Vikram Nath, J.;— On 22.11.2012 the following order was passed- "Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, counsel for the applicant. The applicant is an institute running the courses of the Degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy and Masters in related subjects since Academic Session 2002-2003. It is affiliated with Mahamaya Technical University, Gautambuddha Nagar and having the recognition/approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The AICTE normally grants approval/extension for running all the courses on yearly basis. The applicant's request for grant of approval/extension for the Academic Year 2011 - 2012 was rejected by the AICTE. The applicant approached this Court and the matter was remitted back and again it was rejected on a fresh ground. In the meantime the Session 2011 - 2012 expired. The applicant thereafter applied for extension for the Year 2012 - 2013, which was also rejected. The applicant has approached the Writ Court on four occasions and according to the counsel for the applicant two contempt applications are already pending against the opposite parties with regard to noncompliance of the judgment of this Court. Lastly the writ petition filed by the applicant being Writ Petition No.48812 of 2012 was allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.9.2012 and the decision taken by the AICTE was quashed with further direction to take a fresh decision within a period of three weeks in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. From a perusal of the judgment dated 25.9.2012 it is apparent that the Writ Court has recorded the findings of malafidies against the Officers of the AICTE. According to the counsel for the applicant for extraneous consideration the AICTE is deliberately and mischievously rejecting the claim of the applicant for approval/extension, which has already resulted into heavy losses to the applicant and also the students and would further result into not only heavy financial loss to the applicant-institute but also the students would suffer irreparably. According to the counsel for the applicant the examinations of the First Semester of the Academic Session 2012 - 2013 are to commence in December, 2012 and in case the extension/approval is not granted, it would result into irreparable loss for the current session also. According to the counsel for the applicant the examinations of the First Semester of the Academic Session 2012 - 2013 are to commence in December, 2012 and in case the extension/approval is not granted, it would result into irreparable loss for the current session also. In the judgment dated 25.9.2012, which was passed after hearing the counsel for the AICTE, this Court had issued specific directions that within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, a fresh decision was to be taken. The certified copy of the order is said to have been served in the Office of the Chairman, AICTE on 4.10.2012. Three weeks from the said date expired on 25.10.2012 and four weeks further have also expired i.e. in total seven seeks have already been expired but till date no decision has been taken, which has compelled the applicant to file this contempt application. Apparently, a prima facie of non-compliance is made out against the opposite parities. Issue notices to the opposite parties fixing 7.12.2012. Considering the urgency in the matter, the Registrar General will ensure that the notices are served on opposite parties within a week from today. Further the opposite parties may ensure compliance by way of filing appropriate affidavits within a week thereafter, failing which they shall remain present before this Court on the next date. It would also be open to the counsel for the applicant to serve advance copy of this order along with the copy of the contempt application on the opposite parties personally at the earliest. On 7.12.2012 the following order was passed- "On 22.11.2012 the following order was passed : Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant is an institute running the courses of the Degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy and Masters in related subjects since Academic Session 2002-2003. It is affiliated with Mahamaya Technical University, Gautambuddha Nagar and having the recognition/approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The AICTE normally grants approval/extension for running all the courses on yearly basis. The applicant's request for grant of approval/extension for the Academic Year 2011 - 2012 was rejected by the AICTE. The applicant approached this Court and the matter was remitted back and again it was rejected on a fresh ground. In the meantime the Session 2011 - 2012 expired. The applicant's request for grant of approval/extension for the Academic Year 2011 - 2012 was rejected by the AICTE. The applicant approached this Court and the matter was remitted back and again it was rejected on a fresh ground. In the meantime the Session 2011 - 2012 expired. The applicant thereafter applied for extension for the Year 2012 - 2013, which was also rejected. The applicant has approached the Writ Court on four occasions and according to the counsel for the applicant two contempt applications are already pending against the opposite parties with regard to noncompliance of the judgment of this Court. Lastly the writ petition filed by the applicant being Writ Petition No.48812 of 2012 was allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.9.2012 and the decision taken by the AICTE was quashed with further direction to take a fresh decision within a period of three weeks in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. From a perusal of the judgment dated 25.9.2012 it is apparent that the Writ Court has recorded the findings of malafidies against the Officers of the AICTE. 