....clear that grant of licence depends upon the policy prevailing as on the date of the grant of the licence. The Court, therefore, would not bind the Government with a policy which was existing on the date of application..... 5. .....clear that grant of licence depends upon the policy prevailing as on the date of the grant of the licence. The Court, therefore, would not bind the Government with a policy which was existing on the date of application..... We, therefore, hold that the petitioners have no vested or accrued right for the issuance of permits on the MEE or NQE, nor the Government is bound by its previous policy....." (emphasis supplied) (d) In the case between S.B. International Ltd. & Others v. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade [ 1996 (2) SCC 439 ] the Apex Court considered the issue as to whether any subsequent change in policy will be applicable to issuance of licences and in para 10 of the judgment, the Apex Court has observed:- "we are, therefore, of the opinion that the contention that a vested right accrues to an applicant for issuance of advance licence on the basis of the norm obtaining on the date of application is unacceptable.." (emphasis supplied) (e) In the case between Chief of Marketing (Marketing Division) Coal India Limited v. Mewat Chemicals & Tiny S.S.I. Coal Pulverising Unit ( 2004 (4) SCC 146 ] : AIR 2004 SC 2640 , the Apex Court, in para 16 observed that:- 16. In our view, the High Court was also in error in concluding that the position prevailing on the date of the application must apply. It is settled law that there is no vested right when a person makes an application. The position prevailing at the time the allotment is to apply...." (emphasis supplied) (f) In the case between T. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. Town Planning Member & Anr. [ AIR 2007 SC 25 ] the Apex Court has in para 18 of the judgment observed that:- "it is, thus, now well settled law that an application for grant of permission for construction of a building is required to be decided in accordance with law applicable on the day on which such permission is granted. However, a statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within reasonable time." (emphasis supplied) (g) Narayanbhai Ramabhai v. State of Gujarat [ 1985 (1) GLR 531 ] wherein the learned Single Judge rejected the said contention and observed that: "...if, during the pendency of the application, the earlier guidelines got rescinded it cannot be said that any vested right of the petitioner got affected. Merely because of the application was filed earlier, the petitioners cannot insist that this application should be considered only in the light of the earlier guidelines and not in the light of the subsequent guidelines which comes to operate by the time of application comes up for consideration on merits. The authority while deciding the question of granting exemption under Section 20(i)(a) has to keep in view all the relevant guidelines applicable at the time the question comes up for consideration. Mere filing of application gives no vested right to the applicant to get exemption in the light of the then existing guidelines which do not exist by the time the application comes up for decision. If the earlier guidelines have been uniformly withdrawn all pending applications which have to be decided in the light of the fresh guidelines which may be holding the field on the date of the decision. If that is not done the competent authority would get exposed to the charge of considering old and stale guidelines ignoring the current and applicable guidelines and its decision would be rendered arbitrary and illegal..." (emphasis supplied) 5.5 When a statute or the Rules thereunder impose obligation to secure a licence or a permit or recognition, or affiliation from the Competent Authority or a body (e.g. municipality, university, school board etc.) before commencing any activity and the commencement of any activity or business or a vocation is, by law, regulated and/or made subject to the permission or the licence or affiliation or recognition then such pre-conditions or requirements (mandated to be coupled with for obtaining permission/affiliation/recognition) which are prescribed and prevailing on the date when the application (for licence/permit/recognition/affiliation) is decided, will be applicable. 5.6. Besides the aforesaid aspects, in view of the provisions under the UGC Act and the Act of 1949-particularly Section 33 thereof-a university is required to take in consideration various aspects (e.g. whether the proposed college will supply the need in the area or not and it has adequate infrastructure and duly qualified staff or not etc.) while deciding application for affiliation and it may, for a given and valid reason (illustratively speaking-if it found that the proposed college will not supply the need in the area or it does not have qualified faculty) reject the application. Thus, the authority is supposed to actively and constructive apply mind and take an informed and judicious decision. Thus, the authority is supposed to actively and constructive apply mind and take an informed and judicious decision. Therefore also it would be the contemporaneous status of the aforesaid and such other relevant aspects (i.e. the status of the aspects existing at the time when application is considered/decided) which would be relevant while considering and deciding application for affiliation. Therefore also the provision holding the field on the date of the decision would be relevant applicable otherwise i.e. if such application is not decided in light of the guidelines/rules applicable, and holding the field, on the date of the decision then, as held by the Apex Court, the authority would get exposed to the charge of considering old and stale guidelines ignoring the current and applicable guidelines. Furthermore, mere submission of application would not and does not create any right in favour of the applicant. 