Judgment 1. Both writ petitions were filed by the same educational Trust. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.16171 of 2012), the petitioner sought for a direction to the first respondent All India Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE) to consider their application for starting a new polytechnic institution in the name and style of "Sri Pranathi Polytechnic College" at No.141/1C, Mettupalayam Village, Kovilpalayam Post, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District for the academic year 2012-2013 pursuant to the status report relating to the institution published in the web-portal of the AICTE as "No deficiency noted" against the college. 2. When the said writ petition came up on 26.06.2012, this court directed Ms.AL.Ganthimathi, learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE to take notice for respondents 1 and 2. In respect of third respondent, Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader took notice. 3. Even while this writ petition is pending, the petitioner again came up with the second writ petition (W.P.No.16777 of 2012) seeking to challenge an order dated 26.6.2012 issued by the AICTE and seeks to set aside the same and for a direction to the first respondent to forthwith re-consider the application of the petitioner for starting a new polytechnic institution for the academic year 2012-2013. In this writ petition, notice on admission was ordered by this court on 02.07.2012 and for respondents, Ms.AL.Ganthimathi, learned Standing Counsel took notice. On notice, a counter affidavit, dated 14.07.2012 was filed in the second writ petition by the AICTE. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, dated 19.7.2012. 4. Heard both sides. In view of the subsequent developments, i.e, the petitioner's claim for approval was rejected by an order dated 26.6.2012, the first writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.16171 of 2012 does not stand to any scrutiny as it had become infructuous. Hence W.P.No.16171 of 2012 will stand dismissed. 5. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, dated 19.7.2012. 4. Heard both sides. In view of the subsequent developments, i.e, the petitioner's claim for approval was rejected by an order dated 26.6.2012, the first writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.16171 of 2012 does not stand to any scrutiny as it had become infructuous. Hence W.P.No.16171 of 2012 will stand dismissed. 5. In the impugned order of rejection, the AICTE informed the petitioner institution as follows : "In terms of the provisions under the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations 2011 notified by the Council vide notification number F-No.37-3/Legal/2011 dated 10/12/2010 and other notifications, as applicable and published from time to time, I am directed to convey the Rejection of Application for establishing a Technical Institution/Campus bearing Application ID 1740008791 for SRI PRANATHI POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, 141/1C, METTUPALAYAM VILLAGE, KOVILPALAYAM POST, POLLACHI TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, Tamil Nadu, 642110 for the details reasons as noted in the following reports, as applicable to this institute. i. Scrutiny report, ii. Re-scrutiny report, iii. Expert committee visit report, iv. Regional committee report, v. Reasons for rejection in the EC." 6. The contention of the petitioner was that the petitioner trust had established a new polytechnic and made an application to the AICTE through its web portal on 28.12.2011 for approval of the institution for the academic year 2012-2013. Hard copies of the application were submitted to the State Government, Commissioner of Technical Education and also to the AICTE on 09.01.2012. The petitioner had also attended the scrutiny committee in the office of the Regional Officer, Southern Regional Office, AICTE, Chennai on 15.02.2012 with all relevant documentary evidence. After verifying all documents submitted by the petitioner, the scrutiny committee had wanted the petitioner to give additional particulars. On 25.02.2012, the petitioner had appeared before the Re-scrutiny committee and furnished the additional particulars as on 15.02.2012. While they were waiting for approval, their application was rejected for not furnishing proof for working capital, not submitting the complete building plan as well as not submitting the phase wife plan. Immediately, they preferred an appeal to the Standing Appeal committee of the AICTE on 6.4.2012. Through the web portal, the AICTE had called upon the petitioner to appear before the standing appeal committee at New Delhi on 22.4.2012. The petitioner had appeared before the committee and produced all required documents. Immediately, they preferred an appeal to the Standing Appeal committee of the AICTE on 6.4.2012. Through the web portal, the AICTE had called upon the petitioner to appear before the standing appeal committee at New Delhi on 22.4.2012. The petitioner had appeared before the committee and produced all required documents. Satisfying with the presentation of documents, the AICTE had deputed its Expert committee to visit and inspect the institution of the petitioner on 04.05.2012. The expert committee was satisfied with the infrastructure facilities. A spiral bound volume containing several annexure and documents was submitted to the expert committee. The committee being satisfied with the facilities had wanted the petitioner to submit General Insurance policy for the institution. On the same day, the petitioner had contracted an insurance policy with the General Insurance Company and produced the receipt for the same. The members of the committee received the copy of the receipt. 7. Apart from documentary proof, the petitioner had also submitted photographic and videographic proof to the exert committee. There was no dissatisfaction by the members of the committee. This is evident from the status report relating to the petitioner institution as found in the web portal of the AICTE wherein it has been categorically mentioned that no deficiency noted. It was only when there was a delay in granting approval, they filed the earlier writ petition seeking for early orders on the application of the petitioner for starting the institution. On 26.06.2012, this court directed the counsel for the AICTE to get instructions. It is at this stage, by the impugned communication, their application was rejected on the ground that general insurance was not available, language laboratory was not available and medical and counseling was also not available. This is nothing but victimisation of the petitioner institute as it can be seen from the compliance report submitted to the expert committee which contained proof of purchase of invoice of software for the language laboratory in page No.97, photographic proof for existence of language laboratory, documentary proof to establish medical facility and counseling in page No.114, the insurance receipt produced as additional document on 04.05.2012 before the expert committee. All these documents were furnished and the committee gave a finding "no deficiency noted", which status was available in the web portal of the AICTE. All these documents were furnished and the committee gave a finding "no deficiency noted", which status was available in the web portal of the AICTE. Therefore, the letter of rejection was a thoughtless exercise and in this process, the petitioner was put to heavy loss. 8. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the AICTE in paragraphs 4 and 5, it was averred as follows: "4.....However, in spite of the fact that there are deficiencies, the Expert Visiting Committee had recommended the application to the Standing Appellate Committee for review. The Standing Appellate Committee, on a perusal of all the reports, found that still there are deficiencies existing in the Petitioner Institution and hence, passed order rejecting the petitioner's application for approval on 9.5.2012 itself and a letter of rejection was issued on 26.6.2012..... 5....It is clearly mentioned that although the Expert Visiting Committee recommended with deficiencies, the application of the petitioner is rejected. It is further seen from the Expert Visiting Committee Report that only 90% of the work related to Central Store, Maintenance, Security and Cafteria is complete and 85% of the work related to Stationery Store, First Aid and Sick Room is complete and further, General Insurance provided for assets against Fire, Burglary and other calamities is not presented and in view of the deficiencies noted down by the Expert Visiting Committee, which has not been rectified by the Petitioner Trust, the petitioner's application has been rejected." 9. The learned counsel also produced a copy of the report in which the scrutiny committee by a report dated 13.02.2012 stated that the building construction is over. The report of the Standing Appellate Committee in the report dated 22.4.2012 made a recommendation that the college requires a detailed scrutiny and the scrutiny was recommended. The re-scrutiny committee had recommended the visit by the expert committee. The expert committee of the Standing appellate committee had noted that 90% of the work related to central store, maintenance, security and cafeteria was completed and 85% of the work related to stationery store and first aid and sick room was also completed. It is this report which is now sought to be shown as the basis for rejecting the case of the institution. 10. It is this report which is now sought to be shown as the basis for rejecting the case of the institution. 10. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner institution, it was stated as follows: "4....Therefore, in the counter now filed in W.P.No.16777 of 2012 new deficiencies with reference to Central Store, Security and Cafeteria, Stationery Store, First Aid, Sick Room and Fire & General Insurance are pointed out. Out of these deficiencies the last one viz., Fire and General Insurance was the only deficiency already pointed out by the Expert Visiting Committee on 04.05.2012. On the very same day the Petitioner was able to effect the insurance and produce proof of the same to the Expert Visiting Committee. As far as the other deficiencies now pointed out in the counter are new and they were not pointed out at any earlier point of time. This is nothing but an attempt to improve upon the impugned order by substituting new reasons, which is not permissible. The fact that as stated earlier till 23.06.2012 the web portal of the AICTE was showing "No Deficiency Pointed Out" will prove that these deficiencies mentioned in the counter have been invented for the purpose of this case. In fact the Central Store, Security and Cafeteria, Stationery Store and First Aid and Sick Room were completed in all respects and the insurance policy was effected on the same day of the visit of the Expert Visiting Committee and proof of the same was produced. Therefore the present stand now taken in the counter affidavit is incorrect and unsustainable." 11. Therefore, Mr.Kandhan Duraisami, learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that what was not pointed out by the committee cannot be brought-in in the counter affidavit for the first time. These deficiencies were already never noted. On the other hand, there are no deficiencies at all in the petitioner institution and that is the reason why their case was originally recommended and noted that "no deficiencies noted". 12. They also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. These deficiencies were already never noted. On the other hand, there are no deficiencies at all in the petitioner institution and that is the reason why their case was originally recommended and noted that "no deficiencies noted". 12. They also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 for contending that the action of the administrative authority has to be judged by the reasons stated while making the order and that the supplementary reasons cannot be brought-in in the shape of affidavit which will have to be excluded. 13. He also referred to an another judgment of the Supreme court in Al-Karim Educational Trust and another Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (1996) 8 SCC 330 for contending that for unreasonably withholding or prolongation of grant, the court can interfere providing essential prerequisites for the grant fulfilled. 14. In the light of the rival contentions, this court is satisfied that the rejection by the AICTE was totally unjustified especially when the petitioner had complied with all requirements. Even the present stand that the completion of building was not made also does not stand to reason as the petitioner had provided sufficient documents both photographic and videographic evidence in respect of the alleged deficiencies. 15. In view of the above, W.P.No.16777 of 2012 will stand allowed. The impugned order of the AICTE dated 26.06.2012 will stand set aside. The AICTE is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of approval for starting a new polytechnic institution for the academic year 2012-2013 and grant necessary approval within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner without fail. 16. In the result, W.P.No.16171 of 2012 will stand dismissed as infructuous. W.P.No.16777 of 2012 will stand allowed as per the above terms. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.