JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Rule. Shri P.A. Jadeja, learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1, Shri Rohan Lavkumar, learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Shri Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.3. [1.0] Present Writ Petition (PIL) has been filed by the petitioner party-in-person for an appropriate writ, direction and order directing the respondent No.1 Gujarat Forensic Sciences University (hereinafter referred to as "GSFU") to approach the respondent No.2 Admission Committee for Professional Courses (hereinafter referred to as "ACPC") from academic year 2018-19 for the purpose of participating in centralized admission process carried out by the ACPC for all professional courses. It is also further prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order directing the respondent No.2 ACPC to include the respondent No.1 GSFU in the admission process which will be conducted by the ACPC for professional courses like M.E./M.Tech, M. Pharm, M.B.A. Etc. from the academic year 2018-19 onwards. 2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner party-in-person that the respondent No.1 GSFU is a professional educational institution as defined under Section 2(l) of the Gujarat Professional Technical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2007") and are imparting professional courses as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007 viz. (1) Master of Technology (Cyber Security and Incident Response); (2) Master of Technology (Civil Engineering) (Forensic Science) and therefore, they are governed by the provisions of the Act, 2007. It is submitted that in fact Regulatory Committee constituted under the provisions of the Act, 2007 vide communication dated 20.02.2017 informed the Registrar of the respondent No.1 GSFU to approach the Committee for determination of the fee structure for M. Tech, M.B.A. Courses run by them. The ACPC also addressed a letter to the Registrar of the respondent No.1 GSFU to provide the Notification/approval, if any, granted by the Government of Gujarat for carrying out admission process. It is submitted that therefore even as per the ACPC, the Act, 2007 shall be applicable. The ACPC also addressed a letter to the Registrar of the respondent No.1 GSFU to provide the Notification/approval, if any, granted by the Government of Gujarat for carrying out admission process. It is submitted that therefore even as per the ACPC, the Act, 2007 shall be applicable. It is submitted by the petitioner party-in-person that the earlier resolution dated 04.10.2017 issued by the Home Department of the State Government, which has been published vide Notification in the Government Gazette in the month of April 2018 only, exempting the courses in question is absolutely illegal without authority under the law and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 2007. It is submitted that the resolution dated 04.10.2017 and the consequential Notification can be said to be de hors of the provisions of the Act, 2007, more particularly Section 13A. [2.1] It is submitted by the petitioner party-in-person that even the subsequent resolution dated 11.05.2018 upon which the reliance has been placed by the State Government issued by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat exempting the aforesaid course run by the respondent No.1 GFSU from the purview of the Act, 2007, is also absolutely illegal and has been issued without application of mind. It is submitted that while issuing the resolution dated 11.05.2018 exempting the courses in question run by the respondent No.1 GFSU, Rules 11, 13, 14 of the Master of Business Administration Course (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Rules, 2013 and Master of Engineering and Technology and Master of Pharmacy Courses (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Rules, 2013 have been relied upon and considered, which shall not be applicable at all for the purpose of granting exemption from the purview of the Act, 2007. It is submitted that what is required to be considered are the provisions in the Act, 2007 and not the Rules. It is submitted that what is required to be considered are the provisions in the Act, 2007 and not the Rules. It is submitted that under the Act, 2007, only in a case where the exemption is granted under Section 13A of the Act, 2007, and that too after following the procedure as laid down in the Gujarat Professional Technical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Procedure for declaration of Centre of Excellence) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2014") and unless and until the State Government exempt such college or institution which may be declared as centre of excellence from all or any of the provisions of the Act, 2007, all the colleges/institutions/professional institutions as defined under Section 2(l) of the Act, 2007 shall be governed by the Act, 2007. [2.2] It is further submitted by party-in-person that even otherwise the resolution dated 11.05.2018 issued and published by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department is wholly without jurisdiction. It is submitted that Home Department has nothing to do with the provisions of the Act, 2007 and/or grant of exemption from the purview of the Act, 2007. It is submitted that therefore the G.R. dated 11.05.2018 relied upon by the State Government is wholly without jurisdiction and authority under the law. [2.3] It is further submitted by party-in-person that even while disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal No.453/2018 in the case of the very respondent No.1 GFSU, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that the State Government and the ACPC and the University shall consider the observations made in the said judgment and order and may consider the provisions of the Act, 2007, more particularly Section 13A there of and the relevant Rules framed in exercise of powers conferred in Section 20 read with Section 4 of the Act, 2007, in the larger public interest and in the larger interest of the students. [2.4] It is submitted that therefore in the present case as the respondent No.1 GFSU is not declared as a centre of excellence as per Section 13A of the Act, 2007, after following the due procedure as required under the Rules, 2014 and the courses conducted and run by the respondent No.1 GFSU are professional courses as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007 and that the respondent No.1 GFSU can be said to be a professional educational institution as defined under Section 2(l) of the Act, 2007, Act, 2007 shall be applicable to such courses run by the respondent No.1 GFSU and therefore, they have to approach the ACPC for admission etc. and to follow the provisions of the Act, 2007. 3. Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State Government has submitted that though initially the State Government relied upon the G.R. dated 04.10.2017 which was published vide Notification on 11.04.2018 and the subsequent G.R. dated 11.05.2018 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department and it was the case on behalf of the State Government that in view of the aforesaid resolutions by which the respondent No.1 GFSU are exempted from the purview of the Act, 2007, however, considering the provisions of the Act, 2007 and the Rules, 2014, Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General is not in a position to justify the aforesaid resolutions and has candidly admitted that the aforesaid resolutions exempting the respondent No.1 in courses run and conducted by the respondent No.-GFSU from the purview of the Act, 2007, can be said to be de hors all the provisions of the Act, 2007 and the Rules, 2014 and that while issuing the aforesaid resolutions, the State has wrongly relied upon and/or considered Rules 10 and 12 of the Master of Business Administration Courses (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Rules, 2013 and Rules 11, 13 and 14 of the Master of Engineering and Technology and Master of Pharmacy Courses (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Rules, 2013. [3.1] Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State Government has candidly admitted that as on today the respondent No.1 GFSU is not declared as a centre of excellence as per Section 13A of the Act, 2007. 4. Shri D.C. Dave, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 GFSU. [3.1] Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State Government has candidly admitted that as on today the respondent No.1 GFSU is not declared as a centre of excellence as per Section 13A of the Act, 2007. 4. Shri D.C. Dave, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 GFSU. He has candidly admitted that the respondent No.1 GFSU is not relying upon the G.R. dated 04.07.2017 and the subsequent resolution dated 11.05.2018 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat and is not claiming that in view of the aforesaid resolutions the courses in question conducted by the respondent No.1 GFSU are exempted from the purview of the Act, 2007. However, Shri Dave, learned Counsel has vehemently submitted that the respondent No.1 GFSU is the only University imparting such courses and is a stand alone University conducting such courses and even considering Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007, the courses in question cannot be said to be "professional courses" as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007. [4.1] It is submitted that though in the nomenclature Master of Technology/M.B.A. words are used, however they are used only for the purpose of getting recognition from the U.G.C. otherwise if the "Master of Technology" words are not used, the courses run by them would not be recognized. It is submitted that therefore the nomenclature of the courses in question are (1) M. Tech (Cyber Security and Incident Response); (2) M. Tech (Civil Engineering and Forensic Science) and (3) M.B.A. (Finance with Specialization in Forensic Accounting). It is submitted that at the most the courses in question may fall within section 2(k)(vii) i.e. such other courses as the State Government may by Notification in the official gazette declare. It is submitted that vide Notification dated 11.11.2008, "Master of Engineering", "Master of Technology" and "Master of Pharmacy" are declared as the professional courses within the definition of Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007, however, they are general words and not with specific subjects and therefore, the courses in question conducted/run by the respondent No.1 GFSU shall not fall within the definition of "professional courses" as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007. It is submitted that as there is not clarity and/or clarification by the State Government that whether for the courses in question the same shall fall within the definition of "professional courses" as per Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007, the respondent No.1 GFSU is ready and willing to approach the State Government for clarification and in the alternative and without prejudice is also ready and willing to approach the State Government for declaring the respondent No.1 GFSU as centre of excellence under Section 13A of the Act, 2007. However, he has vehemently submitted that the courses in question run/conducted by the respondent No.1 GFSU cannot be said to be "professional courses" as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 5. Heard the petitioner party-in-person and Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent State and Shri Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 GFSU and Shri Rohan Lavkumar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the ACPC. [5.1] The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the courses in question viz. (1) M. Tech (Cyber Security and Incident Response); (2) M. Tech (Civil Engineering)(Forensic Science); (3) M.B.A. Finance with Specialization in Forensic Accounting and (4) M. Pharm Forensic Pharmacy conducted and run by the respondent No.1 GFSU shall be governed by the provisions of the Act, 2007 and for the courses in question the respondent No.1 GFSU shall be subjected to the provisions of the Act, 2007 or not? [5.2] At the outset it is required to be noted and it cannot be disputed that the respondent No.1 GFSU is and/or can be said to be "professional educational college or institution". "Professional Educational College or Institution" is defined in section 2(l) of the Act, 2007 which reads as under: "2(l) "Professional Educational College or Institution" means a college or an institution including the University imparting professional courses by whatever name called, leading to the award of a degree or diploma approved or recognized by the competent statutory authority;" [5.3] The courses in question also can be said to be and in fact are "professional courses" as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007. Section 2(k) reads as under: "2(k) "Professional courses" means, - (i) Bachelor of Engineering and Technology and the Diploma in Engineering; (ii) Bachelor of Pharmacy and the Diploma in Pharmacy; (iii) Bachelor of Architecture and the Diploma in Architecture; (iv) Bachelor of Hotel and Tourism Management and the Diploma in Hotel and Tourism Management; (v) Master of Business Administration; (vi) Master of Computer Application; and (vii) such other courses as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare;" As per Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007, "professional courses" means .....