ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPC Nos.1315 of 2015 & 1616 of 2015 and Mr. Kshitij Shrama, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPC No.662 of 2016. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents No.1,2 & 4 in all the petitions and Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5 i.e. Institute of Technology, in all the petitions. 2. The facts presented in these petitions are that the Industries situated at Bilaspur and Korba had extended aid to the State Government and accordingly, the Industries were given quota for admission so that the children of the employees of these Industries can be admitted subject to their merit in Chhattisgarh Pre Engineering Test (CGPET) & All India Engineering Entrance Examination (AIEEE). The Institute of Technology is approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and is affiliated to Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University. The petitioners had participated in CGPET & AIEEE for Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) course and their parents were working in the Industries which granted aid to the Institute of Technology. On the basis of merit, the petitioners were admitted in B.E. course in the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 under management quota on the basis of a guideline dated 26.07.2008 issued by the State Government for nomination of the candidates for filling up the management quota. 3. The State of Chhattisgarh had enacted Chhattisgarh Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sansthan (Pravas Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Act of 2008') to provide for regulation for admission and fixation of fee in private professional educational institutions in Chhattisgarh and to provide reservation of seats to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in professional educational institutions and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 4. Section 4 of the Act of 2008 provides that the State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute a Committee to be called the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, (for short, Committee) for the supervision and guidance of the admission process and for the fixation of fee to be charged from candidates seeking admission in a private professional educational institution. The term of the Committee under Section 4(3) is for three years from the date of notification. 5. The term of the Committee under Section 4(3) is for three years from the date of notification. 5. On 22.05.2015, a notice was issued by the Committee to show cause as to why their admission shall not be declared void and petitioners were asked to file their reply by 03.06.2015. The petitioners had filed their reply contending that their admission had been made according to their merit and as per the counselling held at the college level. The Committee passed a final resolution dated 15.07.2015 and declared the admission of students in academic session 2012-13 and 2013-14 in Institute of Technology, Korba dehors merit and invalid. It was further directed that the Institute of Technology shall pay the fee collected to the students through cheque, Demand Draft, etc. The Committee also imposed a fine of Rs.10 Lacs on Institute of Technology. Subsequent thereto, the Committee issued a letter dated 17.07.2015 to the respondent No.5 in the light of the resolution taken. Accordingly, petitioners have prayed for quashing communication dated 17.07.2015 as also the resolution dated 15.07.2015. 6. In the reply-affidavit filed by respondent No.5 in WPC No.662 of 2015, it is stated that the students, whose names have been found in the merit list of CGPET & AIEEE, were admitted in the seats meant for management quota. It is stated that admission was given on the basis of the decision and approval of the Board of Governors consisting of the Hon'ble Minister, Department of Technical Education, who is the Chairman, Hon'ble District Incharge Minister, Government of Chhattisgarh, Member of Legislative Assembly, Korba, Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Director, Technical Education, Collector, Korba, AICTE, Regional Officer, Bhopal. It is stated that an interim policy regulation was published by the AICTE by way of a gazette notification dated 20.03.2003. The AICTE issued the guidelines providing that the private unaided institutions may fill up the management seats by having their own counselling in an objective and transparent manner taking the students from same merit list prepared on the basis of Joint Entrance Test/Common Entrance Test of Central / State Government. The AICTE issued the guidelines providing that the private unaided institutions may fill up the management seats by having their own counselling in an objective and transparent manner taking the students from same merit list prepared on the basis of Joint Entrance Test/Common Entrance Test of Central / State Government. A meeting of the Committee was convened on 17.07.2007 under the Chairmanship of Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, in which it was decided that the provision for reservation of seats for the children of employees of the Industries who were granting aid to the Institute should be made for taking admission to B.E. course of Institute of Technology, Korba. Pursuant to the said decision, the management quota had been provided at 15%. It is on the basis of said decision, admission was granted to the students for B.E. course under management quota and the procedure adopted was never objected to by the University. It is further stated that no objection has been raised by any of the students stating that because of keeping management quota seats for the participating Industries, he or she was deprived of getting admission. It is further stated that several seats meant for general quota remained vacant in Institute of Technology, Korba in every year. It is specifically stated that in the year 2014, the Institute of Technology, Korba has surrendered the seats meant for management quota for allotment of seats through the State level online counselling. 