ORDER Gangele, J. -- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 7.6.2014 Annexure P-16 and order dated 3.11.2014 Annexure P-20. 2. Nimar Education Society, Khandwa is a society registered under the provisions of M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter called “the Act of 1973"). It runs several educational institutions. The petitioner college was established in the year 1998 to impart education of B.B.A., B.Sc., B.Com., P.G.D.C.A., B.C.A., M.Sc. and M.Com Courses. The College is affiliated with Devi Ahilya University, Indore. B.Ed. Course was introduced by the College, after getting recognition from NCTE and affiliation with Devi Ahilya University, Indore. 3. In the academic session 2011-12, the University allotted 98 seats to the petitioner college for admission in B.Ed. Course. As per the regulation of the University, the student has to complete 75% of the attendance in a particular academic session to appear in the examination. Nine students were absent and they did not secure attendance more than 10%. The college issued letters to the parents of the students, University did not permit nine students to appear in the B.Ed. Examination because they did not complete 75% required attendance. The students submitted representation to the University. The petitioner forwarded details to the University about the attendance of the students thereafter, University rejected the claim of the students in regard to their right to appear in the B.Ed. Examination. 4. Respondents No.3 in reply to the writ petition pleaded that the examination forms of 11 students were not forwarded by the petitioner College to the University. The students made complaint in Jansunwai to the Collector and also to the Chief Minister through online, thereafter the Collector directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to conduce an inquiry. Consequently, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate conducted the inquiry and found that the petitioner College had acted illegally and on the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate the Collector passed an order dated 3.11.2014 directing the University to take action in the matter. The Collector also ordered registration of FIR. 5. Learned senior counsel raised the preliminary objection about the power and jurisdiction of the Collector and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to conduct an inquiry. It is submitted by learned senior counsel that the petitioner College was granted recognition to conduct B.Ed. Course by NCTE and the University granted affiliation to the petitioner for the purpose of appearance of the students in the examination. It is submitted by learned senior counsel that the petitioner College was granted recognition to conduct B.Ed. Course by NCTE and the University granted affiliation to the petitioner for the purpose of appearance of the students in the examination. The University is the final authority to inspect the College in regard to the examination of petitioner College. The Collector and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no power and authority to conduct the inquiry. 6. The petitioner College was granted affiliation by Devi Ahilya University, Indore. The University has statutory provisions to conduct the examination of B.Ed. Course. The petitioner College supplied information in regard to students who had not completed 75% attendance and the same has been investigated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the instruction of the Collector. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate recorded following findings in the order dated 7.6.2014. laiw.kZ izdj.k ds ijh{k.k ls Li"V gksrk gS fd egkfo|ky; izca/ku ds }kjk Lo;a ds i{k esa Li"V vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd, x,A egkfo|ky; }kjk ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq ,oa ijh{kk QkeZ tek djkus laca/kh nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd, x,A ftlls Li"V gksrk gS fd egkfo|ky; }kjk f'kdk;rdrkZ fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds lkFk iwokZxzg ls xzLr gksdj ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gSA fo|kfFkZ;ksa dk QkeZ tek dj fo'ofo|ky; dks ugha igq¡pkuk ,oa vuqifLFkfr de gksus dh n'kk esa fo|kfFkZ;ksa ls laidZ dj mudh mifLFkfr c<+kus gsrq dksbZ iz;kl ugha djuk ,oa mifLFkfr iath dk QthZ izrhr gksukA bl rF; dh iqf"V djrk gS fd egkfo|ky; }kjk Lofgr esa fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds lkFk ykijokghiw.kZ O;ogkj fd;k x;k gSA f'kdk;rdrkZ fo|kFkhZ }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ okbZl fjdkfMZx dh lhMh esa Hkh dfri; O;fDr }kjk fo|kfFkZ;ksa ls 25]000@& :i;s dh ek¡x dh tk jgh gSA vr% izFken`"V~;k egkfo|ky; nks"kh izrhr gksrk gSA Thereafter, the Collector passed the impugned order dated 3.11.2014. 7. The apex Court in the case of Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai and another v. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivek Anand Technical University and another, reported in (2015)11 SCC 291, has held as under in regard to power of examining authority : “27.The question of the authority of a University to grant or decline affiliation squarely fell for consideration before this Court in Bhartia Education Society v. State of H.P. [ (2011)4 SCC 527 ]. The case arose under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE Act”) the scheme of which is also identical to the AICTE Act. The case arose under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE Act”) the scheme of which is also identical to the AICTE Act. This Court held as follows : 19. … On the other hand, “recognition” is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teacher education. Prior to the NCTE Act, in the absence of an apex body to plan and coordinate maintenance of the norms and standards in the teacher education system, Government and universities/boards. After the enactment of the NCTE Act, the functions of NCTE as “recognising authority” and the examining bodies as “affiliating authorities” became crystallised, though their functions overlap on several issues. The NCTE Act recognises the role of examining bodies in their sphere of activity. 28. This Court examined the scope of section 16 of the NCTE Act which prohibited the grant of affiliation by any “examining body” - (a University) to any institution conducting a course for training people for the occupation of teaching unless such institution obtained recognition from the competent authority under the NCTE Act. Though, this Court made it clear that the “examining body” (University) does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which ought to be considered by NCTE while granting recognition, recognised that the “examining body” has the authority to demand compliance with its norms in a limited area regarding the “eligibility of the candidates” and “manner of admission” of students etc. It was further held : “22. … For example, NCTE is required to satisfy itself about the adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, and laboratory required for proper functioning of an institution for a course or training in teacher education. Therefore, when recognition is granted by NCTE, it is implied that NCTE has satisfied itself on those aspects. Consequently, the examining body may not refuse affiliation on the ground that the