Judgment :- 1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions challenge the prescription contained in clause 1.2.1 and 1.2.4 of the Approval Process Handbook for the year 2011-12 issued under Appendix-I to The All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations 2010, by which the eligibility for admission to a 2 year M.B.A. Degree or a 3 year M.C.A. Degree is stipulated as a pass in a recognised Bachelors Degree of minimum 3 years duration with at least 50% at the qualifying examination for general category candidates and 45% in the case of candidates belonging to reserved categories. 2. I have heard Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, Mr.V.Vijayarajan and Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.K.Ravindranath, learned counsel appearing for AICTE, Mr.M.C.Swamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State Government, Mr.Manisundar Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the Anna University, Mr.Kandavadivel Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the Association of Managements of affiliated Colleges, Mr.R.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the Consortium of Self-Financing Professional, Arts and Science Colleges in Tamil Nadu and Mr.R.Sasikumar, learned counsel appearing for Kongunadu College of Management. 3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions appeared for the Common Entrance Test conducted by the Association of Managements of Private Colleges/Consortium of Self-Financing Colleges and secured admission either to a 2 year Post Graduate Degree Course in Business Administration (MBA) or to a 3 year Post Graduate Degree Course in Computer Applications (MCA), for the academic year 2011-2012, in various Self-Financing Colleges. There is no dispute about the fact that all the writ petitioners hold Bachelors Degrees in various disciplines. But unfortunately those of the writ petitioners who belong to the reserved categories, had not secured 45% in the qualifying degrees and those of the writ petitioners who belong to the general categories have not secured 50% in the qualifying Degree Courses. 4. Prior to December 2010, the qualification prescribed for admission to MBA/MCA Courses was only a pass in a recognised degree and there was no stipulation about the percentage of marks. But on 10.12.2010, the All India Council for Technical Education published a notification, notifying a set of regulations known as 'The All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations 2010'. These Regulations superseded the existing Regulations that were in force. 5. But on 10.12.2010, the All India Council for Technical Education published a notification, notifying a set of regulations known as 'The All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations 2010'. These Regulations superseded the existing Regulations that were in force. 5. Appendix-I to the Approval Process Handbook issued in terms of the said Regulations contains in para 1.1 thereof, the prescriptions regarding Under Graduate Programmes, the duration of those programmes and the eligibility for admission to those programmes. Para 1.2 of Appendix-I contains the prescriptions regarding Post Graduate Degrees and Diplomas, their duration and the eligibility criteria for admission to those Courses. Serial No.1 of para-1.2 of Appendix-I stipulates that a person should have obtained a recognised Bachelors Degree of a minimum of 3 years duration with 50% at the qualifying examination (45% in the case of candidates belonging to reserved categories), for admission to a 2 year Management Courses, such as PGDM, MBA and the like. Similarly, Serial No.4 of para 1.2 of Appendix-I prescribes that a person should hold a recognised Bachelors Degree with a minimum of 3 years duration with Mathematics at the Higher Secondary level with at least 50% at the qualifying examination for general category candidates and 45% for reserved category candidates, for admission to MCA Courses. 6. Regulation 1.3 stipulated that those Regulations would come into force with effect from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. The Regulations were actually published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part III-Section 4 bearing No.314 on Friday the 10th December 2010 at New Delhi. 7. But the petitioners in these writ petitions were admitted to MBA/ MCA Courses in violation of the prescription contained in Serial Nos.1 and 4 of para 1.2 of Appendix-I of the Regulations, since they had not secured the minimum percentage in the respective Degree Courses. Therefore, the University did not permit the petitioners to take the examinations. Hence they came up with the above writ petitions and obtained interim orders to write the examinations. They have also now moved over to the second year of their respective Post Graduate Courses. But since the results of the examinations that they wrote under orders of this Court had been withheld, the petitioners came up with miscellaneous petitions. Hence they came up with the above writ petitions and obtained interim orders to write the examinations. They have also now moved over to the second year of their respective Post Graduate Courses. But since the results of the examinations that they wrote under orders of this Court had been withheld, the petitioners came up with miscellaneous petitions. By then, The All India Council for Technical Education filed a common counter in all these writ petitions and hence these writ petitions themselves were taken up for hearing. 