JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C. J. 1. Since both the writ appeals involve common facts, on consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the appellants, namely, Biju Patnaik University of Technology (in short, BPUT) and the State Government question the correctness of the impugned order dated 17-1-2012 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15864 of 2011 holding that the action of the State Government in defying the decision of the University Grants Commission (in short, UGC ) for conferment of autonomous status to the present respondent No. 1-college is unsustainable in law and quashing the decision of the Government not to accord the status to the present respondent No. 1 college communicated to the BPUT vide its letter dated 21-5-2011 and directing both the State Government and the BPUT to take immediate steps to carry out their respective obligations under the XIth Plan Guidelines of the UGC for grant of autonomous status to the respondent No. 1-college, urging various facts and legal contentions. 3. Necessary brief facts of the case are stated hereunder for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to find out as to whether the impugned order is vitiated in law. 4. Present respondent No. 1-college challenged the inaction of the BPUT in implementing the decision of the UGC in granting autonomous status to the college and taking necessary action in this regard. The UGC under its XIth Plan Guidelines prepared a Scheme for conferment of autonomous status to colleges to increase the number of autonomous colleges in the country with a target to make 10% of eligible colleges autonomous by the end of XIth Plan period, i.e. 2007-2012. In terms of the said guidelines of UGC, the respondent No. 1-college submitted its proposal for autonomous status from the academic session 2010-2011 in the prescribed format duly signed and recommended by the Registrar, BPUT, to the Secretary, UGC vide its letter dated 18-1-2010. On the basis of the said letter, the UGC wrote letters dated 23-4-2010 to both the appellants stating that it has constituted an Expert Committee consisting of three members to evaluate the performance and the academic attainments for conferment of autonomous status on the respondent No. 1-college. On the basis of the said letter, the UGC wrote letters dated 23-4-2010 to both the appellants stating that it has constituted an Expert Committee consisting of three members to evaluate the performance and the academic attainments for conferment of autonomous status on the respondent No. 1-college. Accordingly, both the appellants were requested to nominate their respective nominee to be the members of the Expert Committee. In the said letters of the UGC, it was clearly mentioned that if the State Government fails to provide its nominee within ninety days from the date of issuance of the letter, the Expert Committee may go ahead with the process to evaluate the performance and academic attainments of the college. Since the State Government did not nominate its nominee to the Expert Committee, again UGC wrote the letter dated 25-8-2010 requesting the State Government to nominate its nominee to the Expert Committee and further instruct him to attend and visit the respondent No. 1-college from 30-8-2010 to 1-9-2010. The college vide its letter dated 27-8-2010 also requested the State Government to nominate its representative for the Expert Committee constituted by the UGC for inspection of the respondent No. 1 college which was to be conducted on 30-8-2010. Ultimately, the State Government through the Department of Industries vide its letter dated 8-9-2010 intimated to the UGC that one Mr. D. K. Mallick, Joint Director (Academic), Office of the DTE & T, Orissa, Cuttack is nominated as the State Government nominee to the Expert Committee for the purpose of evaluation of the performance and academic attainments of respondent No. 1-college. 5. Since the State Government failed to nominate its nominee in time despite reminders, the Expert Committee of the UGC consisting of the nominee of BPUT and others conducted inspection of the respondent No. 1-college from 30-8-2010 to 1-9-2010 and submitted its detailed report recommending that the respondent No. 1-college be made autonomous for a period of six years from 2011-12 to 2016-17. Based on the said recommendation of the Expert Committee, the UGC vide its letter dated 15-10-2010 agreed to confer autonomy to respondent No. 1-charge which was communicated to all concerned including both the appellant and the respondent No. 1-college with a request to the BPUT for issuing necessary orders in this regard. Based on the said recommendation of the Expert Committee, the UGC vide its letter dated 15-10-2010 agreed to confer autonomy to respondent No. 1-charge which was communicated to all concerned including both the appellant and the respondent No. 1-college with a request to the BPUT for issuing necessary orders in this regard. Subsequently, the UGC wrote another letter on 13-1-2011 and requested the BPUT to issue necessary orders for conferment of autonomy upon the college. The college also took up the matter with the BPUT for issuing orders/notification. The BPUT vide letter dated 17-3-2011 intimated to the college that the matter regarding conferment of autonomous status was already taken up by the BPUT and the same shall be intimated shortly. The UGC vide its letter dated 15-4-2011 nominated Prof. (Dr.) D. S. Chauhan, Vice-Chancellor, Uttarakhand Technical University as its nominee to the Governing Body of the college, but the appellant-BPUT as well as the State Government did not nominate its representative to the Governing Body of the college. The college made further request in this regard. Having failed to elicit any response either from the State Government or from the BPUT and due to the inaction on the part of the BPUT in passing necessary orders notifying the autonomous status of respondent No. 1-college, it had approached this Court seeking appropriate relief. During pendency of the writ petition, the college came to know subsequently that the State Government vide its letter dated 21-5-2011 intimated to the BPUT its decision not to accord autonomous status to respondent No. 1-college. Same was also challenged by way of amendment of the writ petition. 