(vii) such other courses as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare by Government Notification dated 18.11.2008 which has been issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (vii) of Clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act, 2007 (1) Master of Engineering; (2) Master of Technology and (3) Master of Pharmacy courses; are declared to be the professional courses for the purpose of Act, 2007. The Notification dated 18.11.2008 reads as under: "NOTIFICATION EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. Dated the 18th November, 2008 Gujarat Professional Technical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees), Act, 2007 No.GH/SH/27/2008/PVS­10­2006­3185­S:­ In exercise of the powers conferred by sub­clause (vii) of clause (k) of section 2 of the Gujarat Professional Technical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 (Guj. 2 of 2008), the Government of Gujarat hereby declares the following Courses to be the professional courses for the purposes of the Act, namely:­ "(i) Master of Engineering; (ii) Master of Technology; (iii)Master of Pharmacy;" By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat Sd/­ (Lalit Vyas) Under Secretary to Government" Therefore, by virtue of the G.R. dated 18.11.2008, all the courses of Master of Engineering; Master of Technology and Master of Pharmacy are the "professional courses" as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007. [5.4] Now, considering the scheme of the Act, 2007, it emerges that as per Section 19 of the Act, 2007, as amended from time to time, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other State law for the time being in force. [5.4] Now, considering the scheme of the Act, 2007, it emerges that as per Section 19 of the Act, 2007, as amended from time to time, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other State law for the time being in force. Respondent No.1 GFSU is established under the State law, namely Gujarat Forensic Sciences University Act, 2008 and therefore, the Act, 2007, as amended, shall have overriding effect and/or applicability against the provisions of the Gujarat Forensic Sciences University Act, 2008, insofar as there is anything inconsistent contained to the provisions of Gujarat Forensic Sciences University Act, 2008. Therefore, irrespective of any provision contained in the Gujarat Forensic Sciences University Act, 2008, the provisions of the Act, 2007, as amended from time to time, shall prevail and consequently, the Regulations framed there under, namely Diploma in Engineering Course to Bachelor of Engineering and Technology Courses Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Rules, 2013, shall prevail and shall be applicable. As per Section 3 of the Act, 2007, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, all the admissions to the professional courses in the professional educational colleges or institutions shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2007. However, so far as powers of the Fee Regulatory Committee constituted under the Act, 2007 is concerned, as per Section 10, the Fee Regulatory Committee shall have the power over the unaided professional educational college or institution and the fee structure so determined by the Fee Regulatory Committee shall be binding to the unaided professional educational colleges or institutions for a period of three years. However, at the same time, as per Regulation 15 of the Master of Engineering and Technology and Master of Pharmacy Courses (Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees) Rules, 2013, fees shall be determined by the Admission Committee and as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 15, a candidate who gets admission in the Government or aided college or institution shall have to pay such fees as may be determined by the government at such stages, as may be determined by the Admission Committee. The said Rules are framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 20 read with Section 4 of the Act, 2007, which has been subsequently further modified. The said Rules are framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 20 read with Section 4 of the Act, 2007, which has been subsequently further modified. Section 13A has been added in the main Act, 2007 which confers power upon the State Government to exempt such college or institution which may be declared as Center of Excellence, from all or any of the provisions of the Act, 2007 however, after following the due procedure as may be laid down in the Gujarat Professional Technical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Procedure for Declaration of Centre of Excellence) Rules, 2014. Therefore, before issuing any Notification under Section 13A of the Act, 2007 and declaring a particular college or institution as Center of Excellence and before granting the exemption, the procedure, as laid down in the Gujarat Professional Technical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Procedure for Declaration of Centre of Excellence) Rules, 2014 is required to be followed. Even the application for declaring an institution/ University as Centre of Excellence is required to be made in the prescribed format and even the application is required to be notified on the net. Considering the Resolution/Notification dated 04.10.2017 by which the courses conducted by respondent No.1 are exempted from the purview of Diploma in Engineering Course to Bachelor of Engineering of Technology Institution (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Rules, 2013, and thereby exempting such courses from the realm of Fee Regulation Committee, there does not appear that any procedure has been followed as required before exempting the course in question run by respondent No.1 