JUDGMENT : The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the notification as contained in Memo No.1498/19 dated 24.04.2019 (annexure-15) passed by the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, is under challenge by which the petitioner institute has been restrained from admitting the students for the Academic Session 2019-2021. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the same has been established in the year 1985 and has been extended with the benefit of grant-in-aid and was granted a permanent affiliation in the year 2007 and thereafter respective sessions have been completed by taking the admission of the students but all of a sudden, the authorities have come out with a decision on 24.04.2019 issued by the Secretary, J.A.C., Ranchi by which the petitioner institute has been found to be not fulfilling the required condition as stipulated under Rule 7 (k) and (kha) of the Niyamavali, 2005 which contains a provision under Rule 7 (k) and (kha) that required certificate is to be fulfilled by one or the other college. The petitioner since is covered under the provision of aforesaid law and therefore, permanent permission has been cancelled and accordingly, the Directorate has come out with direction to cancel the permission for establishment/permanent permission with immediate effect with a further direction, not to admit the students for the Academic Session 2019-2021. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that initially the condition as stipulated under the aforesaid provisions have been fulfilled, taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the authorities have issued permission to establish the college and subsequently the affiliation has been granted and in consonance the benefit of grant-in-aid as also the relaxation while the petitioner institute was functioning without any hindrance, the land where the building of the petitioner institute is situated has been subjected to mining operation and therefore, the construction made over the said land has got disturbed and at that moment alternative arrangement has been made to impart education to the institute who have already taken admission therein, therefore, the direction issued by the authority as per the communication dated 24.04.2019 is without any application of mind, therefore, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the J.A.C. as also Mr. 4. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the J.A.C. as also Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have represented the concerned respondents. 5. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, has submitted that in view of the provision as contained under the Rule, 2005, the permission which is permanent in nature is to be granted subject to fulfillment of condition as stipulated therein which is contained under the heading of permanent permission whereby and whereunder the requirement is that in the Rural Area, minimum two acres of land and Urban Area, minimum one acres of land, should be in the name of the concerned institution either through the registered deed or on lease for 30 years upon which the building should be there containing rooms in the area measuring 20’ X 30’ feet with the further condition stipulated in the aforesaid provision but on inspection, it has been found that the petitioner institute is not running on his own building and therefore, the other condition i.e., for rooms etc. has been found to be not inconsonance with the aforesaid condition of the Rule, 2005. The competent authority of the J.A.C. has cancelled the permanent permission to establish the college as contained in letter no.746 dated 27.02.2019 but the petitioner has chosen not to challenge the said order and thereafter the permission to establish the college by the Academic Council has also been cancelled with a direction not to admit the students for the Academic Session 2019-2021 and therefore, it cannot be said that while taking such decision the authorities have committed illegality. 6. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.6 and 7 has submitted that under his premises the college is running. He is not the competent authority to take such decision rather it is the J.A.C. to take such decision. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the decision as contained in communication dated 24.04.2019 which is the decision for restraining the respondent not to take admission for the session 2019-2021, since the permanent permission has been cancelled on account of the fact that the condition stipulated under the Rule, 2005 has not been followed. 9. 8. The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the decision as contained in communication dated 24.04.2019 which is the decision for restraining the respondent not to take admission for the session 2019-2021, since the permanent permission has been cancelled on account of the fact that the condition stipulated under the Rule, 2005 has not been followed. 9. This Court, therefore, in order to look into the legality and propriety of the order, deem it fit and proper to appreciate the Rule, 2005 which has been enacted in pursuance to the provision of J.A.C., Act, 2002 under Section 26(1) thereof by which a Rule has been formulated for permission and affiliation to the Intermediate College running in the State of Jharkhand or the schools of 10+2 level. The said Act provides a provision under Rule 3 and 4 that no such institution would be established save and except the permission of the council and the said permission would be granted to such institution which are registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and at least of seven members, the application is to be filed along with the requisites fee at least six months prior and after making application, the council will inspect the concerned institute in order to reach to the conclusion as to whether there is any necessity of institution of proposed place and whether the proposed institution is in a position to run the institution. The said condition is applicable for granting permanent affiliation from the J.A.C., the condition stipulated in condition nos.5, 6 and 7. The condition no.7 stipulates the minimum eligibility for getting permanent affiliation which requires the quantum of the land for Rural Area to the tune of two acres and one acres minimum in the Urban Area to be registered in the name of the institute and on lease for 30 years having construction over there with the construction of the principal chambers, office, library, teaching staff rooms, male/female common rooms and laboratories for different subjects and the appropriate availability of playground for sports etc. For getting recognition, due application is to be made as required under the provision of Rule 8 and thereafter the concerned authority would grant recognition to such institute for its onward approval by the competent authority of the State Government. For getting recognition, due application is to be made as required under the provision of Rule 8 and thereafter the concerned authority would grant recognition to such institute for its onward approval by the competent authority of the State Government. The condition no.11 stipulates that the prior to approval by the State Government if the condition is not being fulfilled, the recognition can be cancelled. 10. The impugned decision has been appreciated by taking into consideration the condition stipulated therein. 11. It is evident therefrom that the condition as stipulated under Rule 7 (k) and (kha) of the Rule, 2005 which pertains to requiring the land and building constructed there over, the permanent recognition was cancelled vide letter no.746 dated 27.02.2019 and in consequence thereof, the permission to establish/permanent recognition has been cancelled with immediate effect and in consequence thereof, the petitioner institute has been restrained from taking admission of the students for the coming session 2019-2021. 12. It is evident from the impugned communication that vide letter no.746 dated 27.02.2019, the permanent recognition has been cancelled but the same has not been questioned while the said cancellation has resulted into immediate cancellation of permission to establish/permanent recognition and therefore, the impugned decision is in the result of the decision taken in the letter no.746 dated 27.02.2019 and so long as the said decision is in existence, the petitioner cannot be extended with any relief, since the impugned decision is the conclusion of the decision taken by the authority in the letter no.746 dated 27.02.2019 by which the permanent recognition has been cancelled in violation to the provision of Rule 7(k) and (kha) of the Rule, 2005. 13. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that at that moment the petitioner has got no land as required under Rule 7(k) and therefore, there is no building as required under Rule 7 (kha), however, the submission has been made that some alternative arrangement has been made, therefore, the petitioner institution may be allowed to run the school and thereby the relaxation has been sought for from this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. 14. It is the settled position of law that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to grant any relaxation since the power to relax is upon the State Government, if provided under the statute. The High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supposed to see the legality and propriety of the order as to whether the decision taken by the authority is in consonance of the applicable Rule or not or if it is not in consonance with the Rule, the same will be said to be not sustainable but if it is in pursuance to the Rule, there will not be any inference by the High Court otherwise it will be said that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by relaxing the statutory provision. 15. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the impugned decision needs no interference for the reason recorded hereinabove. 16. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.