Judgment : (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution there is a challenge to a decision of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) communicated on 21 June 2012 insofar as it rejects an application filed by the Petitioners for an enhancement of the intake capacity of existing courses, declines permission for commencement of new courses and rejects an application for conversion of the existing institute into a technical campus. 2. The Petitioners conduct three institutions of higher education : (I) a college of engineering and management; (ii) an institute of engineering and technology; and (iii) an institute of management and research. In respect of the first and the second of those institutions the Petitioners sought an increase in the intake capacity from 792 students to 912 students and from 498 to 654 students. In respect of all the three institutions, the Petitioners also sought a continuation of yearly approval. An application was also made for the conversion of the existing campus into a technical campus. Apart from this, the Petitioners have also sought permission for conducting certain new courses. 3. In accordance with the procedure laid down by AICTE, applications were made online. The initial approval is auto generated through the online system. On 3 April 2012 the first decision was taken by AICTE. There is no dispute about the factual position that the request made by the Petitioners for the extension of yearly approval for the existing courses has been granted. The request which was made for an increase in the intake capacity of the existing courses, for commencement of new courses and for conversion of the existing campus into a technical campus was, however, rejected. On 18 April 2012 a communication was addressed to the Petitioners. The matter was thereafter taken before the Standing Appellate Committee. On 21 April 2012 the Standing Appellate Committee noted that there was a deficiency on two counts -(I) Senior faculty is not available; and (ii) Cadre ratio is not maintained. The proposal for conversion to a technical campus only was recommended, but subject to a verification of cadre ratio and senior faculty. The recommendation of the Standing Appellate Committee was placed before the Executive Council and the Court is informed that the Standing Appellate Committee was directed to re-scrutinize the proposal. The proposal for conversion to a technical campus only was recommended, but subject to a verification of cadre ratio and senior faculty. The recommendation of the Standing Appellate Committee was placed before the Executive Council and the Court is informed that the Standing Appellate Committee was directed to re-scrutinize the proposal. On 15 May 2012 the Standing Appellate Committee found upon verification once again that senior faculty in the cadre of professors and associate professors was not available and the cadre ratio was not maintained. Finally, on 21 June 2012 the Petitioners were notified of the decision of AICTE to grant extension of yearly approval. The Petitioners are aggrieved in these proceedings by the decision of AICTE insofar as it rejects the other three requests viz. for enhancement of intake capacity, commencement of new courses and for conversion to a technical campus. 4. On behalf of the Petitioners, three submissions have been urged by learned counsel : (i) Under the regulations which have been framed by AICTE, the maintenance of the cadre ratio is a factor which has to be taken into account not at the date on which the expert visiting committee carries out its inspection, but before the college actually commences the relevant courses. Moreover, the regulations specify that the cadre ratio shall ordinarily be maintained. In the present case, it was submitted that the failure to maintain the cadre ratio as applicable to the enhanced strength of students or for the new courses cannot be a reason to reject the application when the maintenance of the cadre ratio is required to be observed only when the college actually commences; (ii) The regulations prescribe that in matters of recruitment of staff, the method of selection prescribed by the university has to be followed. The statutes of the University of Pune require the filling up of posts through a University Selection Committee. However, there is a delay on the part of the university in approving advertisements and in constituting the committee required for carrying out selections. In such a situation, the statutes provide for the constitution of a local selection committee where a temporary vacancy has to be filled in. However, there is a delay on the part of the university in approving advertisements and in constituting the committee required for carrying out selections. In such a situation, the statutes provide for the constitution of a local selection committee where a temporary vacancy has to be filled in. The delay on the part of the university is coupled with a non-availability of duly qualified candidates; and (iii) In regard to the conversion of an existing campus to a technical campus, the regulations do not provide for the maintenance of a cadre ratio. 5. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of AICTE by learned counsel that : (i) As far as an increased intake and the commencement of additional courses is concerned, the regulations do not require that the entire faculty has to be in place at the time when the expert committee conducts an inspection. Properly construed, the requirement in the regulations is that the faculty should be in place at the time of the admission of students. However, the expert visiting committee under the regulations has to be satisfied about the progress which is made by the institution; (ii) When an application for enhancement of intake capacity is made, the current status of the institution particularly with reference to deficiencies in the appointment of faculty and the maintenance of the cadre ratio has to be considered. Consequently, where the institution is not able to observe the cadre ratio and has not appointed adequate faculty even to sustain the existing intake, AICTE would be justified in declining to grant permission for enhancement of the intake capacity; (iii) Both for an enhancement of the intake capacity and for commencing additional courses, the entire process envisaged by the AICTE regulations is online and self generating. The process proceeds on trust and if it is found that an institution has made a misrepresentation, or if inaccuracies are found, AICTE reserves the right to take action in accordance with the regulations; (iv) In view of a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Mahatma Gandhi Missions Institute v. The State of Maharashtra (2008) 5 Mh.L.J. 913 ), no approval can now be granted after the cut off date of 30th June 2012. 