3. According to the counsel for the applicant for extraneous consideration the AICTE is deliberately and mischievously rejecting the claim of the applicant for approval/extension, which has already resulted into heavy losses to the applicant and also the students and would further result into not only heavy financial loss to the applicant-institute but also the students would suffer irreparably. According to the counsel for the applicant the examinations of the First Semester of the Academic Session 2012 - 2013 are to commence in December, 2012 and in case the extension/approval is not granted, it would result into irreparable loss for the current session also. 4. In the judgment dated 25.9.2012, which was passed after hearing the counsel for the AICTE, this Court had issued specific directions that within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, a fresh decision was to be taken. The certified copy of the order is said to have been served in the Office of the Chairman, AICTE on 4.10.2012. The certified copy of the order is said to have been served in the Office of the Chairman, AICTE on 4.10.2012. Three weeks from the said date expired on 25.10.2012 and four weeks further have also expired i.e. in total seven seeks have already been expired but till date no decision has been taken, which has compelled the applicant to file this contempt application. Apparently, a prima facie of non-compliance is made out against the opposite parities. 5. Issue notices to the opposite parties fixing 7.12.2012. 6. Considering the urgency in the matter, the Registrar General will ensure that the notices are served on opposite parties within a week from today. Further the opposite parties may ensure compliance by way of filing appropriate affidavits within a week thereafter, failing which they shall remain present before this Court on the next date. 7. It would also be open to the counsel for the applicant to serve advance copy of this order along with the copy of the contempt application on the opposite parties personally at the earliest. 8. Today neither affidavit of compliance has been filed nor the opposite parties are present. Sri Neeraj Tewari, Advocate, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. Upon instructions he has stated that there is likelihood that meeting of the council would be held on 20th December, 2012 i.e. the council which is to take the decision. Neither the Chairman nor the Advisor (approval) who have to take the decision. It is not understood as to why officers of the council do not act in time. In the order dated 22.11.2012 and in the judgment of the writ Court the conduct of the opposite parties has been well elaborated. Despite the same, it is apparent that the opposite parties are not paying any heed to the orders of the Court and are acting in their own casual manner. Further it is apparent that the opposite parties have not only flouted the order passed by the writ Court but also the order dated 22.11.2011 passed in this contempt application. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the examinations of the students of the B. Pharma Course is scheduled to commence from 18.12.2012 as such some date may be fixed prior to 18.12.2012. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the examinations of the students of the B. Pharma Course is scheduled to commence from 18.12.2012 as such some date may be fixed prior to 18.12.2012. On the other hand Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the University has stated that the examinations although are scheduled to commence from 18.12.2012 but the examinations for the first semester students are to commence from 26.12.2012. It is the examination of the fifth semester students' which is to commence from 18.12.2012 and there is no hindrance to the students of fifth semester to appear in the examinations. It may be noted that Sri Neeraj Tiwari, Advocate is also the Standing Counsel for the Maha Maya Technical University, Gautam Budh Nagar to which the applicant college is affiliated as such there is no need to fix a date prior to 18.12.2012. 10. List on 21st December, 2012 showing the name of Sri Neeraj Tewari, Advocate, from the side of the opposite parties. 11. On the said date both the opposite parties shall remain present along with their explanation as to why not only the order of the writ Court but also the order of the Contempt Court dated 22.11.2012 was flouted. It would be open to the opposite parties to file compliance affidavit in the meantime. 12. Today neither the opposite parties are present before the Court nor any affidavit has been filed by them. However Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed before the Court photostat copies of the order dated 17.12.2012 signed by the Member Secretary, AICTE. According to the contents of paragraph 13 of the said order Competent Authority has granted EOA (Extension of Approval) for 2012-13 to the applicant after superseding its earlier order dated 11.09.2012. Sri Neeraj Tiwari states that he has no further instructions from the opposite parties with regard to their non-appearance and also with regard to failure to file affidavits. 13. Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant states that even though the said order is said to be dated 17.12.2012 granting Extension of Approval but the same has not been uploaded in the official Website of the AICTE as a result of which the applicant institute is not able to get the full benefits of this order. 14. List this case on 10.1.2013. 14. List this case on 10.1.2013. On the said date the opposite parties would remain present before this Court along with their respective affidavits and explanations as required in the previous order passed by the contempt Court. In the event the opposite parties do not present along with their respective affidavits on the said date, the Court will be compelled to issue bailable warrants against them. _____________