8. The petitioners challenge the impugned action of the respondents on the following grounds:- (i) The Government of Tamil Nadu decided to implement the amended Regulations for admission to Post Graduate Management/Computer Application Courses, only in June 2011 and accordingly, issued a notification dated 10.6.2011. The said notification issued by the Department of Technical Education on 10.6.2011 was also published in newspapers viz., Indian Express and Dinamalar, on 12.6.2011. The Director of Technical Education communicated the said notification to the Principals of all Engineering Colleges only on 14.6.2011. But by then, the applications for admission had already been issued by the Self-Financing Colleges, during the period March to May 2011. The prospectus so issued stipulated only a pass in the recognised Degree as the essential qualification for admission to these Courses. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled to implement the amended Regulations with retrospective effect, altering the conditions for admission prescribed in the prospectus of the respective Colleges. (ii) The amended Regulations were not communicated to the Colleges or even the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu itself became aware of the amended Regulations only in June 2011, by which time the process of admission for filling up the management quota had already commenced. 9. But I do not think that any of the above two grounds are really sustainable in law or on facts. It may be true that the managements of Self-Financing Colleges issued application forms and prospectus during the period March to May 2011. It may be true that the Director of Technical Education directed the implementation of the Regulations by his letter dated 10.6.2011 published in newspapers on 12.6.2011 and communicated on 14.6.2011. But there are two dates which the petitioners have conveniently forgotten. These dates are as follows:- (i) The amended Regulations were notified in the Gazette of India on 10.12.2010 itself. It may be true that the Director of Technical Education directed the implementation of the Regulations by his letter dated 10.6.2011 published in newspapers on 12.6.2011 and communicated on 14.6.2011. But there are two dates which the petitioners have conveniently forgotten. These dates are as follows:- (i) The amended Regulations were notified in the Gazette of India on 10.12.2010 itself. Therefore, everyone concerned is deemed to have had knowledge of the amended Regulations. It is especially so in so far as the managements of Self-Financing Colleges are concerned, since the Regulations were also hosted in the web portal of AICTE, into which the managements of Private Self-Financing Colleges are obliged to make a visit very often for verification of the status of their applications for recognition/ renewal. Therefore, the managements of these Colleges cannot feign ignorance of the publication of the Regulations on 10.12.2010. If despite the publication of the Regulations in the Gazette on 10.12.2010, the managements were brave enough to issue prospectus and applications in March 2011, which were not in conformity with the amended Regulations, it is the managements that are to be blamed. (ii) At any rate, even as per the prospectus issued by the Association/ Consortium, the last date for submission of applications by students was 16-7-2011 and the Common Entrance Test was conducted by them only on 10.8.2011. The writ petitioners as well as the Association/Consortium of Self-Financing Colleges agree that at least they were aware of the communications dated 10.6.2011/14.6.2011 issued by the Director of Technical Education. After coming to know of the Directive issued by the Director of Technical Education on 10/14.6.2011, the managements of these Colleges received application till 16-7-2011 and conducted the Common Entrance Test on 10.8.2011, even for those who are not qualified for admission. Therefore, the admission of the petitioners to these Courses was clearly illegal and this Court cannot approve of such illegal admissions, by showing misplaced sympathy upon the students. 10. It is needless to point out that the AICTE was constituted as a Statutory Body under an Act of Parliament and the Council is an Expert Body. It is the duty of the Council under Section 10 to take all steps for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and the maintenance of the standards. 10. It is needless to point out that the AICTE was constituted as a Statutory Body under an Act of Parliament and the Council is an Expert Body. It is the duty of the Council under Section 10 to take all steps for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and the maintenance of the standards. In the performance of such duties prescribed by Section 10, the Council has issued the Regulations in question, prescribing the alleged criteria for admission to Post Graduate Courses. This Court is not an Expert Body to question the wisdom of the Council in prescribing the eligibility criteria as 50% for general category and 45% for reserved category candidates. The students may not even be able to make use of the Post Graduate Degrees that they are now undergoing, if the Degrees obtained by them were not of high quality. 