GFSU. [5.5] At this stage it is required to be noted that even the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and even Shri Dave, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 GFSU are not relying upon the G.R. dated 04.10.2017 and even the subsequent resolution issued by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department dated 11.05.2018 and have candidly admitted that they are not claiming any exemption from the purview of the Act, 2007 on the basis of such G.Rs. Even otherwise the G.Rs. Even otherwise the G.Rs. dated 04.10.2017 and 11.05.2018 are absolutely contrary to the provisions of the parent Act i.e. Act, 2007 and as such the same has been issued by the Home Department which has no justification at all and the same can be said to be non-application of mind to the relevant provisions of the Act, 2007 and the same can be said to be wholly without jurisdiction and/or authority under the law. The Rules which are relied upon by while issuing the Notification dated 18.11.2008 shall not be applicable in respect of the exemption from purview of the Act, 2007. [5.6] However, it is the case on behalf of the respondent No.1 GFSU that as such the courses in question conducted and run by them cannot be said to be professional courses within the definition of Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007 and even while issuing the Notification dated 11.11.2008 it is not clarified that all the courses in the Master of Engineering, Master of Technology or Master of Pharmacy are included and considered as "professional courses" for the purpose of Act, 2007 or not and therefore, courses in question which are stand alone courses cannot be said to be the "professional courses" for the purpose of Act, 2007. The aforesaid has no substance. As per Section 2(k)(vii) of the Act, 2007, such other courses as the State Government may by Notification in Official Gazette declare and in the present case Master of Engineering and Master of Technology and Master of Pharmacy can be said to be "professional courses" for the purpose of Act, 2007. The same is further clarified in Section 2(l) of the Act, 2007. Section 2(l) provides that "Professional Educational College or Institution" means a college or an institution including University imparting professional courses by whatever name called, leading to the award of a degree or diploma approved or recognized by the competent statutory authority. Therefore, the courses in question conducted and run by the respondent No.1 GFSU can be, should be and infact are "professional courses" for the purpose of Act, 2007. Therefore, the courses in question conducted and run by the respondent No.1 GFSU can be, should be and infact are "professional courses" for the purpose of Act, 2007. [5.7] Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent No.1 GFSU that there is no clarification in the G.R. dated 18.11.2008 that any stand alone course awarding the degree of Master of Engineering, Master of Technology and Master of Pharmacy can be said to be professional courses or not is concerned, the aforesaid has also no substance. The stand of the State Government is very clear which can be demonstrated from the resolutions dated 04.10.2017 and resolution dated 11.05.2018 and the affidavit in reply filed. If the courses in question were not "professional courses" for the purpose of Act, 2007, in that case the State Government would not have come out with a resolution exempting the courses in question from the purview of Act, 2007. The issuance of the G.Rs. (may be which are found to be illegal) exempting the courses in question from purview of the Act, 2007 itself is suggestive of the fact that otherwise Act, 2007 shall be applicable but they are exempt from purview of Act, 2007. [5.8] Now, once the respondent No.1 GFSU is considered to be professional educational institution as defined under Section 2(l) of the Act, 2007 and the courses in question can be said to be "professional courses" for the purpose of the Act, 2007 considering the provisions of the Act, 2007, for the courses in question the respondent No.1 GFSU shall be subjected to the provisions of the Act, 2007 and for the purpose of admission they have to approach the ACPC and the Act, 2007 shall govern the courses in question, unless they are declared as centre of excellence under Section 13A of the Act, 2007 and that too after following the procedure as required under the provisions of the Gujarat Professional Technical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Procedure for declaration of Centre of Excellence) Rules, 2014. In the case of Writ Petition (PIL) No.62/2018 in respect of Raksha Shakti University it is observed and held that unless and until a "professional educational institution" defined under Section 2(l) of the Act, 2007 is exempted from purview of the Act, 2007 by declaring it as a centre of excellence as per Section 13A of the Act, 2007, such professional educational institution imparting the professional courses as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007 shall be governed by the provisions of the Act, 2007. In the present case, admittedly, there is no such declaration as per Section 13A of the Act, 2007, declaring the respondent No.1 GFSU or declaring the courses in centre of excellence. Therefore, being a professional educational college/institution, as defined under Section 2(l) of the Act, 2007, the University imparting professional courses as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007, the respondent No.1 GFSU is bound to follow the Act, 2007 and is subjected to all the provisions of the Act, 2007. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Writ Petition (PIL) succeeds. It is directed that for the courses in question imparted by the respondent No.1 GFSU, they are governed by the provisions of the Gujarat Professional Technical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 and henceforth/hereinafter they must approach the ACPC and follow the provisions of the Act, 2007 for the courses in question. At this stage it is required to be noted that so far as the academic year 2018-19 is concerned, in the larger public interest this Court permitted the respondent No.1 GFSU to give admission in the courses in question on their own, however the entire admission process for the current year is supervised and monitored by the Admission Committee for Professional Courses. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.