JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. The petitioner institute has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to issue the writ of Mandamus whereby the respondent no. 1 to 4 may kindly be directed to give recognition to the petitioner institute and to consider the registration of all the students who has possessed the paramedical qualification from the Petitioner institute. (b) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to declare provision under Section 19(1)(a)(i) of the Paramedical Counsel Act, 2003 as Ultra virus. (c) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent no. 1 to 4 to exempt the petitioner institute from the condition incorporated under Section 19(1)(a)(i) in view of the fact that the respondent has not issued any guidelines or notification for granting the NOC to the Distance learning Centre in the state of Himachal Pradesh in alternative the respondent no. 1 to 4 may kindly be directed to provide the forms and list of required terms and condition for getting the approval from the State Government if the Hon’ble Court finds that the institute necessarily requires permission from the Government to run the paramedical courses even through the mode of distance education programme as Learning Centre of any deemed University and which is duly recognized by the UGC and has approval for running the learning cenrtre from the Distance Education Counsel of IGNOU. (d) That the Records of the case may kindly also be summoned. (e) That the present petition may kindly be allowed with cost. Any other or further order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly also be passed in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a medical institute affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, situated in District Una and deals in imparting the Para-Medical courses such like DMLT (Diploma in Medical Lab Technology), DOTT (Diploma in Operation Theater Technician), B. Sc. MLT (Bachelor of Science in Medical Lab Technology) and Bio Technology, through Distance Education Programme. As per the petitioner institute, it stands established as such as a learning centre for the paramedical courses under the Distance Education Programme and has been duly approved and affiliated by the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. The institute is running since 2005. MLT (Bachelor of Science in Medical Lab Technology) and Bio Technology, through Distance Education Programme. As per the petitioner institute, it stands established as such as a learning centre for the paramedical courses under the Distance Education Programme and has been duly approved and affiliated by the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. The institute is running since 2005. It has been recognized as deemed university by the University Grants Commission and also has approval from Distant Education Council for running Distance Education Programme of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, hereinafter referred to as “the IGNOU.” The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2008 when one of its students who had done his B. Sc. MILT Course in January, 2008, approached respondent No. 3 for his registration under the Himachal Pradesh Paramedical Council, respondent No. 3 denied the said registration on the ground that the petitioner institute had not obtained No Objection Certificate from the Government of Himachal Pradesh. In this background it approached respondent No. 3 and intimated the said respondent that the petitioner institute was affiliated with respondent No. 5 university and it was duly recognized by the University Grants Commission and was also having approval from the Distance Education Council and Distance Education Programme Committee of the IGNOU. As per the guidelines issued by respondent No. 6 from time to time, ”the distance education and online education cannot have the territorial jurisdiction”. However, as per the petitioner institute, respondent No. 3 was adamant that as the petitioner institute has not obtained prior permission from the Government of Himachal Pradesh under Section 19(1)(a)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Paramedical Council Act for running or functioning the programme in issue, as such, its degree/ diploma holders cannot be registered with the Himachal Pradesh Paramedical Council. In this backdrop petition stands filed. 3. Respondent No. 3 in its reply has contested the claim of the petitioner inter-alia on the ground that Section 19 of the Himachal Pradesh Paramedical Council Act, 2003, provides that no Paramedical institution shall open a new or higher course of study or training which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized Paramedical qualification, or shall increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training, except with the prior permission of the State Government. As per respondent No. 3, in view of the said statutory provisions, it is incumbent upon any Paramedical institution in the State to obtain permission from the State Government before starting any Paramedical course. It is further the stand of respondent No. 3 that respondent No. 5 university is created under the State Legislature Act of Government of Punjab and that the said university has got approval from the Distance Education Council for running the Distance Education Programme of Indira Gandhi National Open University, however, the same can be done within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Punjab and as such, respondent No. 5 university cannot run learning centers outside the State, which would be illegal without the permission from the Central Government. It is further mentioned in the reply that the petitioner does not fall within the purview of Section 2(f) of the U.G.C. Act as the same was an off campus learning centre which could be recognized for the said purpose only by the Central Government/Parliament and for that matter respondent No. 5 university had to seek permission from the centre to function in distance education at National Level. It was further mentioned in the reply that a public note dated 11.07.2006 stood issued by the Distance Education council, New Delhi, to the effect that it was mandatory for all the institutions to obtain the approval of the Distance Education Council before commencing any program/course for degree/diploma/certificate through distance mode. It was further mentioned in the reply that the Act to which respondent No. 5 owes its origin even otherwise cannot mandate respondent No. 5 university to run off campus learning centres outside the State of Punjab. On these basis, claim of the petitioner institute was denied by the respondent on the ground that as per Section 19 of the Himachal Pradesh Paramedical Council Act, 2003, petitioner institute had to seek prior permission to run learning centre in the respondent State. 4. No rejoinder has been filed to the said reply. 5. In its reply filed by respondent No. 6, the said respondent has stated that an institute can run education pragramme only after due approval from Distance Education Council and respondent No. 6 gives affiliation/recognition/approval to only those institutions which were duly approved by the DEC i.e. Distance Education Council. 4. No rejoinder has been filed to the said reply. 