11. It is necessary to note that the petitioners are unable to point out as to whether the Regulations have been issued in violation of the statutory provisions. It is seen from the Gazette notification that the Regulations were issued by AICTE in exercise of the power conferred by Section 23(1) read with Sections 10 and 11 of AICTE Act, 1987. The Regulations are not shown to be ultra vires the AICTE Act or any other Act. Therefore, the refusal of the University to approve the admission of the petitioners cannot be found fault with as the admission of the petitioners was clearly contrary to the statutory Regulations. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contend (i) that the Approval Process Hand Book issued by the first respondent (AICTE) did not form part of the Regulations notified in the Gazette on 10.12.2010 and hence it cannot be taken to have been communicated to the Colleges or to the students; (ii) that the eligibility norms published by the Director of Technical Education, the prospectus issued by Anna University, Periyar University and Bharathiar University, for the academic year 20112012, also did not prescribe 50% and 45% in the qualifying Degree Course as essential for admission to MBA/MCA and that therefore, the students were led to believe that a mere pass in the relevant degree was a sufficient qualification. 13. 13. Going a step further, Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the petitioners raised the issues of (i) equitable estoppel and (ii) legitimate expectation and the learned Senior Counsel also relied upon a series of judgments. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that till the academic year 2011-2012, the respondents have always maintained a mere pass in the relevant degree as the eligibility criteria for admission to MBA/MCA. Therefore, whenever they wanted to change the criteria, the AICTE should have given sufficient time. 14. It is true that the Approval Process Hand Book did not form part of the amended regulations. But it does not mean that the eligibility criteria fixed under paragraph 1.2.1 and 1.2.4 of Appendix-I was not notified to the public. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, pointing out that this Approval Process Hand Book was hosted in the web portal of the Council. It is the very same web portal in which the status of applications of all Self-Financing Colleges for approval, renewal, eligibility etc., are hosted. Therefore, the Colleges are deemed to have had knowledge of the new prescription. 15. As a matter of fact, there is no necessity even to invoke the deeming fiction. The Approval Process Hand Book also prescribed that the Colleges should purchase e-journals, to be eligible for approval/renewal of approval. The managements of Colleges challenged that stipulation contained in the Approval Process Hand Book, on the ground that it was arbitrary and oppressive. Therefore, these Colleges which took note of one part of the very same Approval Process Hand Book from the very same web portal in December 2010 itself and also challenged the same before this Court by way of writ petitions, cannot now take a stand that one other portion of the same Approval Process Hand Book, was not taken note of by them. If they had not taken note of only one portion, of the Approval Process Hand Book, then it is a case of selective application or selective amnesia. 16. Interestingly, none of the Colleges has taken a plea that they were not aware of the amended regulations or the requirement stipulated in the Approval Process Hand Book. If they had not taken note of only one portion, of the Approval Process Hand Book, then it is a case of selective application or selective amnesia. 16. Interestingly, none of the Colleges has taken a plea that they were not aware of the amended regulations or the requirement stipulated in the Approval Process Hand Book. The learned counsel appearing for the Association/Consortium merely contend that since the Government took its own time to issue a notification on 14.6.2011, they were under the impression that they need not follow the same. 17. But the Colleges cannot really take such a stand in view of the fact that the Director of Technical Education restricted the admission only to those who are fully qualified as per the amended regulations, when the single window counselling for admission of 50% quota for government sponsored candidates was held. 18. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the Association/Consortium submitted that in so far as admission to Under Graduate Courses are concerned, the State Government itself challenged the amended regulations and obtained a stay order. This, according to Association/Consortium, emboldened these Colleges to admit students as per the pre-amendment qualifications. 