JUDGMENT R.D. Dhanuka, J. - By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the respondent no.3 to withdraw and/or cancel the show cause notice dated 25th October 2021 and seeks to impugn the order dated 29th November 2021 passed by the respondent no.3 granting extension of approval to the petitioner for M.Arch. Course reducing the intake to 0 for academic year 2021-22 and to grant extension of approval to the petitioner for the first year M.Arch. Course with intake of 20 for academic year 2021-22. 2. In view of the urgency of the matter, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and for the respondent no.3 addressed this Court on the interim reliefs in the writ petition. We have also heard Mr.Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 while hearing the prayer for interim relief. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an Architecture College imparting education in various fields in and around Nashik as also outside Nashik gradually. The petitioner College was established in the year 1994 wherein B.Arch. Course was started. In the year 2011-12, the petitioner College started conducting course for Master of Architecture (M.Arch.). Since 2011-12, the petitioner had been granted permission by the respondent no.3 council to permit 20 students for the said M.Arch. Course. The said permission is continued all throughout till the academic year 2017-18. In the year 2017-18, the respondent no.3 proposed to reduce intake capacity from 20 students to 0 student by issuing show cause notice. The said show cause notice was impugned by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition bearing No.8468 of 2018 in this Court. 4. By judgment dated 6th August 2018 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court, the said show cause notice issued by the respondent no.3 for the academic year 2018-19 came to be quashed and set aside. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is not impugned by the respondent no.3 or by the other respondents before the Honble Supreme Court of India. 5. Mr.Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various documents annexed to the petition and would submit that since 2011 onwards, the petitioner was granted permission to admit 20 students in the said M.Arch. Course on year to year basis. 5. Mr.Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various documents annexed to the petition and would submit that since 2011 onwards, the petitioner was granted permission to admit 20 students in the said M.Arch. Course on year to year basis. Only for the first time, a show cause notice was issued for the academic year 2018-19 on the ground similar to the ground raised in the impugned show cause notice which is the subject matter of this petition. The said show cause notice came to be quashed and set aside by this Court. He submits that the impugned show cause notice issued on similar ground is totally without jurisdiction. 6. It is submitted that though there was detailed reply given to the show cause notice by the petitioner, the respondent no.3 in the impugned order dated 29th November 2021 did not consider any of the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice and passed cyclostyle order which is replica of show cause notice issued by the respondent no.3 on 27th June 2018. 7. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the show cause notice issued by the competent authority itself was without jurisdiction. The competent authority has no jurisdiction to issue any such show cause notice. Consequently, the order passed by the competent authority on 29th November 2021 for the academic year 2021-22 is also without jurisdiction. In support of this submission, learned senior counsel invited our attention to Section 10 of the Architects Act, 1972 (for short "the said Act") and would submit that the decision, if any, could have been taken by the Executive Committee and not by the competent authority. 8. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the respondent no.3 in the affidavit-in-reply has sought to rely upon "Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Guidelines for Post- Graduate Programme 2006" and also Section 21 of the said Act. He submits that the norms of 2006 relied upon by the respondent no.3 for the first time in the affidavit-in-reply were never notified to the petitioner and not even in the show cause notice. 9. He submits that the norms of 2006 relied upon by the respondent no.3 for the first time in the affidavit-in-reply were never notified to the petitioner and not even in the show cause notice. 9. Learned senior counsel also placed reliance on "(Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations 2020" and would submit that the norms proposed to be relied upon by the respondent no.3, if any, could be issued only by exercising powers under Section 45 of the said Act and not under Section 21. He submits that in any event, since there was no reference to the said norms of 2006 in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner or in the Extension of Approval granted from time to time, no reliance thereof could be placed by the respondent no.3. 