5.7 In view of the facts of present case and in light of the above referred decisions we cannot accept the petitioner's contention that the application seeking affiliation should be considered in light of the provision prevailing when the application is made and not when the application is decided. Re: Inspection Report/Order dated 15.06.2010. 6. Now, we may turn to the challenge against the decision dated 15.6.2010. The petitioner has, assailed the said order as if it is based-passed on the solitary ground of non compliance of the requirement regarding ownership of land; whereas, on examination of the said order, it comes out that while passing the said order and rejecting the petitioner's application, the University has taken into account the entire report and all the remarks made by the inspection committee. 6.1 On this count it is also pertinent to note that the noncompliance regarding ownership of land is not the solitary deficiency or shortfall noticed (and mentioned in its report) by the committee and/or on account of which the committee did not recommend the petitioner's case but in its inspection report the committee enumerated various deficiencies and/or short-fall, instances of non-compliance of the prescribed requirements, diverse objectionable or impermissible features about the premises and the fact about different courses being conducted in the very same building, in light of which the committee formed the opinion that the application did not deserve acceptance. This is evident from a glance at the report wherein it is recorded that :- "1.... 2.... 3. This is evident from a glance at the report wherein it is recorded that :- "1.... 2.... 3. We took a round of the various floors of the building. We were told that some part of the building is owned by the Trust while some part is leased for 30 years. 4. The trust is currently conducting B.Com., BCA, B.Ed. programmes is being conducted in the morning (from 7.30 am to 11.30 am). The programme is affiliated to Gujarat University. 5. The BCA programme is being conducted after the morning session of B.Com. This programme is also affiliated to Gujarat University. 6. The B.Ed. programme, affiliated to SNDT University, and the PTC course which were being conducted in the same building, are now being shifted to another building, as stated by Shri Thakkar. 7. The Trust intends to conduct the proposed BBA programme in the same building after 11.30 a.m. i.e., after the conclusion of the morning session of B.Com. Course. 8..... 9..... 10. As stated above the Trust does not fulfill most of the UGC guidelines and hence the committee is unable to recommend the request of the trust for grant of affiliation." (emphasis supplied) 6.2 Having regard to all of the aforesaid remarks in the committee's report the respondent University declined the request of the petitioner vide its order dated 15.6.2010. It becomes clear from conjoint reading of the report and the order that the non-compliance of Rule 3.1.1 is not the only and solitary reason/deficiency taken into account by the committee and the university. This is evident from the remark in the report that:- "....the Trust does not fulfill most of the UGC guidelines and hence the committee is unable to recommend the request of....." (emphasis supplied) 6.3 It is equally pertinent to note that either in the petition and/or during the hearing the petitioner has not assailed the remarks or observations pertaining to infrastructure in the inspection committee's report dated 10.6.2010 (Page-87). 6.4 In this backdrop it cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the decision of the University (taken on the basis of the details noted in the report) is unjustified or incorrect or illegal or arbitrary. The petitioner has failed to make out any case against the university's decision dated 15.06.2010. 6.4 In this backdrop it cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the decision of the University (taken on the basis of the details noted in the report) is unjustified or incorrect or illegal or arbitrary. The petitioner has failed to make out any case against the university's decision dated 15.06.2010. Thus even if one of the various reasons or grounds leading to the final decision rejecting the application (i.e. the non-compliance of the condition regarding ownership of land) were to be set aside, then also the impugned order, which is, as noted above, not based merely on any solitary deficiency or noncompliance but is based on and is justifiable and sustainable in light of, various features and aspects mentioned in the inspection report does not, in our view, deserve to be interfered with and the petitioner, cannot succeed in its challenge against such order. We are, therefore, not convinced and not inclined to set aside the impugned decision dated 15.06.2010. Re :- Discrimination 7. The next contention raised by the petitioner is on the ground of discrimination. The petitioner has made vague averments and allegations. The petitioner has alleged that while the petitioner has been denied affiliation the respondent university has granted affiliation to an institute managed by Akhil Aanjanaa Kelavani Mandal, Gadhinagar, and thereby the university has acted discriminatingly. The petitioner has, however, conveniently not stated, in clear terms, the relevant details, i.e. about the extent of land owned (or otherwise) by the