5. In its reply filed by respondent No. 6, the said respondent has stated that an institute can run education pragramme only after due approval from Distance Education Council and respondent No. 6 gives affiliation/recognition/approval to only those institutions which were duly approved by the DEC i.e. Distance Education Council. It was further mentioned in the reply that the Distance Education Council gives institutional recognition and recognition is not given to a particular program/course and it is mandatory for the respective institution to have had procured statutory approvals if any required for running their courses under Distance Education Programme. 6. Paras 4, 5 and 9 of the reply on merit are quoted herein below:- “4. That in reply to para 4 of the petition, it is submitted that the replying university gives approval/affiliation to institutes/universities not for particular programme for running courses under distance education provided the same are approved by Distance Education Council (DEC). The respondent No. 5 Punjab Technical University has been given approval (i.e. post facto approval) by DEC as such IGNOU has given affiliation for the same to run courses through distance education. It was for the respondent No. 5 to get the necessary approval from respective statutory bodies to run these programmes. The DEC gives institutional recognition not against particular course. 5. That the averments made in para 5 of the petition does not pertain to replying respondent, as such warrants no reply from respondent University. However, it is reiterated and submitted that condition of getting statutory approval/NOC was incumbent upon respondent No. 5. The replying respondent only gives institutional affiliation. 9. That the contents of para 12 of the petition are admitted. It is submitted that distance and online education can not have the territorial jurisdiction. The replying respondent affiliates or provide recognition to institute approved by Distance Education Council. However registration of a institute within a State before running courses is purely subject matter of State concerned and it is incumbent upon the concerned institute respondent No. 5 in the instant case to get the necessary approval/NOC from statutory bodies and State concerned before starting these courses. As such reply is warranted for the said respondent.” 7. No rejoinder has been filed to the said reply also. 8. We have learned counsel for the parties. 9. As such reply is warranted for the said respondent.” 7. No rejoinder has been filed to the said reply also. 8. We have learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is apparent that the bone of contention in the present case is non-registration of the petitioner institute with respondent No. 3 as per the provisions of Section 19 of the Himachal Pradesh Paramedical Council Act, 2003. 10. Section 19 of the Himachal Pradesh Paramedical Council Act, 2003, is quoted herein below:- “19. Permission for establishment of new paramedical institution:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act:- (a) no person shall establish a para-medical institution; (b) no paramedical institution shall – (i) open a new or higher curse of study or training which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized paramedical qualification; (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training, except with the previous permission of the State Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the expression “person” includes any University or a trust but does not include the State Government.” 11. A perusal of the said Section demonstrates that no new or higher course of study or training which would enable a student to qualify himself for the award of any recognized paramedical qualification or increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training can be opened without the prior permission of the State Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of Section 19. It is not in dispute that the petitioner does not has any such permission to open a new or higher course of study or training which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized paramedical qualification from the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as is the statutory requirement of Section 19 of the Himachal Pradesh Paramedical Council Act, 2003. Though a prayer has been made in the writ petition that the provisions of Section 19 (1)(a)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Paramedical Council Act, 2003, are ultra vires, however, during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate as to how the said provisions was ultra vires. Though a prayer has been made in the writ petition that the provisions of Section 19 (1)(a)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Paramedical Council Act, 2003, are ultra vires, however, during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate as to how the said provisions was ultra vires. Petitioner was not able to point out that Section 19 of the Act was beyond the legislative competence of the respondent State or the conditions imposed in the said section were unconstitutional. Even otherwise, in our considered view, Section 19 of the Act supra is not unconstitutional because it is within the legislative domain of the State Government and these provisions have been obviously made by the State Government to ensure that no paramedical institution is run within the territorial limitation of the State Government without its permission which would secure and protect the interest of students who were to study or obtain training from the same. 12. A three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Prof. Yashpal and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 420, has held as under:- “Dr. Dhawan has also drawn the attention of the Court to certain other provisions of the Act which have effect outside the State of Chhattisgarh and thereby give the State enactment an extra territorial operation. Section 2(f) of the amended Act defines “off-campus centre” which means a centre of the University established by it outside the main campus (within or outside the State) operated and maintained as its constituent unit having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 2(g) defines "off-shore campus" and it means a campus of the university established by it outside the country, operated and maintained as its constituent unit, having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 3(7) says that the object of the university shall be to establish the main campus in Chhattisgarh and to have study centres at different places in India and other countries. In view of Article 245 (1) of the Constitution, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. In view of Article 245 (1) of the Constitution, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. The impugned Act which specifically makes a provision enabling a university to have an off-campus centre outside the State is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh legislature.” 13. In the present case as the petitioner institute admittedly did not obtain any prior permission from the State of Himachal as is contemplated in Section 19 of the Himachal Pradesh Paramedical Council Act, 2003, we do not find any infirmity with the act of respondent No. 3 in not granting recognition to the petitioner institute. 14. Therefore, in view of the discussion held above, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed.