Judgment Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. We have heard the rival parties at length on 05/02/2014. In view of the earlier orders passed and the directions that we propose to give by this order, we do not find it necessary to advert to all the contentions put forth by the rival parties. We intend to consider those contentions which we find are relevant and therefore germane to the nature of the order that we propose to pass. 4. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.8312/2011 which was decided by this Court on 10.01.2012. Thereafter, a review petition No.221/2012 was preferred by the AICTE which was heard and decided by this Court on 10.01.2013. AICTE was directed by this Court to issue letter of approval to the Petitioner College. 5. Writ Petition No.10741/2012 was filed by the petitioner which came to be decided by a judgment of this Court dated 30/04/2013. By the said judgment, certain contentious issues were noted by this Court in paragraph Nos.20 to 28. For clarity, it is necessary to reproduce the said paragraph Nos.20 to 28 here-in-below :- "20 It is borne out from record that Expert Committee of AICTE has visited petitioner no.2 College and conducted inspection. That, so far as visit of the Expert Committee, to the petitioner College on 24.04.2012, it positively recommends for granting extension of approval for all the courses including polytechnic, M.B.A. and M.C.A.. There is a controversy among the parties. There are two reports signed by the Expert Committee, demonstrating contradictory recommendations, which are placed on record. It is a matter of investigation as to whether there is substitution at the instance of AICTE in respect of one page forming part of the report. However, for deciding controversy in the matter, we do not propose to go into rival claims. 21 It is not controverted that the petitioners tendered an application seeking approval for starting diploma courses in March- 2011. It also cannot be disputed that Respondent No.1 – AICTE published intake capacity for all 4 diploma courses conducted by petitioner no.2 college, on its web portal for the academic year 2011-2012. 21 It is not controverted that the petitioners tendered an application seeking approval for starting diploma courses in March- 2011. It also cannot be disputed that Respondent No.1 – AICTE published intake capacity for all 4 diploma courses conducted by petitioner no.2 college, on its web portal for the academic year 2011-2012. On the basis of information of approval granted to the petitioners for starting four diploma courses, the State Government granted approval vide Resolution dated 30.06.2011 in favour of petitioner no.2 college. Respondent No.3 Board of Technical Education has also granted affiliation in favour of petitioner no.2 -College in respect of four diploma courses. Petitioner no.2- college was included in the Centralized Admission Process and students were admitted during academic year 2011-2012 for all four diploma courses, through Centralized Admission Process conducted by Director of Technical Education. 22 After admission of the students through Centralized Admission Process, when it was revealed to the petitioners that intake capacity of the college for diploma courses is published as “Zero” on the official website of AICTE and after receipt of communication dated 16.09.2011, disapproving permission to admit students, by the AICTE, petitioners approached this Court by presenting Writ Petition No.8312/2011. This Court directed quashing of communication dated 16.09.2011 to the extent it disapproves intake capacity for four diploma courses in petitioner no.2- College for the academic year 2011-2012. This Court also directed AICTE to issue letter of approval for four diploma courses to petitioner no.2-- College for the academic year 2011-2012 with respective intake capacity. It was made clear that further course of action, as regards granting approval for fresh admission of the students from the next academic year, would be subject to applicable Rules and Regulations. 23 Respondent No.1-AICTE did not observe the directions issued by this Court, however, opted to file Review Application challenging the order. The Review Application was presented in 2012 which remained pending and was decided only on 10.01.2013. Till disposal of the Review Application as well as thereafter, Respondent No.1-AICTE did not act in accordance with the directions. Although Review Application came to be dismissed, Respondent No.1-AICTE did not observe directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition nor challenged the decision by presenting Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court. Till disposal of the Review Application as well as thereafter, Respondent No.1-AICTE did not act in accordance with the directions. Although Review Application came to be dismissed, Respondent No.1-AICTE did not observe directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition nor challenged the decision by presenting Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court. It was incumbent upon the AICTE to observe directions issued by this Court and issue letter of approval for all four diploma courses in favour of petitioner no.2--College for academic year 2011-2012 with respective intake capacity. If at all Respondent No.1AICTE is not convinced as regards correctness of the decision, it was open for AICTE to knock doors of the Supreme Court. So long as the directions issued by this Court have not been set aside or modified, those are of binding nature and Respondent No.1--AICTE cannot refuse to abide by the directions on the pretext that the decision rendered by this Court is per incurious and observance of the directions need not be insisted upon. Respondent No.1AICTE was party to the decision and after extending opportunity of hearing to Respondent No.1, this Court deemed it appropriate to issue aforesaid directions. In its failure to observe directions, Respondent No.1- AICTE has in fact committed grave contempt by willfully disobeying the directions. 24 The argument advanced by Respondent No.1- AICTE, since there was no letter of approval, application tendered by the petitioner Institution for extension of approval, is not maintainable, also deserves to be rejected. This Court, in Writ Petition No.8312/2011, directed Respondent No.1-AICTE to issue letter of approval. Respondent No.1 cannot take benefit of its own failure or rather willful failure in disobeying directions of this Court and now cannot take a defence that since there is no approval, there cannot be extension of approval. Petitioners tendered application for extension of approval on 21.01.2012. The Review Application appears to have been tendered by Respondent No.1 in 2012 and it remained pending till January- 2013. Respondent No.1 never bothered to inform petitioners that the application for extension of approval was not maintainable and petitioners are required to again tender an application for grant of first time approval. Even till today, after lapse of two years, there is no such communication by AICTE to petitioners and for the first time, defence is raised in this petition that application for extension of approval is not maintainable. Even till today, after lapse of two years, there is no such communication by AICTE to petitioners and for the first time, defence is raised in this petition that application for extension of approval is not maintainable. During academic year 2012-2013, on 02.04.2011, Respondent No.1- AICTE exhibited, on its official website, intake capacity for all the four diploma courses along-with M.B.A. and M.C.A., admissible to petitioner no.2- college. Petitioner no.2 - college was already granted affiliation by the Board of Technical Education and as such, was permitted to participate in Centralized Admission Process conducted by the Department of Technical Education. Petitioner college was allotted students during the Centralized Admission Process conducted by Director of Technical Education during academic year 2012-2013 and accordingly 120 students for first year diploma courses and 137 students for second year diploma courses were allotted in favour of petitioner college Neither the College nor the Board of Technical Education or the Director of Technical Education can be faulted for permitting the students to secure admission in petitioner no.2 college. It is only as a result of publication by Respondent No.1, on its official website exhibiting intake capacity, students are admitted. The defence of Respondent No.1- AICTE, that it is a mistake, cannot be accepted as such mistake is repeated even during academic year 2012 - 2013. The defence taken by Respondent No.1, citing its website policies, is not acceptable. It is as a result of publication of intake capacity on its official web portal, students were admitted during the academic year 2011-2012 as well as during academic year 2012-2013. As a result of communication by Respondent No.1-AICTE, the Director of Technical Education of the State as well as Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, accorded approval and affiliation in favour of petitioner no.2 -college. 25 Respondent No.1 -AICTE has audacity not to observe directions issued by this Court in respect of issuance of letter of approval, in Writ Petition No.8312/2011. If at all Respondent No.1 AICTE had any reservations in respect of maintainability of application for extension of approval, which was tendered in January-2012, petitioner Institution could have been communicated that such application is not maintainable in law. However, Respondent No.1 preferred to remain silent, which has resulted in adding to the plight of the students who have secured admission in petitioner no.2 - college. However, Respondent No.1 preferred to remain silent, which has resulted in adding to the plight of the students who have secured admission in petitioner no.2 - college. 26 The Supreme Court, in its decision rendered in the matter of National Council for Teacher Education and another Vs. Venus Public Education Society and others, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 223 (supra), has expressed expectations from NCTE to act in quite promptitude. It is also expected that the statutory authority, which is conferred with power, is required to act within parameters of law and directions given by Court and further not to create a feeling among the educational institutions that they are harassed. The Court has also expressed expectation that NCTE shall function with propriety regard being had to the statutory responsibility bestowed on it by the Parliament. Its actions neither should show arbitrariness nor should it reflect any indulgence. Objectivity, reliability and trust are to be the motto of NCTE and the committees working under it. The said expectations expressed by the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, apply in equal force to AICTE. 27 In the instant matter, inaction on the part of AICTE makes room for reason of doubt as to whether statutory body is acting with promptitude and the inaction leads to a reasonable apprehension that educational institutions and students are harassed. We quite agree with the argument advanced by the Counsel for Respondent No.1- AICTE that mandate of the statute so also regulations occupying the field need to be adhered to. At the same time, directions issued by this Court must also be respected. 28 In the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to direct Respondent No.1- AICTE to take decision on the application tendered by petitioners for grant of extension of approval for all four diploma courses conducted by petitioner no.2 college for the academic year 2012-2013 on its own merits and in accordance with statutory provisions and the Regulations occupying the field, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from today. Respondents shall also consider the application tendered by petitioners for extension of approval for four diploma courses conducted by petitioner no.2-College for the academic year 2013-2014 within time stipulated above. Respondents shall also consider the application tendered by petitioners for extension of approval for four diploma courses conducted by petitioner no.2-College for the academic year 2013-2014 within time stipulated above. The students studying in petitioner no.2-college shall be permitted to appear for examination and Respondents No.3 and 4 shall ensure that students are not denied permission to appear for examination and shall also declare their result along with other students. Petitioners shall not admit students for academic year 2013-2014 without prior permission/approval from Respondent No.1-AICTE. Respondents are also directed, in the event of refusal by AICTE, to accord approval for conducting four diploma courses by petitioner no.2 college, to accommodate students studying in petitioner no.2 college in any other approved technical institution for completion of balance of course of studies......" 