6. During pendency of the writ petition, the college came to know subsequently that the State Government vide its letter dated 21-5-2011 intimated to the BPUT its decision not to accord autonomous status to respondent No. 1-college. Same was also challenged by way of amendment of the writ petition. 6. The prayers of the writ petitioner were opposed by the State Government and also the BPUT traversing the petition averments contending that respondent No. 1 college is not entitled to conferment of autonomous status and for grant of autonomous status, the provision of section 10(m) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (in short, AICTE Act) as applicable and no regulations are framed therefore and it is the All India Council for Technical Education (in short AICTE) which is competent to confer the status of autonomy under the said Act and not the UGC, which is a statutory body established under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (in short, UGC Act ) and the XIth Plan Guidelines for grant of autonomous status to respondent No. 1 college in order to carry out the National Policy on Education 1986-1992 of the Central Government is not traceable to section 10(m) of the AICTE Act. Section 3 of the UGC Act deals with the conferment of the status of Deemed University in relation to the recognized university as defined under Section 2(f) of the said Act. Further, it is contended that the Expert Committee report is not binding on the State Government. The decision of the UGC conferring autonomy on respondent No. 1-college is in violation of its own norms prescribed in the XIth Plan Guidelines. Hence, the same cannot be enforceable in law. Therefore, the decision of the Government not to accord autonomous status to respondent No. 1 college cannot be found fault with. The appellant-BPUT also filed counter-affidavit reiterating the plea that there is no provision for grant of permanent affiliation in the BPUT 1st Statute of 2006. As required in the XIth Plan Guidelines of the UGC, no autonomous status can be granted to the college. The appellant-BPUT also filed counter-affidavit reiterating the plea that there is no provision for grant of permanent affiliation in the BPUT 1st Statute of 2006. As required in the XIth Plan Guidelines of the UGC, no autonomous status can be granted to the college. Further, in the additional affidavit filed by the BPUT in the writ petition, it has been clearly spelt out that to the two questions addressed to the UGC, i.e. (i) whether the guidelines for the Scheme of Autonomous Colleges is by way of any Regulation, Rules or Act of UGC, and (ii) whether such notification/Gazette copy if any be provided, the specific answer of the UGC under the R.T.I. Act was to the following effect : The guidelines for automous college have been formatted in pursuance of the objective laid down under National Policy in Education, 1986. The guidelines have not been notified as Regulation under the provision of UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, it is stated that the writ petition itself is not maintainable for grant of the first relief, i.e. issuance of a writ of mandamus, as the petitioner has no enforceable statutory right and in support of his contention, a copy of the said document was filed as Annexure-E/2 to the additional affidavit dated 7-9-2011. It is further stated that the XIth Plan Guidelines of UGC being in the nature of guidelines and/or instructions, the BPUT is not bound to comply with the same. Especially, the State Government in the Industries Department decided not to accord autonomous status to respondent No. 1-college and at the time of hearing had taken a plea that respondent No. 1 college is governed by the AICTE which alone can take a decision regarding grant of autonomy to respondent No. 1-college under Section 10(m) by framing the regulations. Therefore, the UGC has no authority to grant autonomy to the college. Therefore, the UGC has no authority to grant autonomy to the college. In the writ petition, the UGC filed a counter-affidavit strongly relying on the recommendation made by the Education Commission (1964-66) with regard to the college autonomy, the UGC documents on the XIth Plan profile of higher education in India highlighting the importance of autonomous colleges and also the objectives of the XIth Plan to carry out the National Policy on Education (1986-1992) according to which an autonomous college will have the freedom to : * Determine and prescribe its own courses of study and syllabi, and restructure and redesign the courses to suit local needs; and * Prescribe rules for admission in consonance with the reservation policy of the State Government; * Evolve methods of assessment of students performance, the conduct of examinations and notification of results; * Use modern tools of educational technology to achieve higher standards and greater creativity; and * Promote healthy practices such as community service, extension activities, projects for the benefit of the society at large, neighbourhood programmes, etc. and also referred to Clause 2(b) of the XIth Plan Guidelines which provides for the relationship with the parents university, the State Government and other educational institutions and further emphasis is made on Clause 3 thereof which deals with the Eligibility Target Groups and provides for the criteria for identification of institutions for grant of autonomy. Whether the college has got temporary or permanent affiliation comes under the Target Groups eligibility conditions for grant of autonomous status. The UGC has considered both the categories of colleges for grant of autonomous status. Further it was stated that it has received proposal from respondent No. 1-college in January, 2010 and accordingly the UGC constituted