7. In WPC No.1315 of 2015, respondents No.1, 2 and 4 i.e. the State has filed reply merely stating that the impugned order was passed in accordance with law and as such, they refrain from commenting on it. 8. Respondent No.3 in WPC No.1315 of 2015 has filed reply stating that it is a formal party and reserved its right to file any detailed reply, if necessary. 9. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 16.11.2015, respondent No.5 had filed an affidavit in WPC No.1315 of 2015 stating, amongst others, that the petitioners had been recommended by LANCO Amarkanta Power Limited, South Eastern Coalfields Limited ('SECL'), Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board ('CSEB'), Prakash Industries Limited and National Thermal Power Corporation ('NTPC') for admission under management quota. 9. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 16.11.2015, respondent No.5 had filed an affidavit in WPC No.1315 of 2015 stating, amongst others, that the petitioners had been recommended by LANCO Amarkanta Power Limited, South Eastern Coalfields Limited ('SECL'), Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board ('CSEB'), Prakash Industries Limited and National Thermal Power Corporation ('NTPC') for admission under management quota. It is also stated that the petitioners who were granted admission under management quota would have got admission from open category without availing the benefit of management quota because of their better ranks in CGPET & AIEEE. 10. In compliance of order dated 23.08.2016 in WPC No.1315 of 2015, another affidavit was filed by respondent No.5, in which it is stated that Institute of Technology is an un-aided private Engineering college and for the establishment of the college, 50 acres of Government land had been allotted by the State Government. The infrastructure of college was being developed with the aid of Industries, such as SECL, BALCO (Sterlite), NTPC, CSEB, LANCO and Prakash Industries Limited, etc. It is stated that out of 240 seats in 4 branches comprising Civil, Computer Science & Engineering, Electrical & Electronics Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, 36 seats are kept reserved for management quota and since 2008-09, admissions in management quota were being made on the basis of the said guidelines. The Industries who had contributed to the establishment of Institute of Technology provided their respective list of recommended candidates, who had participated in CGPET & AIEEE and accordingly, admissions were granted in the management quota on the basis of merit. 11. An additional return was filed by respondent No.3 in WPC No.1315 of 2015 stating that the petitioners were admitted to the Institute of Technology as per the Admission Rules for B.E. 2012-13 framed by the Director Technical Education, under which no authority has been given to the University for regulating the admission. It is also stated that the role of the University is confined to the grant of affiliation to the colleges, enrollment of students for examination, holding examination, etc. 12. It is also stated that the role of the University is confined to the grant of affiliation to the colleges, enrollment of students for examination, holding examination, etc. 12. An additional reply was filed by respondents No.1 & 2 in WPC No.1315 of 2015, in which it is stated that show cause notice was issued to the students and 21 students had filed their reply till 30.03.2015 and on 30.03.2015, the Committee resolved to issue further notices to the students and Principal of Institute of Technology, Korba. On 15.04.2015, 22 students were present and they were heard and 3 students remained absent. On 22.04.2015, 3 students appeared and they were heard. Out of 29 students, 26 students filed their reply and thus, principles of natural justice were complied with. It is stated that no advertisement was issued for filling up the management quota and applications were not invited on the basis of the merit list and that Rules of 2008 had not been followed by the Institute of Technology. 13. The guidelines for nomination of candidates for filling of management quota from PET / AIEEE dated 26.07.2008 reads as follows : “Guidelines for nomination of candidates for filling of management quota from PET/AIEEE” A formal meeting of representative from participating industries was held on 26th July 2008 at Korba in presence of Director, CG Technical Education to discuss the procedure and guidelines for allotment of seats of management quota allotted to industries. NTPC, PIL and CSEB officers were present in the meeting. Few important points as outcome from discussions during the meeting are listed below : 1. Nomination of candidates should be strictly on merit basis of only those candidates who have valid score card of CGPET / AIEEE 2008. 