19. Such a stand is only to be deprecated. The Colleges are well aware of the fact that it is the first respondent which stipulates the eligibility criteria for admission. Though the State may also have a role to play, it is well settled now that once Expert Bodies like AICTE set standards, the State Government cannot dilute such standards, though the State Government may try to improve those standards. Therefore, the managements of private Colleges, cannot be heard to contend that they were guided by the State Government's opposition to a similar stipulation in respect of Under Graduate Courses. The State Government was not competent to dilute the standards prescribed by the amended regulations. Therefore, the reason attributed by the Colleges for not adhering to the amended regulations, cannot be accepted. 20. At any rate, it is an admitted fact, even by the students before me, that at least on 14.6.2011, the Colleges were notified by the Director of Technical Education. The prospectus for the admission to MBA/MCA Courses issued by the Association/Consortium shows that the last date for receipt of applications was 16.7.2011 and the date of conduct of Common Entrance Test was 10.8.2011. The prospectus for the admission to MBA/MCA Courses issued by the Association/Consortium shows that the last date for receipt of applications was 16.7.2011 and the date of conduct of Common Entrance Test was 10.8.2011. Therefore, it is clear (i) that the Colleges certainly had knowledge of the amended prescription at least 2 months before the date of conduct of Common Entrance Test and (ii) that they were even aware of the Approval Process Hand Book hosted in the web portal of the AICTE in December 2010 itself. 21. To drive home the contention that on the principle of equitable estoppel, the petitioners are entitled to continue their Courses of study, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.N.R.Chandran relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in K.K.Jacob (Minor) vs. The Madurai University { 1978 (1) MLJ 440 }. But K.K.Jacob is a case where a Division Bench of this Court found that the regulations framed by the University conferred a power upon the University Authorities to grant exemption from the operation of these stipulations with regard to minimum marks in appropriate cases. Moreover, it is seen from the extract of an interim order passed that is incorporated in paragraph 6 of the judgment that there was a factual finding in that case that the candidate was admitted by the University through its own Officers. Therefore, the said decision is of no assistance to the petitioners. As a matter of fact, the law relating to education has travelled a long distance after K.K.Jacob. Persons who were admitted by the Self-Financing Colleges in gross violation of the regulations framed by the AICTE can never plead equity or equitable estoppel. Hence the plea of equitable estoppel is to be rejected. 22. On the issue of legitimate expectation, I need to say no more than pointing out that no legitimate expectation could arise out of an illegal action. Persons who were admitted to educational institutions in contravention of statutory regulations could only have illegitimate expectation than legitimate expectation. 23. The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Poovizhi (Minor) vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu {W.A.No.1876 of 2001 and W.P.Nos.16589 of 2001 etc. batch, dated 8.2.2002}, arose under different circumstances. The case concerned a Scheme introduced by the Government for the students of Higher Secondary Examination to improve their performance by appearing for a supplementary examination known as 'improvement examination'. batch, dated 8.2.2002}, arose under different circumstances. The case concerned a Scheme introduced by the Government for the students of Higher Secondary Examination to improve their performance by appearing for a supplementary examination known as 'improvement examination'. The Scheme as it was originally evolved, enabled the students to write only those papers in which they had secured less marks. But suddenly, a circular was issued followed by a Government Order stipulating that those students will have to write examinations in all the papers. This modification to the Scheme was made at the last minute, when the improvement examinations were about to be held. Therefore, the Division Bench invoked the principle of legitimate expectation as the students did not have sufficient time. 24. But in the case on hand, the following dates would show that the petitioners or at least the Colleges had sufficiently long time:- (i) The prescription of 50% marks for general category candidates and 45% marks for reserved category candidates in the qualifying degrees, was introduced in December 2010; (ii) Assuming that the Self-Financing Colleges issued the Application Forms in May 2011 itself, the circular of the Director of Technical Education was issued on 14.6.2011 itself; (iii) The last date for submission of applications for the management quota was prescribed by the prospectus issued by the Association/Consortium as 16.7.2011; (iv) The Common Entrance Test was conducted on 10.8.2011. Therefore, it is not as though the change of prescription was made at the last minute. Hence students cannot plead legitimate expectation. 