10. Learned senior counsel submits that the show cause notice which is the subject matter of this petition is replica of show cause notice issued on 27th June 2018 alleging similar deficiencies which show cause notice has already been quashed and set aside by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The respondent no.3 not having impugned the said judgment thus cannot be allowed to issue similar notice unless there are fresh deficiencies according to the respondent no.3. He relied upon paragraphs 25 to 27 of the judgment in the said Writ Petition No.8468 of 2020. Learned senior counsel relied upon the result of 20 students who appeared for the said M.Arch. Course from 2011 onwards and would submit that the result of the students passed was almost 100%. There is thus no substance in the alleged deficiencies pointed out by the respondent no.3 in the show cause notice and thereafter in the impugned order. None of the deficiencies alleged by the respondent no.3 would relate to the quality of education except serial no.1 about numbers of Professors. 11. It is submitted that since no numbers of Professors are not prescribed under the Regulations which could be framed under Section 45 of the said Act, no order reducing intake capacity from 20 students could have been passed on that basis. He submits that the petitioner had already demonstrated that even if few staff members were shared between M.Arch. Course and B.Arch. Course, both conducted by the petitioner, there was no impact on the quality of education imparted by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner had already demonstrated that even if few staff members were shared between M.Arch. Course and B.Arch. Course, both conducted by the petitioner, there was no impact on the quality of education imparted by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that in this case, show cause notice was issued by the competent authority on behalf of the Executive Committee. The impugned order is not passed by the Executive Committee. 12. Mr.Nath, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3, on the other hand, relied upon the definition of recognised qualifications under Sections 2(d) and on Sections 7, 17, 21 and 45 of the said Act. He also placed reliance on Clause 2.8 of the 2006 norms and would submit that the said norms framed by the respondent no.3 are framed under Section 21 of the said Act and were placed on website since inception. The petitioner was fully aware of those norms and had in fact partly acted upon. The petitioner cannot be allowed to refuse to act upon the norms of 2006. The said norms have binding force of law. 13. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Medical Council of India & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 60 and in particular paragraphs 25 to 27 thereof and would submit that the deficiencies were pointed out in the show cause notice which were noticed by the experts who were appointed to take inspection of infrastructure, facilities, faculty and clinical material etc. of the petitioner. This Court has no power to interfere with the findings recorded in the impugned order based on the report submitted by the Experts. He submits that there are no allegations of bias or mala fide attributed against the Expert Committee or against the respondent no.3 Council. 14. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Medical Council of India Vs. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) & Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 530 in support of the submission that since the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned show cause notice or impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. (2016) 11 SCC 530 in support of the submission that since the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned show cause notice or impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that most of the faculties appointed by the petitioner are shared between M.Arch. Course and B.Arch. Course. There is no challenge to the factual findings rendered by the respondent no.3 in the impugned order. He submits that though the show cause notice was issued by the competent authority, the order passed by the competent authority was ratified by the Executive Committee and thus the said action was not without jurisdiction as sought to be canvassed by the petitioner. 16. In so far as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is concerned, learned senior counsel invited our attention to paragraph 28 of the said judgment and would submit that 2006 norms which are relied upon by the respondent no.3 were not brought to the notice of this Court in Writ Petition No.8468 of 2018. He submits that in any event, paragraph 28 of the said judgment, this Court made it clear that the said order should not be construed as taking away any of the powers of the Council to prescribe a teaching faculty or to revise its norms or to cause an inspection in the working of the petitioner-institution. Far from directing that the intake capacity shall be maintained for all academic years to come, this Court clarified that in the subsequent year, the Council is free to take such steps as are provided by law, including modifying its own Regulations. He submits that though the said Writ Petition No.8468 of 2018 filed by the petitioner impugning the show cause notice for the academic year 2018-19 was allowed, the respondent no.3 is not precluded from taking further action in accordance with law for the subsequent academic years. 17. He submits that though the said Writ Petition No.8468 of 2018 filed by the petitioner impugning the show cause notice for the academic year 2018-19 was allowed, the respondent no.3 is not precluded from taking further action in accordance with law for the subsequent academic years. 17. Mr.Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder distinguished the judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 on the ground that in the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court, final action was taken by the Central Government and not by the Medical Council whereas in this case, final action by reducing intake capacity from 20 students has been taken by the so called competent authority and not by the Council. 18. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is not granted interim relief and if not allowed to admit these 20 students, Institution which is being run for last 10 years would be closed which would not only jeopardize the interest of the petitioner but also the interest of the Students admitted to the said M.Arch. Course in the College run by the petitioner. 19. Learned senior counsel also strongly placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of Institute of Town Planners , India Vs. Council of Ure & Ors., decided on 4th January 2012 in Writ Petition (C) No.8653 of 2008 and would submit that the Delhi High Court after considering the said norms of 2006 has held that Council is not empowered to take any steps/action itself. Section 21 of the Architects Act, while empowering it to provide minimum standards, limits the said power to recognized qualifications only and non other. It is submitted that in the schedule to the Architects Act, 1972, the said Course is not included. No such norms of 2006 thus could be issued by the respondent no.3. 20. A perusal of the record prima facie indicates that since 2011-12, the petitioner has been granted permission to admit 20 ppn 12 5.wp-7425.21(j).doc students. The said permission is continued till academic year 2018-19 when show cause notice came to be issued for the first time by the respondent no.3 alleging certain deficiencies. The said show cause notice was impugned by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court. The said permission is continued till academic year 2018-19 when show cause notice came to be issued for the first time by the respondent no.3 alleging certain deficiencies. The said show cause notice was impugned by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court. This Court after considering the submissions of both the parties delivered the judgment on 6th August 2018 thereby quashing and setting aside the said show cause notice. 21. A perusal of the said judgment indicates that this Court has considered the norms and particularly in relation to the teaching faculty in paragraph 25 of the said judgment and has observed that the intake capacity with 20 students was maintained on the footing that on inspection the petitioner-college had been found to have a teaching faculty of 1 Professor, 1 Assistant Professor and 2 Lecturers/Research Assistants for each post-graduate course. The Institution shall have a faculty in the student ratio of 1:5 and the institution may have a maximum of 50% of its teachers as visiting faculty. This has not changed. This Court observed that neither teaching faculty norms have undergone any change nor such communication from the Council refers to any deficiency or shortfall. 22. This Court observed that if the deficiency is of faculty, then, that is indeed serious and may have a bearing on the intake capacity or a nexus with it. However, the faculty is said to be deficient as the institution/college has one Associate Professor less. However, the teaching faculty norms have remained unchanged throughout. They do not speak of any Associate Professor. They do not speak of anything other than 1 Professor, 1 Associate Professor and 2 Lecturers/Research Assistants for each post-graduate course. That would suffice for achieving the ratio of faculty student, namely, 1:5. This post of Associate Professor is nowhere to be found in the norms. 23. This Court accordingly held that there could not have been a prescription now referred for the first time of Associate Professor being less, for that was never the norm. This Court also clearly held that show cause notice had travelled beyond those norms and advice by the Council itself. The arbitrariness in the action is apparent because without realising the repercussions of issuance of show cause notice, the Council is now saying it does not want to take any arbitrary action. This Court also clearly held that show cause notice had travelled beyond those norms and advice by the Council itself. The arbitrariness in the action is apparent because without realising the repercussions of issuance of show cause notice, the Council is now saying it does not want to take any arbitrary action. This Court took cognizance of the fact that if the petitioner would not be allowed to admit any student in the Masters Degree Course and all preparations, including the faculty in place would then be completely useless. They would have to sit idle. Even the infrastructural facilities would be un-utilised or under-utilised. This is surely not the intent while conferring the status of a highest academic body under an Act of the Parliament in the Council. The Council also is expected to act responsibly and not bring about a situation when it invites private participation but such private bodies are forced to close down or abandon the course midway. 