2. The nominee must have passed 10+2 examination with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics on the date of seat allotment. 3. Nomination of candidates should not be more than the seats allotted in various branches. 4. The nominated candidates should be instructed to bring their original documents for verification at the time of admission along with a D.D. of Rs.29550/- [Rs.25000/- Tution Fee + Rs.4550/- Misc. Fee] drawn at any Nationalized Bank in favour of “Principal, Institute of Technology, Korba” payable at Korba. 5. Important dates [for information] related to central counselling organized at Raipur by Director, CG Technical Education are as follows : 1. Fee] drawn at any Nationalized Bank in favour of “Principal, Institute of Technology, Korba” payable at Korba. 5. Important dates [for information] related to central counselling organized at Raipur by Director, CG Technical Education are as follows : 1. First round of CG PET and AIEEE counselling will be completing on 02.08.2008. 2. Admission of selected candidates will take place at college during 4th – 6th Aug'2008 and classes will being on 7th Aug'2008. 3. Second round of counselling for CG PET seats will begin around 3rd week of Aug'2008. 4. Last date for enrollment in Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University (CSVTU) is .0.2008.” 14. Sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 4 of the Act of 2008 are relevnat for the purpose of these cases and as such, the same are extracted herein-below : “Section 4 - Constitution, composition, disqualification and function of Committee.- * * * * * * * * (9) The Committee may hear complaints with regard to admission in contravention of the provisions contained herein, collecting of capitation fee or fee in excess of fee determined or profiteering by any institution, and if the Committee after enquiry finds that there has been any violation of the provisions for admission on the part of the unaided professional college or institution, it shall make appropriate recommendation for returning any excess amount collected to the person concerned, and also recommend to the Government for imposing a fine upto rupees ten lakhs, and Government may on receipt of such recommendation, fix the fine and collect the same in the case of each such violation or decide any other course of action as it deem fit and the amount so fixed together with interest thereon shall be recovered as if it is an arrear of land revenue, and the committee may also declare admission made in respect of any or all seats in a particular college or institution to be dehor merit and therefore invalid and communicate the same to the concerned university, and on the receipt of such communication, the, University shall debar such candidates from appearing in the examination and cancel the results of examination already appeared for. (10) The Committee may, if satisfied that any unaided professional college or institution has violated any of the provision of this Act and after approval of the State Government, recommend to the University or appropriate authority for withdrawal of the affiliation or recognition of such college or institution or decide any other course of action as it deems fit.” 15. Chapter III of the Act of 2008 is under the heading of “Admissions”. Rule 5, 6 & 7 under Chapter III are quoted herein-below : “5. The eligibility for admission to a private unaided professional educational institution shall be such as may be notified by the appropriate authority. 6. In private unaided professional educational Institution, admission to sanctioned intake shall be on the basis of the common entrance test in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government. 7. Every admission to private unaided professional educational institution shall be made in accordance with the provision of the rules made thereunder and every admission made in contravention thereof shall be void.” 16. “Appropriate Authority” is defined under Section 3(a) of the Act of 2008 to mean a Central or State Authority established by the Central or the State Government for laying down norms and conditions for ensuring standards of professional education. 17. A perusal of the resolution dated 15.07.2015 of the Committee goes to show that for the year 2012-13, 13 students admitted are sons and daughters of the employees of industrial enterprises tied up with the Institute and 10 students nominated by the industrial enterprises tied up with the Institute, are said to be relatives of their employees and / or having VIP reference. For the year 2013-14, 13 students admitted are sons and daughters of the employees of industrial enterprise tied up with the Institute and 12 students nominated by the industrial enterprise tied up with the Institute, are said to be relatives of their employees and / or having VIP reference. 18. For the year 2013-14, 13 students admitted are sons and daughters of the employees of industrial enterprise tied up with the Institute and 12 students nominated by the industrial enterprise tied up with the Institute, are said to be relatives of their employees and / or having VIP reference. 