ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Standing Hearing Committee (SHC) whereby the petitioner has been placed under ‘No Admission’ category for the academic session 2018-19 and also the order dated 29.04.2018 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Standing Appellate Committee (SAC) confirming the order of the SHC. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the seats in the petitioner-institute in the calculation/mapping of seats for admissions for the academic year 2018-19 through the Polytechnic Entrance Competitive Examination, 2018 and permit the petitioner-institute to participate in the admission process for the academic year 2018-19 for its existing approved intake. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is a unit of Xavier Institute of Social Service. The building of the institute was constructed between the year 2008-10 at Village-Bargawan, Namkum and initially the building plan was approved by the Circle Officer, Namkum as at the time of construction of the building, no approval of map was required either from Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC) or the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (in short RRDA). In the year 2016, the RRDA came out with a letter whereby it was resolved that the building plan in certain villages including “Bargawan” will be sanctioned by the RRDA. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for sanction of building map and also for issuance of the occupancy certificate. The map of the petitioner was sanctioned by the RRDA in February, 2018, however, the occupancy certificate has not been issued till date. The petitioner was granted approval from the All India Council of Technical Education (in short AICTE) on 10.08.2010 for running 3 years Diploma Course in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical & Electronics Engineering and Electronics & Communication Engineering and the last approval was granted till the academic year 2017-18. It was also granted affiliation from the State Board of Technical Education, Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand and the said affiliation has been renewed from time to time. On 13.10.2016, the AICTE issued a letter wherein it was mandated that the petitioner-institute is required to submit the occupancy certificate/structure stability certificate. It was also granted affiliation from the State Board of Technical Education, Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand and the said affiliation has been renewed from time to time. On 13.10.2016, the AICTE issued a letter wherein it was mandated that the petitioner-institute is required to submit the occupancy certificate/structure stability certificate. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the AICTE on 03.02.2017 whereby certain deficiencies were pointed out and finally vide order dated 10.04.2017, the petitioner was directed to remove the deficiencies before commencement of the academic year 2017-18. Further, vide letter dated 09.03.2018, the petitioner was directed to file show cause reply and to appear for hearing before the SHC. The petitioner filed reply and asserted that all the deficiencies have been removed. However, the final order was passed on 27.03.2018 by the SHC issued under the signature “Advisor-II, Approval Bureau” placing the petitioner under ‘No Admission’ category for academic session 2018-19. Aggrieved therewith, the petitioner preferred appeal before the SAC, however, the said appellate authority vide order dated 29.04.2018, confirmed the order of the SHC. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that both the appellate as well as the original order have been issued under the signature of Advisor-II, Approval Bureau i.e. the same authority, which reflects the biasness of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The petitioner had submitted the detailed reply to the show cause notice stating that all the deficiencies have been removed, however, the same has been ignored both by the original as well as the appellate authority. The admission in the petitioner-institute is to be done through the Polytechnic Entrance Competitive Examination, 2018 conducted by the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (JCECEB) and for the academic session 2018-19, the examination is scheduled to be held on 19.05.2018. The seats for admission have been identified and forwarded to the JCECEB by the State authorities which are to be filled up by the JCECEB based on the merit of the candidates and thus the petitioner will suffer serious loss and injury as it will be deprived of filling up the seats for entire duration of the course of three years. The AICTE in the FAQs uploaded on its website related to Approval Process 2018-19, in reply to question 49, has clarified that the completion certificate is acceptable for an institution established in the past, and thus the petitioner was under confusion as to whether there is any requirement for submission of occupancy certificate for already existing institution or the same was required for establishing a new institution. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner again made a representation to the respondent-AICTE on 28/30.05.2018 requesting inter alia to re-consider its decision by referring to the cases of other institutions wherein their request to participate in the admission process for the academic year 2018-19 were allowed. There is a deeming provision under the Jharkhand Building Bye Laws, 2016 which stipulates that the occupancy certificate shall be deemed to be issued on lapse of the prescribed time from the date of application which in the case of the petitioner has already lapsed on 30.05.2018. 4. The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Saraswati Education Society’s Saraswati College of Engineering Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 4586 of 2015) 5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-AICTE contends that the submission of occupancy certificate was a mandatory requirement which was admittedly not followed by the petitioner and thus the impugned orders have been passed both by the original as well as the appellate authority. Hence there is no question of biasness against the petitioner. The status conveyed by the petitioner was placed before the independent committee and after considering the report of the committee, the impugned order has been passed. The Advisor-II is the controlling authority for the region under Advisor-I (Approval Bureau) and thus he is merely an authority under whose signature the formal order is passed. The said authority is not the part of the decision making process. The petitioner was given several opportunities to remove the deficiencies, however, the same was not complied in time and thus the impugned orders have been passed. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-AICTE puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-AICTE puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 SCC 617 . 