said other institute. By draft amendment dated 30.9.2010 the petition is sought to be amended. In the amendment it is alleged that 8 B.B.A. Colleges (un-named) 1 B.Com College (un-named) has been granted affiliation without demanding compliance of Rule 3.1.1. However, there also any relevant details of the colleges allegedly granted affiliation and/or the factors establishing comparability, have not been mentioned. The petitioner has, alleged discrimination without stating relevant details (e.g. the location, the area-whether metro or non-metro in which the said institute is situate, extent of land owned (or not owned) by them etc.) about the said institutes and/or how the petitioner's college and the said institutes are similarly placed and how are they comparable, are not mentioned. There is nothing on record to convince us to even assume that the petitioner's college is, in all respect, identically placed and is comparable with, the cited instance or the said other un-named colleges. There is nothing on record to convince us to even assume that the petitioner's college is, in all respect, identically placed and is comparable with, the cited instance or the said other un-named colleges. 7.1 So as to carry further the allegation on the ground of discrimination, the petitioner has also alleged that "not a single college affiliated with the University is meeting with the norms prescribed by U.G.C.". It is pertinent that the petitioner obviously cannot compare its case with the institutes which were granted affiliation before 2009 Regulations came in force (since at the relevant time the applicable Regulations did not mandate such requirement). On the other hand the petitioner has conveniently not given any details about the names and/or numbers of the institutes which are or can be said to be identically placed in terms of location and are not meeting with the requirements prescribed by 2009 Regulations and yet University has granted affiliation to them (to such institutes) after 2009 Regulations came in operation. 7.2 The petitioner has not established any ingredient necessary to establish the alleged discrimination, hence the said contention cannot be entertained, much less upheld. In absence of specific details, (supported by some relevant material) and merely on bald averments, the petitioner cannot convincingly, much less successfully, drive home its aforesaid allegations. Thus, this submission also must fail. Furthermore, the Article 14 of the Constitution of India is, and it inheres, a positive concept and the said principle underlying Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for negative comparison and/or benefit and one error or one wrong cannot be cited or relied on for inviting repetition of or for justifying repetition of such error or a wrong. The said submissions and the contentions, therefore, must fail. Re: Section 28 of U.G.C. Act and Retrospective effect 8. Now, coming to the contention that 2009 Regulations have been put in motion in breach of the mandate under Section 28 of U.G.C. Act, it deserves to be noted that while the petitioner has raised said contention, it has, however, failed to make out a case which would bring it within the purview of the said Section 28 of UGC Act, and has also failed to demonstrate how the alleged breach is committed. If one takes a look at the said Section 28 of UGC Act, it can be noticed that the first part of the said Section postulates that the regulations made under UGC Act must be placed before each House of Parliament for 30 days and if both the Houses agree to make any modification or if both the houses agree that the rules shall not be made, then it shall have effect accordingly or shall be of no effect. Whereas, the second part of the said section pertains to the retrospective effect of any rule framed by the Commission. The petitioner has not even clarified which part of the provision is not complied with. 8.1 So far as the first part is concerned, it is pertinent that there is nothing on record, to establish that before its publication the regulations were not laid before both the Houses of Parliament. This is coupled with the conspicuous absence of any material (e.g. a summary or an index of the matters placed for debate or copy of the agenda of the business before the Houses of Parliament) to demonstrate, even prima facie, that the requirement is not complied with. In absence of any clear assertion and/or material neither the breach of the provision can be assumed nor the contention can be examined on the base of vague averments. Furthermore, in view of the fact that 2009 Regulations have been published in the gazette on 20.02.2010, the negative position viz. breach of the requirement(s) prescribed by the Section 28 of UGC Act cannot be presumed. 8.2 Now, so far as the second part of the provision and allegation that 2009 Regulations are applied retrospectively are concerned, it deserves to be noted that the impugned Regulations came to be notified in the Gazette on 20.2.2010 and the Rule No.1.3 thereof provides that "they shall come into force with immediate effect". Furthermore, there is no provision or rather there is clear absence of provision under 2009 Regulations giving it even impliedly, retrospective effect. The facts of the case also give out that even the university has also not applied the impugned Rule retrospectively. Furthermore, there is no provision or rather there is clear absence of provision under 2009 Regulations giving it even impliedly, retrospective effect. The facts of the case also give out that even the university has also not applied the impugned Rule retrospectively. In this context, it may be recalled that (i) the petitioner itself had requested to treat its application as an application seeking affiliation for 2009-10 and (ii) the decision on the application was taken on 15.6.2010 pursuant to the report dated 10.6.2010 i.e. much after 2009 Regulations came into force (published on 20.2.2010). It, thus, becomes clear from the aforesaid fact situation and from the reading of said Rule 1.3 that 2009 Regulations are not retrospective and/or have not been implemented retrospectively. 8.3 Besides this, such question would not arise when it is noticed that the relevant date would be the date on which the application seeking affiliation is taken up for decision, more so when, the petitioner itself had requested to treat its application for year 2009-2010. Thus the contention does not merit consideration and it fails. Re : 2009 Regulation and Act of 1949 9. So far as the contention to the effect that 2009 Regulations cannot have overriding effect over the provisions of Act of 1949 is concerned, it is necessary to take into account Section 33 of the Act of 1949. A glance at the said section would show that the contention is devoid of merits. The relevant part of the section reads thus:- "33. (1) A college applying for a affiliation to the University shall send a letter of application to the Registrar, not later than 31st March of the year preceding the year in which the college is proposed to be started: Provided that..... (2) On receipt of the letter, the Executive Council shall, in consultation with the Academic Council and after giving to the College an opportunity of stating its case, determine....the suitability of the locality where the college is to be established;...... (3) ..... (4) (a) Where the Executive Council determines under sub-section (2) that there is no need of the college .... may make an appeal to the State Government.... (b) The State Government shall decide the appeal.... (5) On receipt of the Communication of decision that the College will supply a need in the locality the college shall be required to fulfill the following conditions namely:- (a)...... may make an appeal to the State Government.... (b) The State Government shall decide the appeal.... (5) On receipt of the Communication of decision that the College will supply a need in the locality the college shall be required to fulfill the following conditions namely:- (a)...... (b) that the strength and qualification of the teaching staff and the conditions governing their tenure of office and ....; (c) that the building in which the college is or is to be located is suitable and that provision, has been or shall be made, in conformity with the Ordinance, for the residence in the college or in lodgings approved by the college, of students not residing with their parents....; (d) that due provision is made or shall be made for a library; (e) where affiliation is sought in any branch of experimental science, that arrangements have been or shall be made in conformity with the Statutes Ordinances and Regulations for imparting instruction in that branch of science in a properly equipped laboratory or museum; (f) that due provision is made as far as circumstances permit, for the residence of the Principal and other members of the teaching staff in or near the college or the place provided for the residence of students; (k) such other conditions as may be specified in the statutes in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (6) On receipt of communications from the college that the conditions referred to in sub-section (5) have been fulfilled, the Executive Council shall- (a) to (c)..... (7) to (10)...." 9.1 It can be seen that the said section confers wide power to the university to prescribe even more demanding conditions to be complied with by the institute seeking affiliation. The provisions under the UGC Act, particularly Section 14 thereof obliges the university to comply the instructions issued and the Regulations made by the commission. (7) to (10)...." 9.1 It can be seen that the said section confers wide power to the university to prescribe even more demanding conditions to be complied with by the institute seeking affiliation. The provisions under the UGC Act, particularly Section 14 thereof obliges the university to comply the instructions issued and the Regulations made by the commission. When the Act of 1949 allows more room and power to the university to prescribe more stringent and demanding requirements, as conditions to be complied with for affiliation than what is prescribed by 2009 Regulations, particularly Rule No.3.1.1 and when the Section 33 even contains a residuary clause [Clause(5) (k)] which empowers the university to specify "such other" conditions requiring the college(s) seeking affiliation to fulfill those (i.e. such other) conditions as well, and; above all, when the said section and/or the Act of 1949 do not contain any provision contrary to the Rule 3.1.1 of 2009 Regulations, then the question of 2009 Regulations, and particularly the Rule 3.1.1, having overriding effect over the provision of the Act of 1949 does not arise and it cannot be said that the said Rule wields overriding effect over the Act of 1949, more particularly because there is no conflict between the two since any contrary provision does not exist in the Act of 1949. This aspect becomes clear when 2009 Regulations and Sections 12, 12A, 14 and 26 of UGC Act are read conjointly or in juxtaposition with Section 33 of the Act of 1949. Besides the aforesaid aspects, it is pertinent to note that the contention conveniently overlooks the provision under Clause 3.1. The said provision inter-alia mandates that:- "3.1 The proposed college seeking affiliation, at the time of inspection by the university, shall satisfy the following requirements, or the requirements in respect of any of them prescribed by the Statutory/Regulatory body concerned, whichever is higher." (emphasis supplied)" According to the said provision whichever requirement between the requirements prescribed by the statutory body and those prescribed vide 2009 Regulations is higher, shall have to be complied by the college seeking affiliation. This is besides the point that 2009 Regulations are farmed in exercise of power conferred on the Commission by the UGC Act which is a Central Act and has been enacted subsequent to the Act of 1949. This is besides the point that 2009 Regulations are farmed in exercise of power conferred on the Commission by the UGC Act which is a Central Act and has been enacted subsequent to the Act of 1949. 9.2 In view of all aforesaid aspects and in light of wider range and scope of Section 33 of the Act of 1949, it follows that the said contention is devoid of substance and merits and is unsustainable. We must, therefore, hold that the said contention also fails. Re:- Rule ultravires/inconsistent with UGC Act. 10. The petitioner has assailed the requirement prescribed under Rule 3.1.1 of 2009 Regulation and contended, that (i) Rule 3.1.1, which prescribes, as a pre-condition for seeking affiliation, undisputed ownership and possession of land, lacks the nexus with the object and it is also inconsistent with the provision of the UGC Act (ii) there is no rationale behind the requirement prescribed under Rule 3.1.1. Any other contention, on this count, is not urged and argued. 10.1 The contention can be examined in light of the test laid-down by the Apex Court in the case between J. Pandurangarao v. The A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad ( AIR 1963 SC 268 ) wherein the Apex Court has observed that:- "7....When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from other left out of the group; and the second is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. As the decisions of this Court show, the classification on which the statutory provision may be founded may be referable to different consideration.......In every case, there must be some nexus between the basis of the classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statue......." 10.2 If the provisions under the UGC Act, 1956 are taken into account then it emerges that by virtue of the provision under Section 26 (1)(f) and (g)read with Sections 12 (d) and (j), 12A with Section 14 of the UGC Act, the commission is empowered to frame Rules and issue instructions concerning aspects pertaining to universities, colleges, fees, staff, education etc. and also prescribe conditions subject to which the universities may grant "affiliation". The relevant provisions read thus:- 12. It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities, and for the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Commission may- (a) to (c) ...... (d) recommends to any University the measures necessary for the improvement of University education and advise the University upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation; (e) to (i).... (j) perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the above functions. 12A(1) (a) "affiliation" together with its grammatical variations, includes, in relation to a college, recognition of such college by, association of such college with, and admission of such college to the privileges of, a university. The Section 26(1)(f) and (g) read thus:- "(f) defining the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University; (g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities." In view of the said provisions the commission is empowered to take all such steps as it may think "necessary or incidental to" for discharging its functions and it may regulate the "standards of work or facilities". 10.3 In view of the object of the UGC Act, there is no justification or scope for giving restrictive meaning to the term "facilities" and/or to exclude the infrastructure (all types of infrastructural facilities e.g. class room of adequate size, laboratory, library etc.) from the scope of the said term. 10.4 It becomes clear from reading of Section 14 of UGC Act with Section 12,12(A) and 26 (f) and (g) that the said Section obliges the universities to comply the instructions issued/Rules framed by the Commission. The Section reads thus:- "14. If any University [grants affiliation in respect of any course of study to any college referred to in sub-section (5) of section 12A in contravention of the provision of that sub-section or] fails within a reasonable time to comply with any recommendation made by the Commission under section 12 or section 13, [or contravenes the provision of any rule made under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 25, or of any regulation made under clause (e) or clause (f) or clause (g) of section 26] the Commission, after taking into consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University [for such failure or contravention], may withhold from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of the Commission." 10.5 Now, so far as 2009 Regulations are concerned, Rule-3 prescribes eligibility criteria for "temporary affiliation". The Rule 3.1.1 reads thus:- "3.1.1. undisputed ownership and possession of land measuring not less than 2 acres if it is located in metropolitan cities and 5 acres if it is located in other areas." On examination of the Rule-condition it becomes clear that the said condition-Rule is framed so as to foreclose applications from the institutes not having/not able of having adequate infrastructure meeting with the specifications; and with a view to ensuring that only those institutes may make applications who, have or may be in position to have, adequate infrastructure, meeting with all specifications. 