6. The rival submissions now fall for consideration. 7. 6. The rival submissions now fall for consideration. 7. In exercise of its statutory powers, AICTE has framed with effect from 10 December 2010 the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations 2011. Regulation 4.1 specifies inter alia that all promoters of technical institutions or polytechnics shall require the prior approval of the Council inter alia for (i) establishing a technical institution or technical campus; (ii) conversion of an existing approved institution into a technical campus. Similarly Regulation 4.2 provides for a prior approval of the Council for among other things (i) extension of existing approval; (ii) introduction of new courses; and (iii) change in intake capacity. Regulation 4.3 requires the Council to publish from time to time, an Approval Process Handbook. Under Regulation 4.9 as amended on 30 September 2011 all existing institutions applying for extension of approval, a modification of the intake capacity and for adding courses in the existing programme, among other things, are required to make online applications. The institution has to make necessary corrections online based on the deficiency / status report available to each institute until such time that it finally submits an application on the portal. Every institute has to submit an affidavit in the format as prescribed on the web portal, duly sworn that if at any stage it is found that the institute has suppressed information or has made a misrepresentation or has provided false information, the Council would be free to take action including by way of withdrawal of approval. Amended Regulation 4.11 specifies that there is no scrutiny provided for the applications under Clause 4.2(a) to (f) since the process is based on self disclosure. Regulation 4.13 provides for an expert committee to visit the institution in certain cases. Regulation 4.22 specifies that new institutions which are granted a letter of approval and existing institutions granted approval for introduction of new courses and for change in the intake capacity have to comply with the appointment of the teaching staff and the principal / director, as the case may be, as per the policy regarding minimum qualifications, pay scales and other norms prescribed by the Council. Institutions other than minority institutions are required to appoint the teaching staff, principal or director and other staff strictly in accordance with the methods and procedures of the affiliating university, particularly selection procedures and selection committees as required. Institutions other than minority institutions are required to appoint the teaching staff, principal or director and other staff strictly in accordance with the methods and procedures of the affiliating university, particularly selection procedures and selection committees as required. Regulation 4.22 also provides that in no circumstances will an institute be permitted to start the approved technical course unless the appointment of principal and other teaching staff is in place. Regulation 4.28 stipulates that if the information which has been provided to the Council is found to be false or incomplete, or if there is a suppression or misrepresentation, suitable action would be taken including by way of withdrawal of approval. 8. On 5 March 2010 AICTE notified the All India Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Degree) Regulations 2010. The Regulations of 2010 prescribe the ratio of 1 : 2 : 6 as a cadre ratio for the strength of professors, associate professors and assistant professors in an undergraduate college. 9. For academic year 2012-13 AICTE notified certain modifications / amendments in the Approval Process Handbook. Insofar as is relevant to the present controversy, the modification is to the effect that if there are no deficiencies, the system would allow the intake applied for as per clause 3 of Chapter II as modified. The relevant condition is that the extension of approval of the institution will not be discontinued on the basis of deficiencies/shortcomings for 2012-13, but the institution will be issued with a warning along with the extension of approval to enable it to comply with the deficiencies. Insofar as the requirement of a technical campus is concerned, Chapter I of the Approval Process Handbook lays down the prescribed norms. Among them in Clause 2.12 is the norm that each programme shall have a separate teaching faculty as per the existing qualifications and norms defined for the respective programmes. 10. The regulations which have been framed by AICTE have adopted an online process in a significant measure for considering applications for approval. Every institution which seeks to make an application has to apply online and a deficiency report is generated by the system. The system which has been implemented by AICTE proceeds on the hypothesis of a truthful disclosure of information by the applicant. Every institution which seeks to make an application has to apply online and a deficiency report is generated by the system. The system which has been implemented by AICTE proceeds on the hypothesis of a truthful disclosure of information by the applicant. The generation of a deficiency report takes place on the basis of a disclosure that is made. If no deficiency is found, an approval is issued. In the present case, AICTE pointed out in its submissions that ordinarily an application for an enhancement of the intake capacity would have been dealt with through the online system without a site visit. Since however the Petitioners had applied for conversion to a technical campus, an expert visiting committee was deputed to inspect the infrastructure. Since the process is based on the disclosure made by the applicant institution, it is essential that every applicant must make a truthful disclosure. The entire process is liable to break down if the basis of a truthful disclosure is not observed. Consequently, AICTE has reserved to itself the right to take action if it is found that the applicant has made a false statement or a misrepresentation or has suppressed information. In the present case, the affidavit in reply that has been filed by AICTE states that for academic year 2011-12, the total faculty required for the First Petitioner to maintain the current intake capacity was 143. As opposed to this, according to AICTE, the expert vising committee found that the faculty consisted only of 123 persons. In respect of the Second Petitioner, it has been noted that while the required faculty was 114, the visiting committee noted that a faculty of 108 persons was available. Apart from this, AICTE has pointed out in its affidavit that senior faculty was not available. Insofar as the First Petitioner is concerned, though 16 professors were required to be appointed, only four were available. Whereas 32 associate professors were required to be appointed, only ten were available. As regards the other Petitioners, it has been stated that the details of the senior faculty, cadre-wise was not made available. No rejoinder has been filed to the reply which has been placed on the record by AICTE on 12 July 2012. What has been stated on affidavit by AICTE has not been controverted by filing an affidavit to the contrary. 