18. The resolution of the Committee further goes to show that pursuant to objection lodged by guardians of some of the students, whose wards took admissions in Private Professional Engineering Colleges of the State under management quota, in connection with non-allotment of enrollment and roll number of their wards against Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, a resolution was passed by the Committee on 14.12.2012 asking the Member (Law) to obtain records from the Department/Colleges/Institutions and to scrutinize as to whether admissions are made strictly in accordance with the merit list or not, and to prepare a report for action, if any. 19. Pursuant to aforeasid decision, Member (Law) conducted an enquiry and filed his report dated 16.10.2014 holding that admission allowed by Institute of Technology, Korba under management quota was not in accordance with law. 20. The Committee noted that the following two issues had emerged for consideration : “(a) Whether admissions given by Institute under management quota in the academic sessions 2012-13 and 2013-14 dehors merits, unconstitutional and also void ? (b) Whether Institute did capitation and profiteering ?” 21. With regard to issue No.(a), it was held that the Institute of Technology, Korba has no right or discretion to adopt a source for admission under management quota by reserving seats for tied up Industries and to admit students on nomination made by those Industries and such practice is neither permissble nor constitutional. Accordingly, it was held that all the admissions made by the Institute under management quota in the academic sessions 2012-13 and 2013- 14 are unconstitutional, dehors merit and also void. 22. With regard to issue No.(b), it was held that by preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that management quota seats have been permitted to be appropriated by payment of capitation fee and accordingly, it was held that the Institute did capitation and profiteering. 23. 22. With regard to issue No.(b), it was held that by preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that management quota seats have been permitted to be appropriated by payment of capitation fee and accordingly, it was held that the Institute did capitation and profiteering. 23. It was further observed by the Committee as follows : “Students admitted in 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 by the Institute under management quota who have completed the degree course, considering aforesaid complete discussions, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, as empowered under section 5, 36 and Statute no.30 has power to withdraw the degree, therefore may take steps for withdrawal of degree of those students.” “We further resolve that against students admitted in 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 by the Institute under management quota who (if any) have not completed the degree course, Director Technical Education should take necessary steps for suitable necessary action.” 24. Although, the Committee was considering as to whether there was any illegality of admissions given in academic sessions 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Committee submitted an adverse recommendation with regard to the students of 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, who had been admitted under management quota. Evidently, no notice was issused to the students admitted in those years. 25. Notice issued by the Committee to the petitioners merely asked the petitioners to show cause as to why the admission be not declared against merit. The notice issued is bereft of material particulars and no reasons had also been given as to why it is considered that the admission of the petitioners is considered against merit. Admittedly, the Member (Law) had submitted report on 16.10.2014. However, neither the enquiry report nor the complaint on the basis of which the Member (Law) was directed to conduct the enquiry had been furnished. The consequences that may ensue upon issuance of show cause notice are also not indicated. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 , wherein in paragraph-21, Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as follows: “21. The Central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. of NCT of Delhi and Others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 , wherein in paragraph-21, Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as follows: “21. The Central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of Show Cause Notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/ breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to black listing, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action.” 27. We are of the considered opinion that the show cause notice issued in the instant cases did not meet the requirement of a valid show cause notice. 28. That the petitioners had participated in the CGPET & AIEEE is not in dispute. The Institute of Technology had also made an averment that the petitioners would have otherwise been eligible to be admitted in open category seats. This submission has not been controverted by the State. 