10.6 In this context, it should be noted that it cannot be even disputed, that an educational institute (i) cannot run, cannot be even expected to run, in cramped and "barely-adequate-space-for-class-rooms" type of premises and that (ii) they should have premises and precincts which can accommodate entire infrastructure i.e. the premises suitable and sufficient for the college depending on its intake capacity, the class-rooms of specified size, modern and adequate library and/or laboratory, staff-room, canteen, seminar room, conference hall students' room, administrative area, reading room, sufficient parking facility etc. For encompassing such infrastructure, obviously, sufficient land (whereon the entire infrastructural facilities complying all specifications and prescribed requirements can be constructed) would also be necessary, rather that would be the primary requirement. An expert body which can scientifically determine and prescribe the norms regarding the adequate size of class rooms, the standards regarding library, laboratory etc. and depending on the standards and specifications pertaining to the diverse facilities (which comprise the entire infrastructure) can also determine the requirement of land. 10.7 It also deserves to be noted that various institutes which might not be having the prescribed infrastructural facilities might also apply for affiliation. Similarly institutes not even having its own separate building but planning to start the institute in rented premises might also be applying for affiliation. In such cases, the deficiencies or short-fall in the infrastructure and other facilities would make the institute compromise, or cut-corners either in respect of specifications and the requirements and in certain cases sacrificing (not providing) a particular requirement (e.g. library) completely, which will, undoubtedly, have adverse and compromising effect on the overall standards, including the standard of education as well. On the other hand, in certain cases, despite power having been conferred, the university might not have made necessary regulations prescribing requisite specifications in respect of such matters. In all such cases, the U.G.C. can, in exercise of the provisions under Sections 12, 14, 25 and 26 of U.G.C. Act, frame Regulations. On the other hand, in certain cases, despite power having been conferred, the university might not have made necessary regulations prescribing requisite specifications in respect of such matters. In all such cases, the U.G.C. can, in exercise of the provisions under Sections 12, 14, 25 and 26 of U.G.C. Act, frame Regulations. 10.8 Any rule or condition which is framed prescribed with the aim and object to ward-off and eliminate applications for affiliation from (a) the institutes which are not having land which can contain the entire infrastructure meeting with the standard specifications and/or (b) the institutes which, mainly due to want of or shortage of space-land, are not having adequate infrastructural facilities meeting with specifications and/or (c) whose proposed infrastructure can not and does not meet with the specifications and standards or (d) the applications from those who are planning to run the college in a leased premise in a building/complex having several other offices/shops but cannot contain entire infrastructure meeting all specifications and requirements (which would have compromising effect on the standard of education) cannot be said to be without nexus with the object or function of UGC or object of Rule. 10.9 Thus, having regard to its expertise and experience as well as the reports of inspections of various institutes carried out by its officers, if such expert and supervisory body, (who, even otherwise, is statutorily authorized to frame Rules) considers that for achieving standardized practices and so as to ensure and enforce implementation of the prescribed specifications pertaining to infrastructure e.g size of class rooms, adequate library and laboratory etc. the requirement of ownership of sufficient land (which can contain entire infrastructure) should also be prescribed as one of the conditions-criteria and its compliance by the institute seeking affiliation must be taken into consideration while considering the request for recognition and affiliation then, in our view, such Rule cannot be said to be without nexus with the object to be achieved and/or arbitrary or inconsistent with the U.G.C. Act. Further, when by way of providing insulation against any malpractices or methods of cutting corners or eye-wash techniques the disputed requirement is prescribed and included as one of the conditions (to be complied by the institute seeking affiliation) then in our view, the prescription would not be hit by the vice of lack of nexus. Further, when by way of providing insulation against any malpractices or methods of cutting corners or eye-wash techniques the disputed requirement is prescribed and included as one of the conditions (to be complied by the institute seeking affiliation) then in our view, the prescription would not be hit by the vice of lack of nexus. The petitioner has placed on record a statement allegedly showing the norms fixed by AICTE for different faculties. Even the norms fixed by AICTE, on which the petitioner sought to rely (introduced by virtue of the amendment dated 30.9.2010), also mandate the requirement of ownership of land, though the norm/extent of requirement prescribed by AICTE is comparatively on lower