24. This Court did not see how with no intake capacity in the year in question can the petitioner afford to continue to impart studies to the existing students. Thus, the M. Arch. students would also suffer for there would not be any additional fees received in the academic year in question. There would not only be a financial imbalance but some of the teachers exclusively meant for teaching the post-graduate courses would have to rest content with taking the classes for the students earlier admitted in the two year course. This Court accordingly was pleased to quash and set aside the said show cause notice and directed that the petitioner's intake capacity ought to be maintained at 20 students for the Academic Year 2018-19. It is not disputed by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 that the judgment quashing the said show cause notice issued to the petitioner for the academic year 2018-19 has attained finality. 25. On comparison of the show cause notice dated 25th October 2021 with show cause notice issued by the respondent no.3 for the academic year 2018-19, it is clear that the alleged deficiencies pointed out are by and large some. In the impugned order passed by the competent authority, the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice has not been dealt with. In the impugned order passed by the competent authority, the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice has not been dealt with. We do not find any such document showing on record that the impugned action/decision on the part of the competent authority was ratified by the Executive Committee. 26. In so far as the 2006 norms sought to be relied upon in the affidavit-in-reply by the respondent no.3 is concerned, it is not in dispute that the respondent no.3 has already issued regulations by invoking the provisions of Section 45 of the said Act i.e. (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations 2020. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 across the bar stated that the regulations 2020 are applicable to B.Arch. Course and not M.Arch. Course. Similar regulations are not issued in respect of M.Arch. Course. In our view, the competence of the respondent no.3 to issue the said 2006 norms has already been decided by the Delhi High Court wherein it has been clearly held that the respondent no.3 Council herein is not empowered to prescribe minimum standards of architectural education for recognized qualification not mentioned in the Schedule of the Act. We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in case of Institute of Town Planners , India Vs. Council of Ure & Ors. (supra). In our view, the said 2006 norms relied upon by the respondent no.3 would not applicable to the M.Arch. Course. 27. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 could not dispute that the alleged deficiencies pointed out by the respondent no.3 for the academic year 2018-19 and 2021-22 are almost identical. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 also did not dispute that despite all such alleged deficiencies pointed out by the respondent no.3 in the show cause notice and confirmed in the impugned order, in last several years, the result of the students passing the said M.Arch. Course is almost 100%. There was no impact on the education imparted to the students because of alleged shortage of any lecturer. 28. In our prima facie view, the action initiated by the respondent no.3 against the petitioners again by alleging similar deficiencies which are considered and not accepted by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, clearly indicates the continuous harassment of the petitioner institution by the respondent no.3. 28. In our prima facie view, the action initiated by the respondent no.3 against the petitioners again by alleging similar deficiencies which are considered and not accepted by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, clearly indicates the continuous harassment of the petitioner institution by the respondent no.3. This harassment is noticed by this Court even while passing the interim order while considering the writ petition arising out of B.Arch.Course. Though the respondent no.3 had proposed to reduce intake capacity of the petitioner from 160 students to 120 students in the show cause notice, on the website, the said capacity was shown as 0. This Court has made strong observations against the respondent no.3 in our earlier interim order. On the last date, Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 pointed out that there are numbers of students who have opted for M.Arch. Course in the petitioner College. 29. This Court has heard the learned senior counsel for the parties at length on the interim relief. In our view, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of interim relief. 30. We accordingly pass the following order :- (i) There shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e-1). (ii) In so far as the prayer clause (f-1) is concerned, we direct the respondent nos.2, 3 and 5 to display the intake capacity of 20 students against the name of the petitioner college for the first year M.Arch for the academic year 2021-22 and to permit the petitioner to admit 20 students in the Centralized Admission Process (CAP) for admission to the first year M.Arch. Course for the academic year 2021-22. (iii) It is however, made it clear that admission of these 20 students would be subject to the further orders as may be passed in this petition. (iv) The respondent no.5 shall indicate the operative part of this order on its website immediately. (v) The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (vi) Place this writ petition on board along with Writ Petition No.7750 of 2021 for hearing and final disposal on 21st January 2022.