institution does not have adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, or laboratory required for proper functioning of the institution. Therefore, when recognition is granted by NCTE, it is implied that NCTE has satisfied itself on those aspects. Consequently, the examining body may not refuse affiliation on the ground that the institution does not have adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, or laboratory required for proper functioning of the institution. But this does not mean that the examining body cannot require compliance with its own requirements in regard to eligibility of candidates for admissions to courses or manner of admission of students or other areas falling within the sphere of the State Government and/or the examining body.” At para 24, this Court indicated the areas where the “examining body” can stipulate norms, the noncompliance with which norms authorise the examining body to cancel the affiliation. “24. The examining body can therefore impose its own requirements in regard to eligibility of students for admission to a course in addition to those prescribed by NCTE. The State Government and the examining body may also regulate the manner of admissions. As a consequence, if there is any irregularity in admissions or violation of the eligibility criteria prescribed by the examining body or any irregularity with reference to any of the matters regulated and governed by the examining body, the examining body may cancel the affiliation irrespective of the fact that the institution continues to enjoy the recognition of NCTE. sub-section (6) of section 14 cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to make the process of affiliation, an automatic rubber-stamping consequent upon recognition, without any kind of discretion in the examining body to examine whether the institution deserves affiliation or not, independent of the recognition.” 29. Similarly, under the scheme of the 1987 Act, as noticed by this Court in para 30 of the Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute case (supra), under section 10 of the Central Act, the Council is entrusted with the power to lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, staff pattern, staff qualification, assessment and examination, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition fees etc. and further held that in these matters the University will have no authority. 30. The respondents heavily relied upon the last sentence of para 24 of the decision in Bhartia Education Society (supra), (extracted earlier) to assert that the respondents still have the necessary authority to grant or decline affiliation. and further held that in these matters the University will have no authority. 30. The respondents heavily relied upon the last sentence of para 24 of the decision in Bhartia Education Society (supra), (extracted earlier) to assert that the respondents still have the necessary authority to grant or decline affiliation. We are of the opinion that the respondents are reading that sentence out of the context. The judgment was very clear as to the areas which are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the NCTE whose satisfaction regarding the compliance with the standards prescribed by it in those areas is final and the areas where the “examining body” has authority to lay down its own norms (such as eligibility of the students for admission to a course and the manner of admission). 31. We apply the principles of law mentioned above to the facts of the present case. The various objections which (according to the respondent) formed the basis for declining affiliation to the first petitioner institution are contained in the communication dated 26.4.2013 which was extracted in detail at para 26 (supra). 32. An examination of all the objections mentioned in the said communication would reveal that each one of those objections squarely fall within the sweep of one or the other areas which only the AICTE has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with. None of them are demonstrated before us to be matters falling within the area legally falling within the domain of the respondents. AICTE, on inspection of the Ist petitioner college reported that the Ist petitioner college fulfils all the conditions prescribed by the norms and standards laid down by AICTE. The respondents did not make any specific assertion that such a report of the AICTE is factually incorrect. Assuming for the sake of argument that, in the opinion of the respondents, the petitioner college has not in fact fulfilled any one of the conditions required under the norms specified by the AICTE, the only course of action available for the respondents is to bring the shortcomings noticed by them to the notice of the AICTE and seek appropriate action against the petitioner college. 33. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decision of the respondent not to grant the affiliation to the first petitioner college is wholly untenable and is required to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside. 33. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decision of the respondent not to grant the affiliation to the first petitioner college is wholly untenable and is required to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside. Since the respondent did not decline the affiliation to the first petitioner college either on the ground that the petitioner college is admitting wholly ineligible students as per the norms stipulated by the respondent University or that the admission procedure prescribed by the respondents is not being complied with by the petitioners or on any other ground that the petitioners violated any one of the stipulations made by the University which the University is legally competent to make, we have no option but to direct the respondents to grant affiliation to the petitioner college. The operative portion of the judgment of this Court has already been pronounced on 1.9.2014. Therefore, we are not reiterating the same.” 8. The apex Court has clearly held that the particular authority has specific power to conduct an inquiry and take action against an educational institution and in regard to conduct of examination, the affiliation body i.e. University has a power. In the present case the complaint of the students was that they were not permitted to appear in B.Ed. Examination and their forms were not forwarded by the College to the University. The case of the College is that the students did not complete 75% required attendance in a academic session. The College has contended that the students merely secured 10% attendance. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the University has power and authority to investigate the complaint. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Collector had no power and authority to take action in the matter. The inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the order passed by the Collector is without power and authority and contrary to law. 9. Consequently, the petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 7.6.2014 Annexure P-16 and order passed by the Collector dated 3.11.2014 Annexure P-20 are hereby quashed. The competent authority University is at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. No order as to costs.