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the impugned orders, both the SHC and the SAC have observed that in spite of the repeated instructions, the deficiencies highlighted to the petitioner were not removed. It also appears from the record that the discrepancies pointed out by the respondent authorities are relating to non-compliance of Lift-Ramp-Barrier free environment, Language Laboratory and occupancy certificate. The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that all the discrepancies have been removed. In support of the said factual stand, the photographs of the amenities which have been provided in the petitioner-institute, have been brought on record. 8. In the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when there is dispute as to whether the discrepancies have been removed or not, the writ Court is not supposed to decide the said factual matter. It is for the specialized bodies to examine the same on physical verification and to proceed with the application of the institute in accordance with law. 9. So far as the discrepancy with regard to submission of occupancy certificate is concerned, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the application for issuance of occupancy certificate has been filed before the RRDA on 24.03.2018, yet the same has not been provided to it and as such the petitioner should not be penalized for no fault on its part. 10. The provision for grant of occupancy certificate has been provided under Clause 19 of the Jharkhand Building Bye Laws, 2016. Clause 19.1 provides that the authority shall issue the occupancy certificate for all categories of building or for part of a building during its construction or whole of the building after construction or refuse to issue the same, as the case may be, within 30 days from the date of the application. Clause 19.1 provides that the authority shall issue the occupancy certificate for all categories of building or for part of a building during its construction or whole of the building after construction or refuse to issue the same, as the case may be, within 30 days from the date of the application. Clause 19.2 provides that if the occupancy certificate is not issued within time limit, then the applicant shall submit an application supported with affidavit that the construction has been made strictly as per the approved plan and no dues in development charges or any other form of payment to be made to the authority are pending and all the conditions for issuance of occupancy permission are complied with. If the said application is not disposed of within 15 days, then it will be deemed to have been granted. 11. It appears from the representation filed by the petitioner before the respondent-AICTE on 28/30.05.2018 that it had filed an application with affidavit before the RRDA, Ranchi on 15.05.2018 and the required period of 15 days was to be completed on 30.05.2018. Thus, even if it is accepted that the other discrepancies were removed by the petitioner, admittedly, the petitioner had no valid occupancy certificate which was the prerequisite for grant of approval till the passing of the order by the SAC on 29.04.2018. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshvantah Charitable Trust reported in (2013) 3 SCC 385 has held as under:- “46.6. If the appellate authority decides the matter prior to 30th April of the year concerned and grants approval to a college, then alone such institution will be permitted to be included in the list of colleges to which admissions are to be made and not otherwise. In other words, even if the appellate authority grants approval after 30th April, it will not be operative for the current academic year. All colleges which have been granted approval/affiliation by 10th or 30th April, as the case may be, shall alone be included in the brochure/advertisement/website for the purpose of admission and none thereafter.” 13. It may thus be construed that no approval can be granted after 30th April for the current academic year. Any order passed after 30th April shall be operative for the subsequent academic year. It may thus be construed that no approval can be granted after 30th April for the current academic year. Any order passed after 30th April shall be operative for the subsequent academic year. Under such circumstance, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as on date for the current academic session i.e. 2018-19. 14. The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the judgment of Saraswati Education Society Society’s Saraswati College of Engineering (Supra), submits that even after the lapse of the cut-off date of 30th April, the approval may be granted. 15. On perusal of the facts of the said case, it would appear that the impugned order was passed on 30.04.2015 whereby the intake capacity of the said petitioner for the session 2015-16 was reduced. When the impugned decision was challenged, the Bombay High Court vide interim order dated 06.05.2015, directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the CAP admission for all the existing engineering courses as was approved in the previous academic session. The Bombay High Court finally observed that the respondents did not follow the scheduled steps from the beginning to end as fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust (Supra), rather the respondents committed breach of the schedule at every stage apart from the delay. It was further observed that in the last academic year 2014-15 also, the respondents had reduced 25% intake capacity of the petitioner which was rejected by the Court with a direction to the respondents to grant an extension of approval for all existing engineering courses with full intake capacity as granted for the academic year 2013-14, however, for same deficiencies, the respondents again decided to reduce the intake capacity of the petitioner. The Bombay High Court, thus, on consideration of the facts, found the action of the respondents to be arbitrary, permitting the petitioner-college to participate in the admission process within a week and the writ petition was finally allowed by granting relief to the said petitioner for the current academic year. 16. However, in the present case, it is an admitted position that the occupancy certificate could be deemed to have been granted to the petitioner only on 30.05.2018 in view of the provisions of Clause 19.1 and 19.2 of the Jharkhand Building Bye-Laws, 2016. 16. However, in the present case, it is an admitted position that the occupancy certificate could be deemed to have been granted to the petitioner only on 30.05.2018 in view of the provisions of Clause 19.1 and 19.2 of the Jharkhand Building Bye-Laws, 2016. Thus, it appears that the petitioner itself was not vigilant enough to rectify the discrepancies as pointed out by the respondent- AICTE. At the time of granting approval for the academic year 2017-18, the petitioner was directed to remove all the discrepancies before the commencement of the academic year 2018-19, however, the discrepancies were still found existing and thus the impugned orders were passed. Under the aforesaid circumstance, at this stage, this Court under the discretionary writ jurisdiction does not find any reason to deviate from the cut-off date fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshvantah Charitable Trust (Supra) and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (Supra). 17. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move before the respondent-AICTE with sufficient proof of removal of the discrepancies which shall be verified by the respondent-AICTE so as to grant approval to the petitioner for next academic year i.e. 2019-20.