an Expert Committee and requested both the State Government and BPUT to send their nominees. The Expert Committee conducted its inquiry and submitted a report which was accepted and a letter was written to the State Government to act upon the said report for conferring autonomous status upon respondent No. 1-college. The Expert Committee conducted its inquiry and submitted a report which was accepted and a letter was written to the State Government to act upon the said report for conferring autonomous status upon respondent No. 1-college. Strong reliance was placed upon the UGC Act, 1955 which is enacted under the provisions of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the definition of University under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act and also Sections 12 and 20 of the said Act and it was sought to justify that the Government and also the BPUT were to act upon the letter issued for conferment of autonomous status by the BPUT which has not been done. Therefore, the prayer sought for in the writ petition which has been granted in favour of respondent No. 1-college is also justified. 7. The ground of attack to the impugned order is that the impugned order is contrary to the statutory provision contained in section 10(m) of the AICTE Act and the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court on the question of the doctrine of promissory estoppel on which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1-college which has been accepted by the learned single Judge after elaborately explaining and extracting the relevant passages from the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968 SC 718 , Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 621 , Basinka Trading v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 874 , Pawan Alloys and Casting Pvt. Ltd., Meerut etc. etc. v. U.P. State Electricity Board, AIR 1997 SC 3910 , State of Orissa v. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 297 , State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 4559, State of Bihar v. Kalayanpur Cement Ltd. (2010) 3 SCC 274 : (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 924) and Union of India v. Godgrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806 . The further ground of attack is that the XIth Plan Guidelines framed for implementing the National Policy on Education (1986-1992) which have been framed on the basis of the Education Commission (1964-66) regarding grant of autonomy to colleges have no application to the fact situation for the reason that the National Policy on Education (1986-1992) formulated with the objective of college autonomy must be in conformity with the provision of Section 10(m) of the AICTE Act which governs the field in relation to grant of autonomy in favour of any technical institution. Section 10(m) provides for laying down regulations/guidelines by the AICTE for the purpose of conferment of autonomous status. Further, placing of reliance on Section 12 or Section 20 of the UGC Act and accepting the case of respondent No. 1-college, grant of relief in favour of the writ petitioner is wholly untenable in law as the same is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the AICTE Act or the Biju Patnaik University of Technology Act, 2002 (in short, BPUT Act). Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is vitiated in law and the reliance placed upon the XIth Plan Guidelines which have no statutory force constituting the Expert Committee to conduct inspection of the academic attainments for conferment of autonomous status on respondent No. 1-college is totally impermissible in law and asking the State Government and the BPUT to nominate their members to the Committee and the Committees report in favour of respondent No. 1-college for conferment of autonomous status asking the State Government to issue necessary instruction for issuance of no-objection certificate on the basis of their report and not granting the no-objection certificate and the decision of the UGC regarding conferment of autonomous status should have been set aside as the same is not in accordance with law and therefore the learned single Judge gravely erred in law. Reliance has been placed upon the catena of decisions by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1-college in support of their contention that once the format of the college was forwarded by respondent No. 1-college to the Registrar of the BPUT nominating its nominee to the Committee promising to respondent No. 1-college for conferment of autonomous status, they could not have gone back. Therefore, the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable to both the State Government and the BPUT as respondent No. 1-college has nominated its nominee in the Committee and Clauses 2(b) and 3 of the XIth Plan Guidelines framed by the UGC upon which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel, have no statutory force and could not have been relied on. Hence, Mr. Palit contended that the said finding is contrary to law. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806 . He pointed out that the guidelines are mere administrative instructions and as such, for the enforcement thereof no direction can be issued by the writ Court as it has no statutory feature. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Syndicate Bank v. Ramachandran Pillai, 2011 (1) Scale 368, Union of India v. S. L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 : ( AIR 1993 SC 2444 ) Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. G. Ratnam (2007) 8 SCC 212 : ( AIR 2007 SC 2976 ) and Collector, Distt. Gwalior v. Cine Exhibitors P. Ltd., 2012 (1) JT (SC) 307 : (AIR 2012) SC 1239) and submitted that the reliance placed on Sections 12(1) and 20 ignoring Section 10(m) of the AICTE Act is vitiated in law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the findings and the reasoning recorded by the learned single Judge on the rival and legal contentions are contrary to law. Section 2(f) read with sections 12 and 20 of the UGC Act and XIth Plan Guidelines framed by the UGC are not relatable to the regulations and are not applicable for the purpose of grant of autonomous status to the technical institutions as the same has not been framed by the AICTE which is a statutory authority empowered as per the provision contained in Section 10(m) of the AICTE Act. Therefore, the provisions of the XIth Plan Guidelines are totally inapplicable to the fact situation. Hence, the impugned order is vitiated in law and accordingly the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Mr. B. Routray, learned senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1-college and Mr. Therefore, the provisions of the XIth Plan Guidelines are totally inapplicable to the fact situation. Hence, the impugned order is vitiated in law and accordingly the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Mr. B. Routray, learned senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1-college and Mr. J. Das, learned senior Advocate appearing for the intervenor-students, and also Mr. S. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for Silicon Institute of Technology-respondent No. 1 in the connected W.A. No. 114 of 2012 filed by the BPUT also supported the finding of the learned single Judge on similar grounds and prayed for dismissal of the appeals. We will deal with W.A. No. 114 of 2012 separately. 9. With reference to the aforesaid legal rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration in these appeals. (i) Whether applying the XIth Plan Guidelines framed by the UGC under the National Policy on Education (1986-1992) to formulate the objectives to confer autonomous status upon technical institutions in the absence of any regulations framed under section 10(m) of the AICTE Act, the relief granted is legal and valid ? (ii) Whether the XIth Plan Guidelines (2007-2012) have got statutory force? (iii) Whether there is any promissory estoppel against law? (iv) What order? 10. Points (i) and (ii) are required to be answered together as they are inter-related. 11. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No. 1-college is a technical institution as defined under the provision of Section 2(h) of the AICTE which reads thus : 2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (h) Technical institution means an institution, not being an University, which offers courses or programme or technical education and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions; Section 2(f) thereof defines regulations which means regulations made under this Act. Section 3 deals with establishment of the Council which says that with effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, there shall be established a Council by the name of the All India Council for Technical Education which is a body corporate. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 provides that the Council shall consist of members mentioned in clauses (a) to (t) thereof. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 provides that the Council shall consist of members mentioned in clauses (a) to (t) thereof. It is also undisputed fact that College has been defined under Section 2(f) of the BPUT Act and respondent No. 1-charge, in terms of the said definition, is an institution admitted to the University in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Statutes. Section 2(b) thereof relates to affiliated institution which means a college or an institution affiliated to the University and includes a college or an institution deemed to be an affiliated college or institution under the said Act. Sub-sections (i) to (xxiii) of Section 5 of the BPUT Act, confer number of powers upon the University which are subject to such orders, rules, regulations, guidelines and directions, as may be issued from time to time, by the Central Government or the Council under the provisions of the All-India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. The relevant subsection is sub-section (iii) of Section 5 which is regarding grant of autonomy to any affiliated college or institution imparting education of engineering and technology. Therefore, the power to confer autonomous status in the case on hand vests with the university/BPUT. The same is no doubt subject to the orders, rules, regulations or guidelines either by the Central Government or the Council under the AICTE Act. In the case on hand, in view of section 10 (m) of the AICTE Act, the AICTE has the power to frame such regulations. Therefore, the guidelines framed by the Central Government under the XI Plan upon which strong reliance has been placed, are not applicable. Those guidelines could have been framed by the Central Government and made applicable, had the field not been occupied by law. The case of respondent No. 1-college is that XIth Plan Guidelines are framed by the UGC in exercise of its power under the National Policy on Education (1986-1992) on the basis of 1964-66 Education Committee Report for standardization of education in the field of technical education to achieve good standard in the said education are not framed under the provisions of the AICTE Act by the AICTE but are framed by the UGC. The UGC Act does not deal with the matter of conferment of autonomous status on a college affiliated to a university under the BPUT Act. The UGC Act does not deal with the matter of conferment of autonomous status on a college affiliated to a university under the BPUT Act. The UGC Act deals with the conferment of deemed status under Section 3 of the UGC Act. Section 10(m) of the AICTE Act deals with the conferment of autonomous status on a college affiliated to a university. Therefore, the conferment of powers for grant of autonomy under Section 5 of the BPUT Act to a college or institution is subject to orders, rules, regulations and guidelines framed by the Central Government or the Council under the provisions of the AICTE Act the provisions of the XIth Plan Guidelines are not traceable to the guidelines framed under the AICTE Act. Therefore, seeking enforcement of the right of the college placing