6. This Court, therefore, expressed its apprehension as to whether the AICTE was acting with promptitude and whether its inaction led to a reasonable apprehension that educational institutions and students felt harassed. Nevertheless, in paragraph No.27 of the said judgment, this Court agreed with the submissions of the respondent No.1 AICTE that the mandate of the statute and its regulations occupying the field need to be adhered to. The AICTE was, therefore, directed to take a decision on the application filed by the petitioner for extension of approval for all diploma courses conducted by the petitioner No.2 / College for the academic year 2013-13 on its own merits. 7. By order dated 10.04.2013, which is at page No.219 of the petition paper book in the instant case, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the AICTE on account of deficiencies. By it’s letter dated 8.5.2013, which is at page No.227 of the petition paper book, the Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education was intimated of the fact that the application for extension of approval was rejected and the students studying in the petitioner college need to be accommodated in other approved technical institutions for completion of the balance of course studies. Paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the said letter at page No.227 and 228 for appropriate reference need to be reproduced here-in-below. "3. The matter has been further examined by the Council in the light of the above directions of the Hon'ble Court. The AICTE has granted extension of approval for MBA and MCA courses for the academic year 2013-14 of the Institute. "3. The matter has been further examined by the Council in the light of the above directions of the Hon'ble Court. The AICTE has granted extension of approval for MBA and MCA courses for the academic year 2013-14 of the Institute. No approval has been granted for Diploma courses for the year 2013-14. The AICTE had not issued formal letter of approval for granting approval for Diploma courses to the Institute. Since, no formal letter of approval for Diploma courses for the year 2011-12 was issued by the Council, the extension of approval for the same for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 was not granted to the Institute. The direction of the Hon'ble Court to consider grant of Extension of Approval for Diploma courses for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 has not been found feasible to implement at this stage in view of the fact that no formal letter of approval for the same was issued to the Institute and the institute intended to reap the benefit of the order in defiance of law and get away with the order. Further academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are already over, therefore, the request of the instiute cannot be acceded to. 4. On the other hand, the Institute had admitted students for the first year and the second year Diploma courses without any proper valid letter of approval granted by AICTE. Therefore, such admission of the students in Diploma courses by the institute, is in violation of the AICTE Act, the Regulations and the Approval Process Handbook and such violations cannot be compounded. However, in order to safeguard the academic interest of the students admitted in the Diploma courses by the institution in the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, it has been decided by the Council to request the State Govt. to transfer these students to other approved Colleges. A maladroit effort has been made by the institute to give an indecent burial to the command of law, therefore the same has to be dealt with sternly sans sympathy. 5. You are, therefore, requested to transfer the students admitted in Diploma courses in the above Institute during the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 to other nearby approved Colleges under intimation to the Council." 8. This petition is filed on 27.05.2013 for challenging the refusal to grant extension of approval by AICTE. 5. You are, therefore, requested to transfer the students admitted in Diploma courses in the above Institute during the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 to other nearby approved Colleges under intimation to the Council." 8. This petition is filed on 27.05.2013 for challenging the refusal to grant extension of approval by AICTE. By an order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Vacation Court, Ad-interim protection was given to the petitioner. 9. It is pertinent to note that despite the situation stated above, the AICTE by its letter dated 6.6.2013 at page No.229-A of the petition paper book has informed its Advocate Shri S.V. Adwant, appearing before us, that the AICTE, pursuant to contents of paragraph No.28 of the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.10741/2012, has decided to reconsider the issue afresh in accordance with Law and its Approval Process Hand Book. The said exercise was to be completed within 10 days. This was brought to the notice of this Court on 11.6.2013 in this petition. 10. By order dated 11.06.2013, this Court recorded the statement made by Respondent No.1 - AICTE, on instructions, that the Committee constituted by AICTE would re-examine the issue afresh and would communicate its decision to the petitioner within two days thereafter. It was also informed that the petitioners would be heard in the matter. Amendment to the petition was later on carried out by the petitioner to place on record the subsequent events. 11. Respondent No.1 AICTE, by its letter dated 27.6.2013, informed the petitioner about the recommendations of the Standing Appellate Committee, which observed deficiencies through it’s Expert Visit Committee dated 20.6.2013 and the recommendations of the Standing Appellate Committee dated 25.6.2013. The same are at page No.229-L till 229-Q of the petition paper book. Finally, through paragraph No. ’O’ of the said letter at page No.229-P of the petition paper book, Respondent No.1 informed the petitioner that in view of the deficiencies existing against the institution, the AICTE has decided that the extension of approvals for the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-14 cannot be granted to diploma courses. 