25. The decision of the Supreme Court in B.Mayuri vs. Government of India { 2009 (17) SCC 662 }, arose under peculiar circumstances. The prescription of minimum marks by the State Government was found by the Supreme Court in that case to have been made only in October, by which time the admissions were already over. Therefore, this delay in the issue of notification weighes with the Supreme Court for granting an order in favour of the students, without laying down the same as a settled proposition of law. 26. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K.Sakthi Rani vs. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu { 2010 (4) MLJ 849 }, concerned the eligibility of persons who obtained Post Graduate Degrees from Open Universities for enrolment as lawyers. 26. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K.Sakthi Rani vs. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu { 2010 (4) MLJ 849 }, concerned the eligibility of persons who obtained Post Graduate Degrees from Open Universities for enrolment as lawyers. The Division Bench of this Court while upholding the principle that Open University Degrees are not admissible, nevertheless invoked the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation only in favour of those candidates who were already enrolled and who had already started practicing. Therefore, the said decision is of no assistance to the petitioners. 27. The decision in R.Ramanan vs. The Director of Medical Education { 2011 (3) MLJ 659 }, was not related to any candidate who was not qualified for admission. On the contrary, the petitioners in that case were found to be meritorious candidates. The only objection was that they were admitted beyond the cut off date. But in the case on hand, the very eligibility of the petitioners for admission is in question. Therefore, the said decision will not apply to the case on hand. 28. Similarly, the decision in Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai vs. The State of Gujarat { AIR 2011 SC 1209 }, arose out of a case where the admission of students was found to have taken place due to the fault of the Rule-making Authority in not making the State Rules 2008 inconformity with MCA Regulations. But in the case on hand, there are no statutory rules which go contrary to the AICTE Regulations. On the other hand, the Director of Technical Education issued a circular on 14.6.2011 at least 2 months before the date of the Common Entrance Test that the qualifications prescribed by the amended regulations would apply. Therefore, the decision in Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai, will also not apply to the case on hand. 29. In Visveswaraya Technological University vs. Krishnendu Halder { AIR 2011 SC 1429 }, the Supreme Court made it very clear that students seeking admission should fulfill eligibility criteria prescribed by the Expert Body. Even the prescription of a higher eligibility criteria by the State and the University over and above that fixed by the AICTE, was approved in that case. In Visveswaraya Technological University vs. Krishnendu Halder { AIR 2011 SC 1429 }, the Supreme Court made it very clear that students seeking admission should fulfill eligibility criteria prescribed by the Expert Body. Even the prescription of a higher eligibility criteria by the State and the University over and above that fixed by the AICTE, was approved in that case. In the penultimate paragraph of its decision in the said case, the Supreme Court held that the determination of standards, being part of the academic policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it is established that such standards are arbitrary or adversely affected the standards, if any, fixed by the Central Body. 30. Mr. V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. M.R.Mondal { 2001 (8) SCC 443 }, in support of his contention that orders which are not communicated to the concerned persons, would have no legal force, effect or authority. According to the learned counsel, the new prescription brought forth by the amended Regulations was never communicated till 14.6.2011. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that innocent students cannot be made to suffer under the weight of a prescription which was never communicated. 31. I have two difficulties in accepting the above contention. They are:- (i) M.R.Mondal arose out of a contract. The case on hand arises out of statutory Regulations; (ii) At any rate, it is the Private Self-Financing Colleges to whom, if at all, the amended prescription had to be communicated. There is no question of communicating the eligibility criteria to individual students, as they constitute an unknown body of potential students at the time when the amendment was issued. The Colleges do not take a stand that in December 2010 they did not become aware of the amended prescription. On the contrary, they have challenged one part of the Approval Process Hand Book, even at that time, leaving unchallenged, the amended eligibility criteria. Therefore, the said decision is of no application to the case on hand. 32. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Deepa Thomas vs. Medical Council of India { 2012 (3) SCC 430 }. Therefore, the said decision is of no application to the case on hand. 32. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Deepa Thomas vs. Medical Council of India { 2012 (3) SCC 430 }. In that case, a set of students were aggrieved by a direction issued by the Medical Council of India to certain Colleges to discharge students admitted in violation of MCA Regulations. A reading of paragraphs 2 to 5 of the said decision, would reveal the following facts:- (i) That MCA Regulations prescribed a minimum of 50% marks both in the qualifying examination and in the competitive entrance examination; (ii) That, however, the prospectus did not stipulate 50% marks separately for qualifying examination and common entrance examination; (iii) That because of the confusion in the prospectus, the students were admitted and the list of admitted students was also forwarded to the Medical Council of India; (iv) That there was no objection from Medical Council of India for several months; (v) That after several months, the Medical Council of India directed the Colleges to discharge the students and the students challenged the decision before the High Court and continued their studies and came to the fourth year of the M.B.B.S. Course. 33. It was under such peculiar circumstances that the Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals, treating the case as arising under special facts and circumstances. Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the decision requires reproduction. Hence it is reproduced as follows:- "34. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this case and the extraordinary situation arising in the case, we do not in any way feel inhibited to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice in the matter before us. 35. Hence it is reproduced as follows:- "34. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this case and the extraordinary situation arising in the case, we do not in any way feel inhibited to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice in the matter before us. 35. For the reasons stated above, although we agree with the view of MCI and the High Court that the admissions of the appellants were irregular as they did not satisfy the requirement of securing not less than 50% marks in the CEE as prescribed in the MCI Regulations, we are inclined to take a considerate view in the special facts and circumstances mentioned in the earlier paragraphs and hence we direct that, as a special case, the appellants shall be allowed to continue and complete their MBBS course and also permit them to appear in the University examinations as if they had been regularly admitted to the course." 34. Thus it is clear that in the decision of Deepa Thomas was actually a direction issued under Article 142 of the Constitution. While I can simply follow what the Supreme Court says, I cannot do what the Supreme Court does. 35. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners made a fervent appeal to take a sympathetic view of the matter in view of the fact that innocent students have been affected by the illegal admissions, I do not think that it can be done. A similar appeal was made in Mahatma Gandhi University vs. Gis Jose {2008 (8) MLJ 794 (SC)}. But the Supreme Court turned it down on the ground that when students are admitted in breach of all possible rules, no misplaced sympathies can be shown to them. Any sympathy shown to these students actually enure to the benefit of the Self-Financing Educational Institutions. These institutions are actually the wrong doers. After admitting students contrary to the Regulations, these institutions hide behind the back of students and indulge in shadow litigation, as they know pretty well that they cannot plead either equity or sympathy. They make the students appeal to the conscience of this Court, so that along with the students the wrong doings of the managements of these Colleges would also get white washed. It is actually a catch-22 situation for the Court. They make the students appeal to the conscience of this Court, so that along with the students the wrong doings of the managements of these Colleges would also get white washed. It is actually a catch-22 situation for the Court. If the students succeed, the educational institutions also reap the benefit along with the students. If the students fail, they alone suffer, as the institutions would have nothing to lose, since they would have already collected and enjoyed the fees paid by them.36. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed. It will be open to the students to seek refund of the fees that they had paid and also seek compensation against the Colleges which admitted them contrary to the Regulations. As and when the students seek refund of fees, the institutions shall refund the fees in full without any deductions. The question of compensation is left open to be agitated by the students in separate proceedings against the institutions. The writ petitions are dismissed with the above observations. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.