29. Even though the Act of 2008 did not envisage admission under management quota, admissions were continued to be given under management quota from 2008 onwards. Such admissions were granted on being duly approved by the Board of Governors. It is in view of such prevalent practice, the petitioners secured admission against management quota. There is no finding that because of such admission given to the petitioners, any meritorious candidate had been deprived of taking admission in Institute of Technology, Korba. Rather, the return of Institute of Technology, Korba indicates that many seats were lying vacant in the open category. It appears that on the basis of guidelines, the admissions were given under management quota and were continued to be given unmindful of the fact that the Act of 2008 had come into being. Rather, the return of Institute of Technology, Korba indicates that many seats were lying vacant in the open category. It appears that on the basis of guidelines, the admissions were given under management quota and were continued to be given unmindful of the fact that the Act of 2008 had come into being. It is also relevant to remember that the Board of Governors of Institute of Technology was consisting of high officials of the Government of Chhattisgarh and the Chairman of the same is Minister of Department of Technical Education. 30. WPC No.1315 of 2015 was registered before the Single Bench and the learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 20.08.2015 to the following effect : “Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.C. Khakhariya, Dy. A.G. For the State. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava and Shri Malay Shrivastava,counsel for respondent No. 3. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, counsel for respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to file reply. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Hamdast notice served to respondent No. 4, which is on record. He further submits that the students who are the petitioners herein though they have prosecuted the studies in the year 2012-13 and were admitted to B.E. Course and after such order of cancellation they have not attended the classes. In view of the fact, the petitioners are students and reply is awaited. The respondent No. 5 may consider sympathetically on humanitarian ground and allow the petitioners to pursue their study irrespective of their admission so that their imparting education may not be hampered. Certified copy as per rules.” 31. In WPC No.1616 of 2015, by an order dated 11.09.2015, Division Bench had passed an interim order permitting the petitioners to attend the classes and appear at examinations, if any, during pendency of the writ petition considering the fact that the petitioners had completed three years of the five year's course and were in the fourth year. 32. In WPC No.662 of 2016, Division Bench had passed the following order on 15.03.2016 : “Shri Vivek Chopda, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri UNS Deo, Government Advocate for the State/Respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocate for Respondent No. 6. 32. In WPC No.662 of 2016, Division Bench had passed the following order on 15.03.2016 : “Shri Vivek Chopda, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri UNS Deo, Government Advocate for the State/Respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocate for Respondent No. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that they are still attending classes upto date regularly and have not been deprived of the same by virtue of the impugned order. As prayed, list after one week for filing supplementary affidavit making that specific assertion of fact supported by necessary documentary evidence.” 33. It appears that on the basis of interim order dated 20.08.2015 passed in WPC No.1315 of 2015, the petitioners therein and similarly situated students were allowed to pursue their B.E. course and it is stated at the bar that the petitioners have completed their B.E. course and had passed out. 34. Though some argument is sought to be advanced by the petitioners that the Institute of Technology, Korba is not a private professional educational institution, and as such, the Act of 2008 is not applicable to Institute of Technology, the Institute of Technology, in its return, clearly stated that it is an un-aided private professional educational institution. 35. In view of such sequence of events and continuous practice which, of course, is not sanctioned by law, the petitioners opted to take admission under management quota in Institute of Technology, Korba. The petitioners cannot be held wholly responsible for taking admission illegally. 7/8 years have gone by since they had completed their B.E. course. This Court also, by way of interim order dated 20.08.2015 passed in WPC No.1315 of 2015, had asked the respondent No.5 to allow the petitioners therein to pursue their studies. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, at this juncture, it will be inequitable and unjust to cancel their admission. We are persuaded to take this view as not one instance had been brought to our notice that a meritorious candidate could not secure admission because of admissions granted to the petitioners. 36. In view of the above discussion, the impugned resolution dated 15.07.2015 and communication dated 17.07.2015 are set aside and quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. No cost.