12. This petition was heard at length by this Court on 17.07.2013 and 18.07.2013. Taking into account the allegations being made by the petitioner qua the AICTE and vice-a-versa, this Court found it fit and proper to appoint an independent Committee. 12. This petition was heard at length by this Court on 17.07.2013 and 18.07.2013. Taking into account the allegations being made by the petitioner qua the AICTE and vice-a-versa, this Court found it fit and proper to appoint an independent Committee. In that context, a detailed order was passed by this Court on 18.07.2013 which needs to be reproduced for ready reference as follows :- "1 Petitioners, in order to substantiate their contentions, have placed reliance on the report of the Expert Committee, dated 24.04.2012. 2 The last page of the report i.e. page no.7 at page 157 of W.P. bears “Final Observations and Recommendations of the Committee”. In paragraph no. 6 on page no.7, under the heading, “Other observations by Expert Committee”, it is recorded thus: “Campus is good, feels like Technical Campus, all institutions are in order.” Under the title, “Final Observations and Recommendations”, it is recorded thus: “Recommended for the extension of the approval to Polytechnic, MBA and MCA i.e. technical campus.” 3 The contents of last page of the report are not admitted by AICTE. 4 Another copy of same report, which finds place at page no. 167 of compilation of the petition, is different in particulars so far as last page of the report i.e. page no.7 is concerned. Under the title, “Final Observations and Recommendations”, it is recorded by the Expert Committee, thus: “Recommended for the extension of the approval.” 5 On perusal of both the reports, it transpires that all the pages, including last page i.e. page no.7 of both the reports, are signed by all the three members of the Expert Committee. 6 It is contended on behalf of AICTE that the Expert Committee, in fact, did not conduct inspection of the Polytechnic and Bachelor of Engineering faculties. It is contended that the facilities provided for Polytechnic and Engineering College have not been inspected by the Expert Committee. 7 The contention raised on behalf of AICTE is seriously controverted by petitioners. Petitioners have placed on record certain photographs to substantiate their contention, that the Expert Committee, in fact, did visit and examine Polytechnic and Engineering faculties set up by the Institution. Petitioners further contend that visit of the Expert Committee is video-graphed and Video CD of the Expert Committee’s visit dated 24.04.2012 is placed on record at Exhibit R-2. Petitioners have placed on record certain photographs to substantiate their contention, that the Expert Committee, in fact, did visit and examine Polytechnic and Engineering faculties set up by the Institution. Petitioners further contend that visit of the Expert Committee is video-graphed and Video CD of the Expert Committee’s visit dated 24.04.2012 is placed on record at Exhibit R-2. 8 Since a serious dispute is raised as regards visit of the Expert Committee to inspect facilities provided by the Institution for setting up Polytechnic and Engineering faculties, rival contentions need to be scrutinised. 9 In the facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to appoint a Commission headed by the Principal, Government Engineering College, Aurangabad, to scrutinize the Video CD (Exhibit P2 to the petition) and report to this Court as regards correctness of contentions raised by the parties. 10 The Approval Process Hand book prescribes detail procedure as regards video recording of Expert Committee visit for examination of the facilities provided by the Institution. Clause 17.2 (17) provides thus: 17.2(17) Video recording with date and time of the entire proceedings of the Expert Committee Visit, which will form part of the Expert Committee report. This will include the video of the visit with date and time of shooting, a walk through video with date and time of shooting of all infrastructural facilities created indicated the complete physical infrastructure/facilities, highlighting Front & Back side of the entire Institute building/s Internal portion of the classrooms, tutorial rooms, laboratories, workshop, drawing hall, computer centre, library, reading room, seminar hall and all other rooms, as mentioned in program wise Instructional area requirements, Internal portion of the Principals room, Board room, main office, departmental offices, faculty cabins / seating arrangement and all other rooms as mentioned in Administrative area requirements, Internal portion of toilet facilities, boys and girls common rooms, cafeteria and all other rooms as mentioned in Amenities area requirements, circulation area details highlighting entrance lobby, passages, escalators, staircases and other common areas. 11 The Principal, Government Engineering College, Aurangabad, if deemed necessary, may take assistance of his two colleagues, including Head of the Departments of different faculties of Government Engineering College, Aurangabad, to assess and examine the video recording (Exhibit R-2 to the petition). The Principal, Government Engineering College, Aurangabad, on going through the video recording, may submit his impressions as regards Expert Committee’s visit to the Institution on 24.04.2012. The Principal, Government Engineering College, Aurangabad, on going through the video recording, may submit his impressions as regards Expert Committee’s visit to the Institution on 24.04.2012. If deemed necessary, in order to confirm his impressions, the Principal, Government Engineering College, Aurangabad, may pay visit to the Institution. The Registrar of this Court is directed to make available facilities to the Experts for viewing and examining the Video CD, which is placed on record at Exhibit R-2, in the High Court building. 12 Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, undertakes to deposit fees of the Commission, provisionally quantified at Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with the Government Engineering College, Aurangabad, forthwith. 13 The Principal, Government Engineering College, Aurangabad, may submit his report, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 23.07.2013. 