side. However the need to prescribe the ownership of land as a requirement is felt and recognized by AICTE also. The reliance placed by petitioner on AICTE norms do not help it and merely because one body (AICTE) prescribes the norms which are different from/lesser than those prescribed by the other body (UGC) without anything more, it would not render the latter arbitrary or invalid. The differentiation on ground of location is present in the AICTE norms also. The reliance placed on the AICTE norms by the petitioner do not help it in making the contention good. 11. However, when the impugned Rule is examined for tracing out the rationale behind the provision making the disputed differentiation i.e. prescribing different norm or requirement for the similarly situated institutions (5-Acres and 2-Acres of ownership of land) merely on the ground of its location (metro or non-metropolitan area), then the absence and want of rationale or justification behind the impugned Rule and the disputed classification/differentiation, comes to the surface. 11.1 This would come in focus (for proper appreciation) better by way of an illustration. A college, imparting 3 years' course in commerce faculty having intake capacity of 60 students per class (having one division per year), which fulfills all conditions regarding infrastructure faculty etc. 11.1 This would come in focus (for proper appreciation) better by way of an illustration. A college, imparting 3 years' course in commerce faculty having intake capacity of 60 students per class (having one division per year), which fulfills all conditions regarding infrastructure faculty etc. prescribed for college will be required to have ownership of 2 Acres of land if it is located in a metropolitan area; whereas another institute similarly placed in all respect (e.g. offering same course and having same numbers of divisions and same intake capacity of students) as the institute in metro area will be obliged to have ownership of 5-Acres of land merely because it might be located or proposed to be located in non-metropolitan area which might be only a few kilometers away from the metro city. 11.2 For the purpose of determining the minimum area-land for a college the specifications and standards prescribed for diverse facilities (e.g. standardised size of class-rooms, library, administrative offices, parking etc.) would be taken into consideration. Now, such standards specifications would remain constant and would not change merely on account of location of college (e.g. specifications for a class-room/its size for metro and non metro area would be the same). As a corollary, when the Rule making authority determines the requirement of total area-land by taking into account the specifications regarding diverse facilities which remain constant irrespective of the location, then the norms or the requirements regarding ownership of land also should ordinarily not vary or ought not be different for the colleges in the metro and non-metro area. However, merely on the ground of location, different norms with regard to the ownership of land is prescribed by the impugned Rule. 11.3 In view of such facts, ordinarily such different criterion and the disputed differentiation in respect of otherwise similarly placed institutions would amount to and would fall into the category of the provision wanting or lacking rationale and would be considered unjustifiable. 12. We would not go any farther than the aforesaid restricted observation. For all the reasons discussed above we are not inclined to strike-down or declare the provision ultravires. In the facts of the case we would prefer to observe that it is desirable that UGC itself reconsiders the Rule prescribing different norms resulting into differentiation merely on ground of location. We would not go any farther than the aforesaid restricted observation. For all the reasons discussed above we are not inclined to strike-down or declare the provision ultravires. In the facts of the case we would prefer to observe that it is desirable that UGC itself reconsiders the Rule prescribing different norms resulting into differentiation merely on ground of location. Furthermore, in view of the facts on hand it is not absolutely necessary to do so inasmuch as the university has been able to justify the impugned decision dated 15.06.2010 by citing various other deficiencies/shortfall enumerated in the committee's report and by satisfactorily establishing that the noncompliance of Rule 3.1.1 is, in present case, not the only base of and reason for the impugned order. 12.1 If the noncompliance of the condition prescribed under Rule 3.1.1 had been the solitary ground for declining the affiliation we would have proceeded further to decide as to whether the provision should be struck-down or not. 13. However in present case suffice it to observe that the UGC needs to itself take up the issue for proper consideration in light of the above discussion and take appropriate decision, on its own, after re-visiting and re-examining the provision in question. 14. As noted at the outset, the petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the decision and order dated 15.6.2010 passed by the respondent university whereas for the reasons noted earlier we have already held that the order dated 15.6.2010 does not warrant any interference and the facts i.e. the various deficiencies enumerated in the committee's report does not permit us to set aside the said order, as prayed for. The petitioner has failed to make out any case against the said order. In the result, and as an upshot of the foregoing discussion, the petition, fails. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.