Judgment :- The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1, to issue National Trade Certificates to 68 Mechanic Motor Vehicle Trainees and 16 Electronic Mechanic Trainees of the petitioner-Institute, who have been issued Provisional Certificates by the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner is an Industrial Training Institute, established in the year 1984, to impart industrial training to the downtrodden and depressed people. The Institution run by the registered Society, called "the Friends of Kottar", under the control of Catholic Diocese of Kottar, is a minority Institute. The petitioner/Institute filed an application with the respondent No.2, for commencing the trade of Mechanic Motor Vehicle in the year 1988. The petitioner/Institute was granted a provisional permission to start Mechanic Motor Vehicle Trade from August, 1989, vide letter, dated 8th February, 1989. The application was however, withdrawn, for want of infrastructural facilities. In the year 1989, after developing all the infrastructural facilities needed for Mechanic Motor Vehicle trade, a request was made to the the respondent No.2 to take necessary action, for Standing Committee Inspection for 1+1 units and to grant permission to admit trainees from August, 1991 onwards. 3. After scrutinizing the application, the respondent No.2, granted permission to start the trade of Mechanic Motor Vehicle Unit-I from August, 1991, vide letter, dated 9th May, 1991. The Standing Committee submitted a report on 21st August, 1991, recommending permission to the petitioner/Institute to start the Courses and accordingly, the respondent No.2, accorded permission to admit trainees from August, 1991 in the trade of Mechanic Motor Vehicle Unit-I. 4. The request of the petitioner to start additional unit in the trade of Mechanic Motor Vehicle Unit -I from August, 1992 was also allowed. 5. The respondent No.2 forwarded the inspection report of additional Unit for permanent affiliation to the respondent No.1, on 9th January, 1993. The trainees admitted during August, 1991, wrote All India Trade Test in the year 1993 and the failed candidates again appeared in the All India Trade Test in February, 1994. 6. Again, an application was submitted for starting 1+1 units of Electronic Mechanic Trade on 20th April, 1995. The Institute was inspected by the Standing Committee and recommendations were made in favour of the petitioner/Institute. 7. 6. Again, an application was submitted for starting 1+1 units of Electronic Mechanic Trade on 20th April, 1995. The Institute was inspected by the Standing Committee and recommendations were made in favour of the petitioner/Institute. 7. The respondent No.2, accordingly, permitted the petitioner/Institute to start trade of Electronic Mechanic 1+1 Units from August, 1995 onwards. 8. The students were not only admitted with the permission of the respondent No.2, but, they were also allowed to write examination and result was also published. 9. The students of the petitioner/Institute have been given provisional certificates, but, the National Trade Certificate has not been issued by the respondent No.1, in spite of the fact that the petitioner/Institute has made number of representations. 10. Paragraph No.7 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner/Institute is hereunder:- "I submit that based on the provisional affiliation granted by the respondent, the petitioner-Institute admitted trainees from 1991 to 1995 in the trade of Mechanic Motor Vehicle and admitted trainees in 1995 in the trade of Electronic Mechanic. After completing their course, the trainees appeared for the All India Trade Test held from 1993 to 1997, in the trade of Mechanic Motor Vehicle and in 1997 in the trade of Electronic Mechanic. I further submit that the second respondent approved the admission of trainees, permitted to appear the All India Trade Test declared their results in the 'C' form and also issued their provisional certificates as per the format mentioned in Appendix X in respect of regular candidates and Appendix X-A in respect of training Manual. Thereafter, they are entitled to have regular National Trade Certificates, which is in the format mentioned in Appendix -XI and XI-A of the training manual. Therefore, after the publication of result, the issuance of provisional certificates by the the respondent No.2 is only a temporary measure and the candidates are entitled to get National Trade Certificates. Hence, there is no justification in delaying the issuance of National Trade Certificate by the the respondent No.1. The above situation happened to the trainees, those who undertook the All India Trade Test held between February 1994 to 1997 in the trade of Mechanic Motor Vehicle and July, 1997 trade test in the trade of Electronic Mechanic. Hence, there is no justification in delaying the issuance of National Trade Certificate by the the respondent No.1. The above situation happened to the trainees, those who undertook the All India Trade Test held between February 1994 to 1997 in the trade of Mechanic Motor Vehicle and July, 1997 trade test in the trade of Electronic Mechanic. I further submit that the Mechanic Motor Vehicle Trade appeared the All India Trade Test in July, 1993, i.e., passed out trainees of the first batch were issued National Trade Certificate". 