Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a Charitable Trust, who has obtained approval from the All India Council for Technical Education(AICTE) for starting a new Engineering College in the Self Financing Sector. The petitioner claims that it has satisfied all the norms prescribed by the AICTE and as per Ext.P1, they have been granted approval by the Apex Body for Technical Education. However, when affiliation was sought for from the University, the same was declined for the reason of the petitioner having not obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State. Subsequently, this Court having found that the requirement of an NOC is not needed from the State, in WP(C)No. 2968/2013 and connected matters; the petitioner was before this Court with WP(C)No. 11836/2013. The petitioner also obtained Ext. P2 interim direction to grant provisional affiliation. 2. The University, then, by Ext. P3 complied with the said order. The petitioner having satisfied the University as to the infrastructure and other facilities as is provided in the University Statutes and on the petitioner executing an agreement as per Ext. P4 the petitioner commenced classes on the basis of the provisional affiliation, is the contention. The University disputes the petitioner's claim of having satisfied the norms, but the same is not to be considered herein. The dispute raised in the above Writ Petition is with respect to the mortgage of properties, which the petitioner has purchased and is a valid title holder of, as has been prescribed by the AICTE and the University. The University declined consent to mortgage the properties by Ext. P7, which is assailed herein. 3. The petitioner contends that the AICTE Norms itself, permits mortgage of properties as per proviso to Clause No. 2.4 in the Norms for Grant of Approval as prescribed in the Approval Process Handbook of the AICTE. The proviso permits the Institution to mortgage the land only after the receipt of letter of approval, and solely for raising resourses for the purpose of development of the Technical Education Institute situated on that land. The petitioner's contention is that the only requirement is the grant of approval; which the petitioner has by Ext. P1. The University could not prescribe any further conditions as has been held in in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government [2000(2) KLT 267 (SC)]. The petitioner's contention is that the only requirement is the grant of approval; which the petitioner has by Ext. P1. The University could not prescribe any further conditions as has been held in in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government [2000(2) KLT 267 (SC)]. In fact, the purpose for which mortgage is made is only for the development of the Institution and the petitioner having expanded considerable amounts for the setting up of the Institution, the petitioner necessarily, has to be granted permission to mortgage the properties for availing of further finance, which is in the interest of the petitioner Institution as also the students admitted to the Institution. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the AICTE, however, would point out that even going by clause 2.4, the mortgage of such property can be only for the purpose of availing finance to augment the resourses of the Technical Institution set up by a person, who has been granted approval by the AICTE. In such circumstances, it cannot at all be considered that the grant of approval alone would enable an Institution to mortgage the said lands and necessary consent would have to be obtained from the AICTE, which is competent to look into whether the finance is availed for the purpose of the development of the Institute. Such a consent has not been obtained from the AICTE, is the specific stand of the additional second respondent impleaded herein, in its counter affidavit dated 19.09.2013 as also oral submissions before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the University also specifically points out from the counter affidavit dated 21.08.2013 the policy decision taken by the Syndicate not to permit the Institute affiliated under the University to mortgage the properties on which the Institute is set up. The University in fact, takes up a specific contention that this decision has been taken by the Syndicate under the general powers conferred by the provisions in Chapter VI of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977, and this is the consistent stand taken by the Universities with respect to all the Colleges affiliated under it. A departure was made only in the case of an Institute established for the mentally disabled students, considering only the special circumstances, coming to fore in that case. A departure was made only in the case of an Institute established for the mentally disabled students, considering only the special circumstances, coming to fore in that case. The University also specifically points out a case in which the another Institute approved by the AICTE and affiliated to the University had come to a stand still due to the mismanagement of the educational agency, which required the students to be accommodated in another Institute. 6. The submission of the AICTE with respect to the interpretation of Clause 2.4 is reasonable insofar as the mortgage of properties is permitted only for the development of the Institution. It is a pre-condition for grant of approval by the AICTE, that an Institute should have clear title to property of a specified extent, and also infrastructure in the said property for carrying on an Institute. Though, Clause 2.4 permits the mortgage of such properties, it cannot be said that the same can be done as a matter of course immediately on approval being granted by the AICTE. Such an interpretation in fact would defeat the very purpose for which clear title of properties is insisted upon as a pre-condition for granting approval. It is also pertinent that the Clause permits such mortgage, only for raising resourses for the development of the Institution. Such encumbrance cannot be made without the AICTE looking into whether the finance availed is for the development of the Institute and the same is commensurate with the expenditure for development anticipated by the Institute. 7. Though, the University has raised very valid contentions in the Counter Affidavit, it is to be noticed that the same does not find a place in Ext. P8, which is cryptic and is vitiated for total lack of reasons. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no requirement to get the prior written consent of the University is belied by the fact that there is a valid agreement executed by the petitioner institution, at the time of grant of affiliation, as is revealed in Ext. P4. In Ext. P4, the petitioner had undertaken to get the consent of the University, if the properties are sought to be alienated or encumbered. P4. In Ext. P4, the petitioner had undertaken to get the consent of the University, if the properties are sought to be alienated or encumbered. The petitioner having undertaken to get such consent cannot now turn around to contend that this was not required in the first place and a mere approval from the AICTE would suffice, and the petitioner could, without anything more, mortgage the properties. 8. The decision cited above also deals with the approval to be granted by the State Government and does not take in the affiliation of Colleges as provided by the respective University. The Kerala University First Statutes of 1977, prescribes the Forms in which an application has to be made for affiliation of Colleges, in Chapter 24 and required by sub-clause (8) that "the financial resources of the College should be such that its continued maintenance is assured". It is on the basis of the said provision that the petitioner has undertaken to get the consent of the University in so far as the mortgage of the properties is concerned. 9. In such circumstances the petitioner, not having obtained the consent of the All India Council for Technical Education, this Court is precluded from issuing any positive directions, since, it is for the AICTE, to conduct inspection and decide on whether the proposal for mortgage is for the development of the Institution, and whether the same would in fact ensure the continuance of the Institution, without causing any hardship to the students. It is also clear that after obtaining such consent from the AICTE, the petitioner would also be required to seek a consent from the University, as has been agreed to in Ext. P4. However, when such consent is considered, the University would have to again examine the interest of the students and the development anticipated by the Institute as also the extent of the finance required. For that limited purpose, without expressing anything on the merits, on the contentions raised by the University in its counter affidavit Ext. P7 is set aside, for being vitiated by total lack of reasons. The petitioner if so advised can approach the Apex Body of technical education, the AICTE, and if consent is received, the petitioner is also to make necessary application to the University. The Writ Petition hence, is allowed with the above observations. No costs.