14 Place the matter on board on 24.07.2013." 13. The Committee so appointed by the order of this Court dated 18.07.2013 submitted it’s report dated 25.07.2013 bearing Inward No.340/2013. Copies of the said report were then supplied to the contesting parties. 14. The petitioners once again raised a serious grievance about the order passed by the AICTE refusing continuation of approval before us and its earlier conduct. It was once again contended that the last page of the report dated 24.4.2012 i.e. internal page No.7 at page No.157 of the petition paper book bears the remark “final observations and recommendations of the Committee”. In paragraph No.6, under the said heading “other observations by Expert committee”, it was recorded that “campus is good, feels like technical campus, all institutions are in order”. Under the title “final observations and recommendations”, it is recorded that “recommended for the extension of the approval to polytechnic, M.B.A. and M.C.A. i.e. I/E technical campus”. These observations are denied by the AICTE which had drawn the attention of this Court at page No.167 of the petition paper book stating that the said report is the true report. Under the title “final observations and recommendations”, the Expert Committee recorded as “recommended for extension of the approval”. It is seen that both the reports were signed by all the 3 members of the Expert Committee. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in its order dated 18.7.2013 and we do not intend to review the same. 15. The AICTE further contended that the Expert Committee did not conduct inspection of the Polytechnic and Bachleor of Engineering Faculties. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in its order dated 18.7.2013 and we do not intend to review the same. 15. The AICTE further contended that the Expert Committee did not conduct inspection of the Polytechnic and Bachleor of Engineering Faculties. It is stated that the facilities provided for Polytechnic and Engineering College have not been inspected by the Expert Committee. This was seriously controverted by the petitioner, who placed on record certain photographs as well as a video CD containing the video recording of the Expert Committee’s Report dated 24.4.2012. 16. It was looking to this controversy between the petitioner and Respondent No.1 AICTE with reference to the visit of the Expert Committee, that this Court felt it fit and proper to form a Committee by its order dated 18.7.2013. The Committee was directed to conduct a visit to the institution and see for itself the contents of the CD as well as the actual infrastructure and facilities at the said colleges. 17. In the hearing on 7.8.2013 before this Court, a controversy yet again erupted between the petitioner and Respondent No.1 AICTE In order to resolve the controversy, this Court, by its order dated 7.8.2013, appointed a team of two experts comprising of Dr. Vitthal Bandal, Associate Professor, College of Engineering, Pune, and Dr. Adwani, Principal, Government College of Engineering, Aurangabad, as experts. For ready reference, the said order reads thus:- "1. After hearing arguments for some time, with the consent of both the parties, we propose to appoint a team of two experts to verify as to whether the facilities provided by petitioner institution for imparting educational training to first year and second year polytechnic courses are adequate, upto the mark and to the satisfaction of the experts. 2. It has not been disputed before us that the facilities for imparting educational training to third year polytechnic students is not in place as on today. In this view of the matter, as has been directed by AICTE, the students admitted to third year polytechnic course shall be accommodated in nearby recognised polytechnic institution. The Director of Technical Education shall ensure accommodation of third year polytechnic students admitted to petitioner institution to some other recognised institution operated in the periphery of petitioner institution. 3. Dr. Withal Sandal, Associate Professor, College of Engineering, Pune, and Dr. The Director of Technical Education shall ensure accommodation of third year polytechnic students admitted to petitioner institution to some other recognised institution operated in the periphery of petitioner institution. 3. Dr. Withal Sandal, Associate Professor, College of Engineering, Pune, and Dr. Adwani, Principal, Government College of Engineering, Aurangabad, are appointed as experts to examine as to whether the facilities provided by petitioner institution are adequate and upto the mark. Experts shall also report as to whether the infrastructure provided by the college is adequate for imparting academic training to students. The expert committee may pay visit to the college as per their convenience with prior intimation to college authority and submit report to this Court as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from today. In the meanwhile, petitioner institution is permitted to admit students for first year and second year polytechnic course subject to condition that the institution shall inform the students in writing that their admission to the course shall be subject to outcome of the petition and that the students or college shall not be entitled to claim equities on the basis of interim order passed by this Court. If petitioner institution proceeds to issue advertisement calling upon applications from students, the advertisement shall contain such stipulation. Interim order passed earlier by this Court stands modified accordingly. 4. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order. 5. Stand over to 21st August, 2013." 18. It was, therefore, under the orders of this Court that the petitioner / Institution was permitted to admit students for the first year and second year Polytechnic Course subject to the condition that the Institution shall inform the students in writing that their admission to the courses shall be subject to outcome of the petition and that the students or the College shall not be entitled to claim equities on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court. The petitioner / Institution was also directed to mention this fact in its advertisement calling for applications from the students. By order dated 8.8.2013, instead of Dr. Adwani, Shri P.R. Pattalwar, Principal, Government Polytechnic College was inducted in the two member Expert Committee. 