JUDGMENT R.D.DHANUKA, J.: 1. Rule; with the consent of counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith. With the consent of counsel and at their request, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22 December 2011 passed by the Advisor (Approval) on behalf of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) withdrawing the approval initially granted to the petitioners to run a Management College and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the Chairman of AICTE to continue the approval granted to the first petitioner to run the second petitioner Management College. Pursuant to applications invited by the AICTE for grant of approval for starting new technical institutions within the jurisdiction of Solapur University, the first petitioner submitted an application for grant of approval of a new Management College in the name of the second petitioner. 3. On 27 April 2011 the Scrutiny Committee of AICTE submitted a report accepting the required documents submitted by the first petitioner with its application. Simultaneously, the Scrutiny Committee submitted a deficiency report pointing out deficiencies in respect of house keeping, exam control office, placement office and in respect of administrative area, amenities area and cafeteria. On 9 June 2011, the Expert Committee visited the institution of the first petitioner for carrying out inspection. It is the case of the petitioners that the Expert Committee did not find any deficiency in so far as infrastructure, equipment and verification of documents is concerned. The Expert Committee also did not find any deficiency in respect of installation of PCs, legal system software, legal application software or internet bandwidth in Mbps. The Expert Committee however noticed deficiencies in respect of main office, central office, boys common room, girls common room and cafeteria. As far as deficiencies in respect of cafeteria is concerned, it was noticed that as against the expected area of 150 sq. mtrs. the area provided by the first petitioner was 147.23 sq. mtrs. and was less by 2.47 sq. mtrs. 4. As far as deficiencies in respect of cafeteria is concerned, it was noticed that as against the expected area of 150 sq. mtrs. the area provided by the first petitioner was 147.23 sq. mtrs. and was less by 2.47 sq. mtrs. 4. It is the case of the first petitioner that the President of the first petitioner along with its officers approached the office of the AICTE at New Delhi and submitted before the concerned Committee various documents such as C.D. of video recording and photographs of the toilet, cafeteria, ramp, dead Stock Register and documents pertaining to internet so also stock register, license copies, purchase bills, bank statements and architect certificates to demonstrate that the deficiencies noted by the Expert Committee were already rectified. According to the petitioners, the Expert Committee was satisfied with documents and other proof produced by the petitioners, that the deficiencies noted by the Expert Committee were rectified. Information pertaining to the approval in the form of seat matrix was thereafter uploaded on AICTE's website showing the name of the second petitioner at Sr. No. 16. AICTE granted approval to the first petitioner for commencing the second petitioner college. The Petitioners thereafter deposited Rs. 15 lacs. in the account of AICTE. 5. On 30 June 2011, the State of Maharashtra passed a resolution granting approval to first petitioner to run the second petitioner college. On 30 August 2011 the Director of College and University Development granted temporary first affiliation to the first petitioner to run the second petitioner for the academic year 2011-12 on permanent non-grant basis for the M.B.A. Part-I course. On 12 September 2011, the Deputy Director of Technical Education granted permission to the first petitioner to run the college subject to payment of deposit of Rs. 7 lacs. and Rs. 6 lacs. for first and second year respectively. The State Government recommended 5 students to the petitioners for the academic year 2011-12 for the first year course of M.B.A. 6. On 29 September 2011, the AICTE issued a show cause notice to the first petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why approval initially granted to the first petitioner to run the college should not be withdrawn and the students admitted in the college should not be transferred to another institution. On 29 September 2011, the AICTE issued a show cause notice to the first petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why approval initially granted to the first petitioner to run the college should not be withdrawn and the students admitted in the college should not be transferred to another institution. On 19 October 2011 the first petitioner submitted a reply to AICTE and pointed out that all the deficiencies noted in the show cause notice were already rectified. 7. According to the petitioners, during the course of hearing, the petitioners demonstrated that no deficiency had remained to be rectified. It was their case that the ramp was already constructed and the cafeteria was also in existence. As far as internet connectivity is concerned, the petitioners produced a letter of BSNL dated 14 June 2011 pointing out that the second petitioner institution has a broadband facility with 500 combo plan in speed of 2 Mbps- 1:1. 8. On 22 December 2011 the AICTE passed an order recommending that the approval already granted to the first petitioner to run the second petitioner be withdrawn. AICTE thereafter withdrew the approval initially granted to the first petitioner. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made the following submissions : (1) The AICTE had already granted approval earlier only after having been satisfied that each and every deficiency pointed out by the Scrutiny Committee as well as by the Expert Committee were duly rectified by the petitioners. The State Government thereafter had issued a resolution granting approval to the petitioner to run the second petitioner institution. The First Petitioner has spent a substantial amount thereafter on providing infrastructure and facilities in the second petitioner. The Petitioner had also deposited a substantial amount with AICTE; (2) The withdrawal of approval already granted by the AICTE is on the basis that a few deficiencies were still to be rectified, though these were already rectified by the petitioners to the satisfaction of the respondents and thus the decision was inconsistent with the report submitted by the Scrutiny Committee and the Expert Committee. 10. On the other hand the learned counsel for AICTE referred to the report dated 21 August 2011 submitted pursuant to the surprise visit carried out by the Expert Committee. 10. On the other hand the learned counsel for AICTE referred to the report dated 21 August 2011 submitted pursuant to the surprise visit carried out by the Expert Committee. Based on such report, the hearing committee had noticed the following deficiencies : (a) Internet connectivity not as per AICTE norms; (b) The ramp is in a dangerous condition and was incomplete; (c) Cafeteria shown in the photograph is only the outside view and could not reflect arrangements inside. 11. In our opinion, the AICTE was not justified in revoking the approval already granted after having been satisfied that all the deficiencies already pointed out earlier by the Expert Committee and the Scrutiny Committee were rectified by the petitioners. In so far as the deficiencies in respect of internet connectivity is concerned, the petitioners relied upon the letter dated 14 June 2011 issued by the Public Relations Officer of BSNL showing that the second petitioner institution has broad band facility with 500 combo plan having speed of 2 Mbps 1:1. In respect of the ramp, the learned counsel submitted that the ramp was already constructed. In so far as cafeteria is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the area in respect of cafeteria was 147.23 sq. mtrs. as against the expected area of 150 sq. mtrs. and thus there was hardly any difference. 12. We are of the opinion that considering the reports produced by the parties on record, it would be in the interest of justice if the impugned order dated 22 December 2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AICTE for inspection afresh and to submit a report. 13. and thus there was hardly any difference. 12. We are of the opinion that considering the reports produced by the parties on record, it would be in the interest of justice if the impugned order dated 22 December 2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AICTE for inspection afresh and to submit a report. 13. We accordingly pass the following order : (a) The impugned order dated 22 December 2011 passed by the AICTE is quashed and set aside; (b) The AICTE is directed to send a team for taking inspection afresh and to verify the deficiencies, if any, as on the date of inspection, AICTE shall then pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the petitioners submitting an authenticated copy of this order; (c) The AICTE would be free to verify other deficiencies, if any, while taking inspection; (d) It is also made clear that the petitioners would bear the requisite expenses for such visit to the AICTE; (e) The ad interim order dated 1 February 2011 would continue till AICTE decides the issue of approval and for a period of two weeks thereafter. (f) Rule is made absolute accordingly in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.