ORDER : The challenge in all the writ petitions is the order of refusal to grant approval for affiliation for the academic session 2014-15. The facts in all the writ petitions are similar and all the writ petitioners have knocked the door of the High Court after their unsuccessful attempt at the Supreme Court. Mr. A.K.Sinha, the learned Sr. counsel led the argument referring to the facts in W.P.(C) No. 5430/2015. 2. Vide order dated 01.12.2015, the respondents were permitted to file counter affidavit within two weeks and, thereafter, the matter was posted on 15.12.2015, 15.01.2016 and 04.02.2016 however, the respondents have failed to file counter affidavit. 3. The respondent-State has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 05.02.2016 stating that approval for affiliation has been granted to the petitioner-colleges. A copy of letter dated 03.02.2016 has been brought on record. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.PV affirms that subject to the conditions mentioned in letter dated 03.02.2016, all the petitioner-colleges/institutes have been granted approval for affiliation for academic session 2014-15. 4. Mr. A.K.Sinha, the learned Sr. counsel contends that though the petitioner-college submitted its application for grant of affiliation on 02.12.2013, that is, well within time however, the University forwarded the proposal on 25.04.2014, on which a decision was taken by the respondent-State only on 29.04.2015 and the said decision was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.06.2015. Contending that there was no delay or laches on the part of the petitioner-college the learned Sr. counsel contended that the alleged inaction of the petitioner-college has caused no prejudice either to the University or the State and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be saddled with cost. 5. Order dated 01.12.2015 notices that though the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-colleges/institutes in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed on 24.08.2015 however, with permission to the colleges/institutes to approach the High Court, the petitioner-college namely, Uday Memorial B.Ed. College filed the writ petition only on 04.11.2015. In fact, all the writ petitions in the present batch were filed during the same time. In the meantime, in the writ petition by Madhusthali Institute of Teacher Training Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. College filed the writ petition only on 04.11.2015. In fact, all the writ petitions in the present batch were filed during the same time. In the meantime, in the writ petition by Madhusthali Institute of Teacher Training Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 3977/2015], this Court passed an order directing the respondent-Director, Higher Education to consider the proposal for grant of affiliation for the academic session 2014-15 and pursuant to such direction, the respondent-State finally granted its approval for affiliation for the academic session 2014-15 to several colleges/institutes. However, the petitioner-institute did not approach this Court by filing the writ petition. It continued to observe the proceedings of the Court in other matters and only on 12.10.2015 when the State Government granted approval for affiliation for academic session 2014-15, further step was taken by the petitioner-colleges. In the aforesaid facts, this Court found serious laches and inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner-colleges. Order dated 01.12.2015 records; 2. “…...........The facts noticed hereinabove would disclose laches and inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner-College. Order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicates that the petitioner was permitted to approach the High Court for an expeditious decision in the matter however, the petitioner-College has approached this Court after a lapse of more than two months. Though, the present writ petition was listed on 06.11.2015, it was adjourned at the instance of the petitioner for different dates. 3. The facts in other writ petitions also disclose serious laches and inordinate delay in approaching the Court.” 6. Thereafter, the petitioner-colleges filed I. A. No. 6802/2015 seeking permission for submitting registration/examination forms. On 15.12.2015, this Court passed the following order: “Without entering into the merits of the writ petition, an interim direction is issued to the respondent-Director, Higher and Technical Education Government of Jharkhand to consider the proposal for approval of affiliation for the Academic Session 2014-15 however, the direction is subject to furnishing a demand draft for Rs. 5 Lacs drawn in favour of Director, Higher Education. It is made clear that the payment thus made by the petitioner-colleges shall remain subject to final outcome of the writ petition and the amount of Rs. 5 Lacs shall not be treated as the amount finally determined by the Court for imposing penalty upon the petitioner-college. Upon furnishing of the demand draft of Rs. It is made clear that the payment thus made by the petitioner-colleges shall remain subject to final outcome of the writ petition and the amount of Rs. 5 Lacs shall not be treated as the amount finally determined by the Court for imposing penalty upon the petitioner-college. Upon furnishing of the demand draft of Rs. 5 Lacs on or before 22.12.2015, the respondent no. 3 shall proceed to take a decision in the matter. In the meantime, the respondents shall file counter-affidavit. Post the matter on 15.01.2016.” 7. On 15.01.2016, the learned counsel appearing for the parties affirmed that all the petitioner-colleges have complied with the direction issued on 15.12.2015. 8. As noticed above, the writ petition preferred by all the petitioners in the Hon'ble Supreme Court stood dismissed. The petitioners contended that they have taken admission of 100 students and in the meantime, the students have completed the B.Ed. Course. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that long after the academic session 2014-15 ended, the petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Sr. counsel refers to the decision in Asha Vs. PT. B. D. Sharma University of Health Science & Ors. reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389 and, the learned counsel for the respondents referred to the decision in Medical Council of India Vs. JSS Medical College & Anr. reported in JT 2016 (1) SC 185. 9. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others” reported in (2013) 2 SCC 617 , affiliation for the academic session 2014-15 was not granted to the petitioner-colleges however, the colleges took admission of the students. The effect of non-approval to the proposal for affiliation for the academic session 2014-15 would have resulted in serious injuries to the students who were admitted in B.Ed. Course in the petitioner-colleges. Noticing the conduct of the petitioner-colleges in approaching this Court belatedly however, considering the future of the students who were admitted in the B.Ed. Course in the petitioner-colleges, this Court granted permission vide order dated 15.01.2016 permitting the petitioner-colleges to submit registration/examination form subject to condition of deposit of Rs.5 Lacs by each college. 10. Course in the petitioner-colleges. Noticing the conduct of the petitioner-colleges in approaching this Court belatedly however, considering the future of the students who were admitted in the B.Ed. Course in the petitioner-colleges, this Court granted permission vide order dated 15.01.2016 permitting the petitioner-colleges to submit registration/examination form subject to condition of deposit of Rs.5 Lacs by each college. 10. What distinguishes the present batch of writ petitions from other writ petitions [W.P.(C) No. 3327 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No. 3328 of 2015 and batch cases] which were finally disposed of in the light of order dated 12.10.2015 issued by the State Government, is the fact that the recommendation by the University to the State Government though delayed by only few days, was taken up for consideration only on 02.05.2015 when a decision was taken to reject the recommendations forwarded by the University seeking approval for grant of affiliation for the academic session 2014-15. Even the decision dated 02.05.2015 of the State Government was not communicated to either the University or the respective colleges/institutes and, only during the pendency of the writ petitions a copy of minutes of meeting of the Affiliation Committee dated 02.05.2015 was brought on record. Immediately on issuance of notice by the respondent-University intimating the date for submission of registration form, batch of writ petitions were filed which were taken up for hearing on different dates and, finally as noticed above, in view of the decision of the State Government, the writ petitions [W.P.(C) No. 3327 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No. 3328 of 2015 and batch cases] were finally disposed. Whereas, the petitioner colleges/institutes of the present batch, after the dismissal of the writ petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, left the students in lurch and, only after the State Government granted approval for affiliation for the academic session 2014-15 to other colleges, emboldened, the present batch of writ petitions were filed. Admittedly, the colleges took admission without grant of approval by the State Government and without informing the University, continued the course. In “Medical Council of India Vs. J.S.S Medical College”, considering the future of the students, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted them to complete the course and obtain degree on successful completion of the course. The institute was imposed cost of Rs. 5 crores and a specific direction was issued not to recover the amount of Rs. In “Medical Council of India Vs. J.S.S Medical College”, considering the future of the students, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted them to complete the course and obtain degree on successful completion of the course. The institute was imposed cost of Rs. 5 crores and a specific direction was issued not to recover the amount of Rs. 5 crores deposited towards cost from the students or to be adjusted against the fee. The facts in “Asha” are entirely different from the facts disclosed in the present proceeding. In the said case, the student was the “aggrieved person” and when it was noticed that for no fault of her, though she had figured in the merit list, she was not admitted in the college due to fault on the part of the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the peculiar facts of the case permitted admission of the said student. In the present case without requisite permission/approval, the colleges took admission of the students and permitted them to complete the B.Ed. course. The conduct of the petitioner colleges/institutes, as noticed hereinabove, unerringly disclose not only gross laches and delay on their part, it is apparent that at one point of time they tried to play with the future of the students. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner colleges/institutes must be saddled with cost of Rs. 5 lacs each. It is stated that each petitioner colleges/institutes have deposited Demand Draft of Rs. 5 lacs in favour of the Director, Higher Education. The said amount shall be utilised by the State Government for development of B.Ed. Education in the State of Jharkhand. 12. It is ordered that the petitioner-college shall abide by the conditions contained in letter dated 03.02.2016 and any other condition imposed by the NCTE/University. 13. The writ petitions stand disposed of.