19. The Expert Committee, then, submitted it’s report dated 19.8.2013 in a sealed envelope to this Court. The petitioner / Institution was also directed to mention this fact in its advertisement calling for applications from the students. By order dated 8.8.2013, instead of Dr. Adwani, Shri P.R. Pattalwar, Principal, Government Polytechnic College was inducted in the two member Expert Committee. 19. The Expert Committee, then, submitted it’s report dated 19.8.2013 in a sealed envelope to this Court. By order dated 30.8.2013, we directed the Registrar (Judicial) to open the report in the presence of the respective counsels on 2.9.2013 at 2.30 p.m., permit them to peruse the report and supply copies at their costs. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 27.9.2013, which is at page Nos.402 to 411 of the petition paper book, to comment upon the deficiencies noted by the two members’ Expert Committee and those stated in their report dated 19.8.2013. The petitioner has made a valiant attempt to dispute the deficiencies mentioned by the committee. 20. We have gone through the said affidavit and we have heard Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Sr. Advocate at length. With the assistance of the learned Advocates, we have also gone through the report of the two members Expert Committee, dated 19.8.2013. Similarly, we have also gone through the additional affidavit in reply filed by the respondent AICTE, which is at page Nos.458 to 465 dated 7.10.2013 in the petition paper book. The AICTE has highlighted the deficiencies noted by the Expert Committee. 21. To counter the same, the petitioner has again filed an affidavit, dated 3.2.2014, which is at page Nos.466 to 469. Several documents have also been annexed thereto from page Nos.470 to 600. A grievance is, therefore, made by the petitioner that the AICTE on the one hand has issued a public notice, dated 18.1.2014 in Daily Loksatta, which is placed on record, thereby inviting applications for approval for the academic year 2014-15. Online applications for the academic session 2014-15 are to be filled in by the end of 15.2.2014. On the other hand, access to its website has been de-activated by Respondent No.1 AICTE and therefore, the petitioner is unable to submit its application for approval for the academic year 2014-15. Online applications for the academic session 2014-15 are to be filled in by the end of 15.2.2014. On the other hand, access to its website has been de-activated by Respondent No.1 AICTE and therefore, the petitioner is unable to submit its application for approval for the academic year 2014-15. A prayer is, therefore, orally made that Respondent No.1 be directed to remove the restriction on the petitioners to access website of Respondent No.1 - AICTE so as to enable it to apply pursuant to the said notice, without prejudice to its prayer clauses (BB) and (FF). 22. After hearing the Advocates for the respective sides and after going through the petition paper book and the additional affidavits and annexures filed by both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that there are deficiencies prevailent in the petitioner institute as has been observed by the two members’ Expert Committee in its report dated 19.8.2013, which is placed before us. We are also of the firm opinion that we cannot substitute our views based on the submissions of the rival parties, with those expressed by the Expert Committee. 23. This Court in a judgment dated 28.11.2013 delivered in Writ Petition No.9495 of 2013 between Vaibhav Janardhan Sankpal and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, to which one of us (Shri S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) is a party, has observed that; “ ..... We do not think that the high Court will be justified in exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and granting the reliefs contrary to binding judicial pronouncements. The mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution of India is that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the teritory of India. It would be judicial indiscipline if one ignores these binding judgments. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that no interim order should be granted permitting the students to be admitted in un-recognised educational institutions or to unapproved or unaffiliated course and allow them to appear for exams or their results be declared. If they chose to enroll themselves in Institution which are either un-recognised or conditionally recognised and approved, then they have to suffer. Not only the institution but the courses have to be recognized and approved and that is the admitted position.....” 24. If they chose to enroll themselves in Institution which are either un-recognised or conditionally recognised and approved, then they have to suffer. Not only the institution but the courses have to be recognized and approved and that is the admitted position.....” 24. In the case of Shri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal and another Vs. Union of India [2012 (5) All M.R.625], to which one of us (Shri S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) is a party, we have observed in paragraph Nos.29 and 33, as under:- “29. ..... Thus it is not for us to find out as to whether the deficiencies have indeed been rectified or removed. That is the job and function of the experts and the authorities. We are not called upon nor we can undertake the exercise as is requested by the petitioners. The norms are known to the petitioners, the infrastructure and other facilities which are to be provided are also within their knowledge, and therefore, what is to be done with the admissions already made and whether those defects and deficiencies and shortcomings as noticed in the earlier exercise are taken care of and rectified or removed, are all matters for expert bodies to determine and decide. The writ court cannot be called upon to step into the shoes of the experts or Academic Bodies and substitute its views with those of such authorities....... 