strong reliance upon the XIth Plan Guidelines is contrary to Section 3 read with Section 10(m) of the AICTE Act and also Section 5 thereof. Further, in the additional affidavit filed by Dr. Prasanta Kumar Satpathy, Registrar-in-charge of the BPUT, opposite party No. 2 in the writ petition, the specific answers of the UGC obtained by him under the R.T.I. Act and the two specific questions addressed to the UGC, which have already been extracted above, have been referred to. 12. On a careful reading of the said information, it is very clear that those guidelines have not been notified under the Regulations of the UGC Act and it is not the case of the UGC that it is not framed by itself. Even if it is framed by it, Section 5 of the BPUT Act clearly confers the power upon the University to grant autonomous status subject to the regulations/guidelines that may be framed by the Central Government or the Council under the AICTE Act. Therefore, the entire process made for grant of autonomous status on the basis of the guidelines by the UGC is contrary to the statutory provisions referred to supra. Accordingly, point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in favour of both the appellants, i.e. BPUT and the State, respectively. 13. Rightly it is submitted by Mr. Palit, learned counsel for the appellant-BPUT that the guidelines of the UGC have no statutory force and the decisions referred to supra cited by him have got application to the fact situations. Accordingly, point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in favour of both the appellants, i.e. BPUT and the State, respectively. 13. Rightly it is submitted by Mr. Palit, learned counsel for the appellant-BPUT that the guidelines of the UGC have no statutory force and the decisions referred to supra cited by him have got application to the fact situations. Therefore, for non-consideration of the aforesaid decisions by the learned single Judge, the impugned judgment is vitiated in law. 14. Since point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in favour of the appellants, point No. (iii) also must be answered in their favour for the following reasons. 15. It is a well established principle of law that promissory estoppel cannot be pleaded against law. A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. ( AIR 1986 SC 806 ) referred to supra, has crystallized the principle as under : .......that there can be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions nor can the Government or public authority be debarred by promissory estoppel from enforcing a statutory prohibition. It is equally true that promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make. The said decision rendered by the three-Judge Bench has been referred to and followed by the Apex Court in its subsequent decision in the case of Collector, Distt. Gwalior v. Cine Exhibitors P. Ltd., referred to supra ( AIR 2012 SC 1239 ) and the said decision applies to the fact situation of the present appeals. 16. With reference to the statutory provisions of the AICTE Act and the BPUT Act, it is clear that the procedure required to be followed for conferment of autonomous status by the BPUT is provided in Section 5(iii) of the BPUT Act. The format submitted by respondent No. 1college is on the basis of the UGC Guidelines which have no statutory force. While answering to points (ii), we have recorded a finding that conferment of autonomous status on the college is governed by the AICTE Act but not the UGC Act. The format submitted by respondent No. 1college is on the basis of the UGC Guidelines which have no statutory force. While answering to points (ii), we have recorded a finding that conferment of autonomous status on the college is governed by the AICTE Act but not the UGC Act. Sections 2(f), 3 and 12 of the UGC Act relate to grant of status of deemed university. Grant of status of deemed university is different from grant of status of autonomy. The power to grant the status of deemed university vests with the UGC under Section 3 whereas the power to grant autonomous status to the university to which respondent No. 1-college is affiliated is subject to regulations or guidelines to be framed by the Central Government or the Council under the AICTE Act. Therefore, the field is occupied by the AICTE Act for framing of regulations under Section 10(m) of the AICTE Act for grant of autonomous status to an affiliated college by the BPUT to which respondent No. 1-college, in the instant case, is affiliated. Therefore, the format forwarded by the Registrar of the BPUT as per the request of respondent No. 1-college appointing its nominee to be a member of the Expert Committee as requested by the UGC and the State Government appointing its nominee in the Governing Council cannot be put against the BPUT or the State as promissory estoppel and the entire proceeding initiated by the UGC is without competence and jurisdiction as the UGC is not empowered to frame guidelines and such power only vests with the AICTE under Section 10(m) of the AICTE Act. Therefore, the entire action of the UGC is void ab initio in law and hence forwarding of the nominee to the Expert Committee cannot be made use against the BPUT and the State stating that it is a promissory estoppel on their part. Reliance placed by the learned single Judge upon a catena of decisions in the impugned judgment is totally inapplicable to the fact situations and referring to the fact situations, the finding of putting promissory estoppel against the BPUT regarding grant of autonomous status to the college is wholly untenable in law and the decisions applied by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment have no application. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned single Judge on this point is an error of law. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned single Judge on this point is an error of law. Accordingly, point No. (iii) is also answered in favour of the appellants. 17. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. 18. I agree. Appeals allowed.