JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is a self-financing Engineering College. The petitioner was not granted approval by AICTE for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Since approval was not granted, it was not able to participate in the counseling for admission to Engineering Courses, which is going on from 07.07.2011. 2. The petitioner has filed these writ petitions praying for a direction to the fourth respondent to include its college in the list of colleges for councelling for admission of students to B.E. / B.Tech Degree courses for the year 2011-2012. 3. On 08.07.2011, this Court has passed the following order: "The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the same Institution. The petitioner Institution has got approval from the first respondent All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) on 04.11.1999 for the year 1999-2000. The approval was extended from time to time and lastly, it was extended for 2009-2010. That is, the last order granting approval by the first respondent was dated 17.07.2008 extending approval for the year 2008-2010. The petitioner made an application dated 26.08.2009 to the respondents seeking extension of approval for the year 2010-2011. 2. While so, the AICTE (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations 2010 was issued replacing the Regulations of the year 2006 and the same was challenged before this Court by number of Engineering Colleges. Ultimately, this Court upheld the Regulations of the year 2010, except Regulation 11.1 vide its judgment in SRINIVASA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE) reported in 2010 (4) CTC 225 (decided on 30.06.2010) and directed the AICTE to consider the applications for extension of approval for the year 2010-2011, based on its earlier Regulations (i.e, Regulations of the year 2006) if the applications were made by the Colleges before 31.08.2009. This Court further held that the AICTE Regulations 2010 is prospective. 3. Even after the aforesaid judgment and in spite of various representations, the first respondent failed to pass any orders on the petitioner's application dated 26.08.2009 seeking extension of approval. Hence the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.3407 of 2011 seeking for a direction to the first respondent to grant extension of approval for the petitioner's college for the period 2010-2011 as per AICTE Regulations 2006. Hence the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.3407 of 2011 seeking for a direction to the first respondent to grant extension of approval for the petitioner's college for the period 2010-2011 as per AICTE Regulations 2006. This Court, after hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent, disposed the writ petition on 07.03.2011 directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 26.08.2009 as per the AICTE Regulations, 2006, if the same was in order, on merits and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The period stipulated by this Court in the order expired in May 2011 itself. Thereafter, the petitioner has made repeated representations to the respondents to pass orders on their application for extension of approval, as directed by this Court on 07.03.2011 in W.P.No.3407 of 2001. But however, no order is passed till date. 4. In the meantime, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 21/22.12.2010 making certain allegations that the original approval and subsequent extension was granted by the first respondent, by misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner and also the petitioner has failed to follow the AICTE norms in certain matters. The details of the lack of norms are also indicated in the show cause notice. In the show cause notice, apart from the lack of norms, it is also stated that along with AICTE officials, the Managing Trustee of the petitioner Institution has also facing prosecution at the hands of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner gave a reply to the show cause notice on 07.01.2011 refuting the allegations and also stated that they satisfied the norms prescribed by the AICTE. 5. It submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Institution that in view of the non grant of approval by the first respondent, the petitioner is not able to either make a lateral entry or fresh admissions to first year B.E. Course. Hence, the petitioner has come up with these writ petitions seeking direction to the respondents to permit their institution to participate in the counseling so as to admit students. 6. Hence, the petitioner has come up with these writ petitions seeking direction to the respondents to permit their institution to participate in the counseling so as to admit students. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for AICTE that the first respondent AICTE has taken a policy decision not to grant or not to extend the approval, if the administrators of the Institution are facing CBI enquiries. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that mere pendency of FIR could not be cited as a reason for not extending the approval for running the educational institution. It is a different matter if the Institution lacks certain norms prescribed by the AICTE. Under such circumstances and also particularly when this Court passed an order dated 07.03.2011 in W.P.No.3407 of 2011 directing the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's application seeking extension of approval for the year 2010-2011, the first respondent is bound to pass orders and in fact, not passing any order as directed by this Court would really amount to contempt of Court. 8. In these circumstances, I hereby direct the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's application seeking extension of approval for the year 2010-2011 and for the subsequent year viz., 2011-2012 on or before 18.07.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, on or before 18.07.2011. It is made clear that if no order is passed within the stipulated time, this Court could have no option, except to permit the petitioner to admit the students. 9. Post the matter on 19.07.2011 for "reporting compliance"." 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 08.07.2011 in these two writ petitions, the learned Senior counsel for AICTE informed that approval has been granted. However, no order is produced. The submission made by the learned Senior counsel is recorded. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on the said submissions, the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the counseling. He has taken me through the proceedings of the 4th respondent in Letter No.8401/ECA1/2011, dated 14.06.2011 wherein the self-financing colleges are required to furnish particulars to permit the students to be admitted to their colleges without affiliation by the concerned University and without approval from the AICTE. 6. He has taken me through the proceedings of the 4th respondent in Letter No.8401/ECA1/2011, dated 14.06.2011 wherein the self-financing colleges are required to furnish particulars to permit the students to be admitted to their colleges without affiliation by the concerned University and without approval from the AICTE. 6. At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the letter permitting the petitioner to participate in the Counselling. Normally, recording the same, I could have closed the matter. 7. But the proceedings dated 14.06.2011 of the 4th respondent, relating to counselling is opposed to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in RUKMANI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS reported in 2008 (1) CTC 545 , wherein it has been categorically held that students should not be admitted in a College that does not have approval from AICTE and affiliation from the concerned University. 8. The proceedings dated 14.06.2011 of the 4th respondent is extracted hereunder: "The Principals of all Self-Financing Engineering Colleges are requested to furnish the details of Surrender of Seats under Management quota for admission to First year B.E./B.Tech./B.Arch. Degree Courses for the academic year 2011-2012 on or before 21.06.2011 to this office, so as to include the same along with Government quota seats for allotment through Single Window Counselling. The details may be furnished in the Format enclosed. Annexure Instructions to Principals 1) Copies of the following Documents should be enclosed: a) Latest AICTE approval for 2011-2012 b) Latest Anna University Affiliation copy for 2011-2012 c) Latest Minority G.O., copy (if applicable) 2) If 2011-2012 AICTE / Anna University Affiliation copies are not available, enclose approval copies for 2010-2011. 3) Subsequently, if revised AICTE approval / Anna University Affiliation has been obtained for 2011-2012, the same may be communicated to this office immediately." 9. But the aforesaid proceedings dated 14.06.2011 permits the colleges to participate in the Counselling without approval from AICTE and affiliation from the University. It is now stated that thousands of students got admitted through Counselling that is taking place from 07.07.2011 onwards. The action of the 4th respondent permitting the colleges to participate in the counselling without approval from the AICTE and affiliation from the University is per se illegal. It is now stated that thousands of students got admitted through Counselling that is taking place from 07.07.2011 onwards. The action of the 4th respondent permitting the colleges to participate in the counselling without approval from the AICTE and affiliation from the University is per se illegal. In these circumstances, I hereby direct the 4th respondent, in future, particularly in the coming years, not to permit the Engineering Colleges for counselling without approval from the AICTE and without affiliation from the concerned Universities. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 11. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.