33. We only wish to invite their attention to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal and another vrs. State of Chattisgarh and others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420, wherein it is held as under : “63. ....What is necessary is actual establishment of institutions having all the infrastructural facilities and qualified teachers to teach there. Only such colleges or institutions which impart quality education allure the best students. Until such institutions are established which provide a high level of teaching and other facilities like well equipped libraries and laboratories and a good academic atmosphere, good students would not be attracted. In the current scenario, students are prepared to go to any corner of the country for getting good education. What is necessary is a large number of good colleges and institutions and not universities without any teaching facility but having an authority to confer degrees. "And in State of Himachal Pradesh and another vrs. In the current scenario, students are prepared to go to any corner of the country for getting good education. What is necessary is a large number of good colleges and institutions and not universities without any teaching facility but having an authority to confer degrees. "And in State of Himachal Pradesh and another vrs. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 597 , wherein in paragraph nos. 21 and 22 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under. “21. The High Court has lost sight of the fact that education is a dynamic system and courses/subjects have to keep changing with regard to market demand, employability potential, availability of infrastructure, etc. No institute can have a legitimate right or expectation to run a particular course forever and it is the pervasive power and authority vested in the Government to frame policy and guidelines for progressive and legitimate growth of the society and create balances in the arena inclusive of imparting technical education from time to time. Inasmuch as the institutions found fit were allowed to run other courses except the three mentioned above, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was not disregarded by the State. Inasmuch as ultimately it is the responsibility of the State to provide good education, training and employment, it is best suited to frame a policy or either modify/alter a decision depending on the circumstance based on the relevant and acceptable materials. The courts do not substitute their views in the decision of the State Government with regard to policy matters. In fact, the court must refuse to sit as appellate authority or super legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation or policy decision of the Government unless it runs counter to the mandate of the Constitution......" 25. In the case of Chatrapati Shivaji College of Engineering Vs. AICTE and others [2009 (6) All M.R. 545], the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Shri S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) is a party, has observed in paragraph Nos.27 and 28 as under:- “27. On the basis of this and upon examination, the Council vide its letter dated 18th June, 2009, communicated the inadequacy to the College and also clearly stated that the request of the college for increased intake variation is not granted and they were asked to rectify the deficiency and submit fresh proposal with all relevant documents. On the basis of this and upon examination, the Council vide its letter dated 18th June, 2009, communicated the inadequacy to the College and also clearly stated that the request of the college for increased intake variation is not granted and they were asked to rectify the deficiency and submit fresh proposal with all relevant documents. Thereafter, on Appeal, the concerned authorities recommended issuance of Letter of Intent for the academic year 2010-2011 which was communicated to the Petitioners vide letter dated 23rd June, 2009. The contention raised before us is that since the approval has been granted by the Appellate Authority it should be for the current academic year and not for the academic year 2010-2011. This argument cannot be accepted as the expert bodies in their wisdom and after inspection of the colleges have granted approval for the year 2010-2011 and not for the current year, which obviously means, keeping in view the calendar published by the Council, the cut off date being 15th June, 2009. The Council was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the approval cannot be made operative for the current academic year as, even according to the Letter of Approval, there are conditions to be satisfied as contemplated in the letter of approval before actually granting approval and commencing the academic session. The opinion of the expert bodies can be subjected to judicial review in a very restricted class of cases Generally, the opinion of the expert bodies should be binding. The grant of approval by the Appellate Authority even if it was to relate back to the letter of 15th June 2009 wherein the deficiencies were found and the college was informed, even then the view of the Appellate Authority that this had to be effective from the academic year 2010-2011 does not call for any interference as that approach besides being that of the expert body is also in consonance with the Regulations of the Council, calendar declared by them and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mahatma Gandhi Missions [2008 (5) ALL MR 878 (F.B.)] (supra). However, the action of the Council even in this case does not call for any interference. 28. However, the action of the Council even in this case does not call for any interference. 28. From all these cases, it appears that the above Writ Petitions have been filed as the final view on the matter has been taken by the Council and/or its agencies at eleventh hour. In fact, in two Writ Petitions, the Institutions did not even adopt the course of going before the Appellate Committee. Be that as it may, it is essential that the Council being the highest body for maintaining the standard of education, granting approval for courses, etc., it is expected to deal with the cases with greater emphasis, timely and expeditiously. In one of the cases afore-noticed, the application was forwarded on 17th March, 2009 and the deficiencies were pointed out vide letter dated 18th June, 2009 nearly after a period of three months. From the record, it also appears that no steps were taken by other parties. This was the crucial time when the matters ought to have been sorted out and Council ought to have satisfied itself of removal / rectification of deficiencies in accordance with the Regulations.” 