11. No rejoinder has been filed to the reply which has been placed on the record by AICTE on 12 July 2012. What has been stated on affidavit by AICTE has not been controverted by filing an affidavit to the contrary. 11. However, counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that AICTE is not accurate in its statement that only 123 persons were available on the faculty since a note contained in the report of the EVC would show the presence of 22 lecturers for the first and the second shift. Similarly, in respect of the Second Petitioner it was sought to be urged that the online deficiency report would show that the required number was 102 and it has been admitted by AICTE that the available strength was of 108. We are of the view that on this aspect it would have been necessary for the Petitioners to file pleadings in support of a submission which is sought to be made during the course of hearing on a purely factual aspect. But quite apart from that, it is now not in dispute that the cadre ratio has not been maintained both in respect of the First as well as the Second Petitioner. The requirement of maintaining a cadre ratio of 1 : 2 : 6 in the case of an undergraduate institution is, as noted earlier, statutorily provided for in the regulations of 2010. This, counsel for the Petitioners concedes during the hearing, has not been observed. Hence, even in regard to the existing intake capacity, there is a breach of the Regulations. 12. AICTE, in our view, when it entertains an application for an enhancement of intake capacity or for the commencement of a new course would be justified in considering the compliance by the applicant institution in respect of the existing courses for which approval has already been granted. Consequently, when AICTE assesses the maintenance of the faculty strength or the cadre ratio in relation to the current intake capacity, that would certainly be a relevant consideration in determining as to whether a request for an enhancement of the sanctioned intake capacity should be granted. Consequently, when AICTE assesses the maintenance of the faculty strength or the cadre ratio in relation to the current intake capacity, that would certainly be a relevant consideration in determining as to whether a request for an enhancement of the sanctioned intake capacity should be granted. It would be far-fetched to accept the submission that since the appointment of faculty is required to be observed before the commencement of the college, it would not be material for AICTE to judge whether there has been a compliance of norms in relation to the current intake capacity. It is only when an institution has duly complied with norms in relation to the current intake capacity that it would be permissible to consider an application for a further enhancement of the intake capacity. Since both the First and Second Petitioners have failed to observe the cadre ratio and there is a dearth as shown of professors and associate professors, it would not be open to the Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, to direct AICTE to grant permission in breach of its regulations. The maintenance of the cadre ratio, as noted earlier, is also relevant for considering an application of a conversion to a technical campus. No material has been placed on the record by the Petitioners in regard to the steps, if any, that were taken for the appointment of duly qualified staff. Undoubtedly, since the regulations prescribed by AICTE require compliance of the selection procedures of the affiliating university, the institution has to seek the approval of the university under the relevant statutes for the constitution of selection committees. The process of obtaining the approval of the affiliating university for a draft advertisement and for following the procedure for the constitution of a university selection committee does take time. But that is why the regulations of 2010 provide in Regulation 14.4 that the penal consequences would follow where an institution does not maintain the prescribed faculty student ratio or does not adhere to the payment of pay scales and/or qualifications prescribed for the teaching staff for more than 18 months. The regulations therefore recognize that the normal process of attrition of staff and the appointment of new staff does take time. Consequently, Regulation 14.4 has made due allowance for normal procedural delays which are liable to take place as staff rotates between jobs and institutions. The regulations therefore recognize that the normal process of attrition of staff and the appointment of new staff does take time. Consequently, Regulation 14.4 has made due allowance for normal procedural delays which are liable to take place as staff rotates between jobs and institutions. The submission in the present case, however, is that the failure to maintain the cadre ratio ought not to have led to a rejection of the application for enhancement of the intake capacity since that is not a consequence which is provided for in Regulation 14.4. Regulation 14.4 provides for specific punitive measures including the suspension of approval, the imposition of a no admission status for one academic year or the withdrawal of approval in a given case. These punitive measures do not foreclose AICTE from considering as to whether the failure of the institution to maintain the prescribed cadre ratio should result in a denial of permission to enhance the intake capacity. Where an institution seeks to enhance its intake capacity it must be able to demonstrate to AICTE that it has fulfilled all the required norms in relation to its current intake capacity. That has evidently been lacking in the present case. AICTE was hence justified in declining permission to enhance the sanctioned intake capacity, to introduce new courses and for conversion to a technical campus. 13. For the aforesaid reasons and after considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the decision which was arrived at by AICTE to decline permission cannot be faulted. We are also not inclined to accept the submission that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioners were clearly on notice of the regulations and of the deficiencies which were found by the expert visiting committee and have been heard at various stages of the process. Consequently no case for interference is made out. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.