11. It is the submission of the petitioner that the provisional certificate is not honoured by number of establishments and therefore, in order to secure job, the students are in need of National Trade Certificate from the respondent No.1, which is being denied, without any valid reason. 12. The Writ Petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on preliminary objection of delay and laches. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is that, though the students of the petitioner/Institute passed Trade test in the year 1993, this Writ Petition is filed in the year 2011, i.e., after 18 years. Therefore, this Writ Petition is highly belated. The representation for the first time was also made for first time in the year 2008. This contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 deserves to be noticed to be rejected. The respondent No.1 cannot take benefit its own inaction in not issuing National Trade Certificates, in spite of issuance of provisional certificate to the students. 14. It is well settled law, that, no person can take benefit of his own wrongs. The delay is on the part of the respondent No.1 in not issuing the National Trade Certificate than that of the petitioner in approaching this Court. 15. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the petitioner was only provisionally allowed to raise infrastructure etc., but, was not granted affiliation by the respondent No.1, therefore, the admission of the students were not legal, which could entitle the petitioner to claim trade certificate. 16. 15. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the petitioner was only provisionally allowed to raise infrastructure etc., but, was not granted affiliation by the respondent No.1, therefore, the admission of the students were not legal, which could entitle the petitioner to claim trade certificate. 16. In reply to Paragraph No.7 of the affidavit, in the counter, it is stated as under: " As regards Para Nos.6 & 7, it is humbly submitted that the respondent No.1 cannot be held liable for any promises made by the other respondents without knowing the procedure adopted in issuing NCVT Certificates." 17. A reading of the counter shows that the averments made in Paragraph No.7, of the Writ Petition, have not been specifically denied, therefore, are deemed to be admitted. 18. Once, it is not disputed that the students of the petitioner-Institute were admitted for taking of the examination conducted by the respondent No.1 and results were also declared and they were also issued provisional certificates, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent No.1, now to say that, for want of recognition of the Institution, the trade certificates cannot be issued. The students cannot be allowed to suffer on technicality of not passing the formal order of affiliation. 19. Admittedly, the case of the respondent No.1, is not that the petitioner/Institute is lacking in any infrastructure facilities, or it was not entitled to affiliation. Inaction of not issuing the letter of affiliation amounts to colourable exercise of powers by respondent No.1, as it is not disputed that permission was granted to admit the students and they were also allowed to take examination. 20. The Competent Authority/respondent No.2 had inspected the petitioner/Institute and had recommended for grant of affiliation to the petitioner/Institute. 21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petitioner/Institute has successfully proved, that it has legally enforceable right to direct the respondent No.1 to issue National Trade Certificates, in view of the fact that provisional certificates showing that the students have passed the National Trade test has already issued. The petitioner/Institute has also successfully proved that the respondent No.1 has failed to perform Statutory obligation in issuing the National Trade Certificate to the students, who passed the test/examination conducted by respondent No.1. 22. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Institute has also successfully proved that the respondent No.1 has failed to perform Statutory obligation in issuing the National Trade Certificate to the students, who passed the test/examination conducted by respondent No.1. 22. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. Writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondent No.1 to issue National Trade Certificates to the students, who undertook Mechanic Motor Vehicle Trade Unit-I and Electronic Mechanic Trade and passed the test, and were issued provisional certificate. 23. The petitioner is directed to submit a copies of the provisional certificate issued to the students to the respondent No.1, within ten days of the receipt of a certified copy of this order, to enable the respondent No.1 to issue National Trade Certificates. 24. No costs.