26. In the case of Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union of India and others [ AIR 2011 SC 2353 ], the Honourable Supreme Court, placing reliance upon the judgment of Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP [ (2010) 2 SCC 114 ] has deprecated the practice of certain educational institutions approaching the Court with unclean hands and consciously making false statements with the intention of pursuading the Court to pass interim orders in their favour. Those managing affairs of institutions do not belong to category of innocent, illiterate persons who are not conversant with relevant statutory provisions and Court process. The Honourable Apex Court has, therefore, saddled the concerned institutions with costs of Rs.2,00,000/- to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority and pay Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the students by way of compensation in lieu of the injury inflicted upon them by way of misrepresentation about their entitlement to admit students. In the instant case, we are not given to understand any such controversy about admitting students by misrepresentation by the petitioner institution. Moreover, this Court by its order dated 7.8.2013 had allowed the petitioner institution to admit students subject to certain conditions which are narrated here-in-above. 27. In the instant case, we are not given to understand any such controversy about admitting students by misrepresentation by the petitioner institution. Moreover, this Court by its order dated 7.8.2013 had allowed the petitioner institution to admit students subject to certain conditions which are narrated here-in-above. 27. This Court has taken a similar view in the matter of Khalapur Taluka Shikshan Prasarak and another Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others, reported in 2013(6) Mh.L.J. 501 and has observed as follows:- “5. During the course of the submissions, it has been sought to be urged on behalf of the Petitioners that the deficiencies in respect of the area of the classrooms is marginal. We do not consider it appropriate for the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to second guess the AICTE, which is an expert body on such policy issues. Moreover, the deficiency in the area of the classrooms cannot be considered in isolation but cumulatively together with the other serious deficiencies of infrastructure. The test which should be applied to a petition questioning the decision of the AICTC is as to whether the expert body has rendered a decision which is perverse or arbitrary or based on extraneous circumstances. What the Court has to determine is whether the decision is one, which no statutory body, acting as a reasonable body of experts, could possibly arrive at in exercise of its discretion. It is, in our view, no part of the jurisdiction of the Court to look into the decision of the Expert Committee with a fine toothcomb and with a view to finding out hairsplitting objections or errors. An overview of the situation must be borne in mind. We have in the present case considered the decision that has been arrived at by the expert body. The AICTE has applied its mind to relevant circumstances and to aspects which are germane to the exercise of its statutory powers. The AICTC has, after due application of mind, modified its earlier decision not to grant an extension of approval for 2013-14 which would have entailed future consequences to a decision to grant a “No Admission” status for the ensuing academic year. 6. We find no error in the order of the AICTE.” 28. The AICTC has, after due application of mind, modified its earlier decision not to grant an extension of approval for 2013-14 which would have entailed future consequences to a decision to grant a “No Admission” status for the ensuing academic year. 6. We find no error in the order of the AICTE.” 28. In view of the above referred judicial pronouncements which we find relevant to this case, we have not adverted to the other judgments cited by the petitioner and Respondent No.1 before us. 29. In the light of the law as crystalized in the above referred judgments of the Honourable Apex Court and of this Court, we therefore, find ourselves unable to step into the shoes of the Expert Committee and resolve the counter claims of the petitioner and Respondent No.1 AICTE. Neither do we have the expertise and knowledge to opine upon the existence of deficiencies nor do we have the slightest of intentions to indulge in such an exercise. The writ jurisdiction of this Court has its own in built limitations and we do not intend to transgress the same, keeping in tune with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and by this Court in the above referred judgments. 30. In the result, by granting the oral prayer of the petitioner, we allow this petition partly with the following directions:- (A) Respondent No.1 AICTE is directed to allow the petitioner to submit its online application for seeking extension of approval or new approval, as the case may be for its courses so as to enable it to apply before the deadline 15.2.2014. (B) Respondent No.1 AICTE shall expeditiously consider the online application of the petitioner in accordance with its Rules and on its own merits by following the procedure of law as well as its prescribed procedure contained in the Approval Process Hand Book, uninfluenced by our orders passed in the earlier Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioner and in this petition. (C) The Petitioners shall endeavour to overcome and remove all deficiencies pointed out through the Two Member's Committee's Report dated 19.8.2013. (D) By granting the oral prayer of the Petitioner to apply online on or before 15.2.2014, we are in no way condoning the deficiencies as mentioned by the Two Members' Committee. (C) The Petitioners shall endeavour to overcome and remove all deficiencies pointed out through the Two Member's Committee's Report dated 19.8.2013. (D) By granting the oral prayer of the Petitioner to apply online on or before 15.2.2014, we are in no way condoning the deficiencies as mentioned by the Two Members' Committee. (E) The other prayers made by the petitioner in this petition stand rejected and the petition stands dismissed to that extent. 31. No order as to costs.