JUDGMENT : Ninala Jayasurya, J. The writ appellant-Aditya Junior College / 3rd respondent in W.P.No.1379 of 2023, aggrieved by the Orders dated 28.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the said writ petition, filed Writ Appeal No.537 of 2024. Against the orders dated 10.05.2024 dismissing the Review Petition, the said College filed Writ Appeal No.536 of 2024. 2. Challenging the proceedings of disaffiliation of the College, dated 29.05.2024 as a consequence of the orders under challenge in the Writ Appeals, it filed W.P.No.12220 of 2024. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.1379 of 2023. Brief facts: 4. The writ petitioners are junior colleges located in Cheepurupalli of Vizianagaram District and imparting education to the intermediate students. Initially, they filed W.P.No.18717 of 2022 aggrieved by the purported action of the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education / 2nd respondent to grant permission to one “Sri Aditya Junior College” established by “Sri Sai Sahasra Educational Society” to shift the said college from Garividi Village, Vizianagaram District to Cheepurupalli Village, without following due procedure of Law. A learned Single Judge vide orders dated 04.07.2022, granted an interim direction to the 2nd respondent not to grant permission to the said “Sri Aditya Junior College” for shifting from Garividi Village & Mandal to Cheepurupalli Village & Mandal. 5. Subsequently, another Educational Society i.e., “B.S. Educational Society” which was registered on 01.08.2022, made a representation to the then Hon’ble Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), Vizianagaram Constituency on 13.08.2022 stating that it is interested in establishing a new junior college in Cheepurupalli under the said Society and sought permission for the same. The Hon’ble Member of Parliament on the same day i.e. 13.08.2022 addressed a letter to the Hon’ble Minister for Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh with a request to issue necessary permission positively. Thereafter the Board of Intermediate Education vide Communication dated 27.08.2022 called for a Comprehensive Inspection Committee (CIC) detailed report and viability report for sanction of new private unaided General Junior College at Cheepurupalli Village, Vizianagaram District from the academic year 2022-23. 6. Thereafter the Board of Intermediate Education vide Communication dated 27.08.2022 called for a Comprehensive Inspection Committee (CIC) detailed report and viability report for sanction of new private unaided General Junior College at Cheepurupalli Village, Vizianagaram District from the academic year 2022-23. 6. While so, the petitioners aggrieved by the purported action of the 2nd respondent in taking steps to grant permission to establish a new Junior College at Cheepurupalli by the said “B.S. Educational Society”, filed W.P.No.35328 of 2022 and a learned Judge of this Court, by an Order dated 01.11.2022 directed the production of records. Thereafter, on submission of reports, the 1st respondent-Government vide Memo dated 16.11.2022 rejected the request of the “B.S. Educational Society” on the premise that there is no viability for establishment of a new private un-aided junior college at Cheepurupalli and three writ petitions filed against the request of the management are pending before the High Court. 7. However, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1 dated 02.01.2023, according permission to the “B.S. Educational Society” for establishment of a new private un-aided junior college in the name of “Aditya Junior College”, from the academic year 2022-2023. 8. The petitioners vide W.P.No.1379 of 2023, laid a challenge to the said G.O., inter alia contending that without sending record to the Hon’ble High Court as per the directions dated 01.11.2022 in W.P.No.35328 of 2022 and despite the rejection of permission vide Memo dated 16.11.2022, the 1st respondent without verification of records, issued the G.O., for establishment of the junior college from the academic year 2022-23, although the academic year was already completed, that Rule 4 (2) of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 (for short ‘the Rules, 1987) was violated. 9. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit setting out the factual aspects including the issuance of a Show Cause Notice to the management of “Sri Aditya Junior College” established by ‘Sri Sai Sahasra Educational Society’ and imposition of penalty of Rs.5 lakhs for unauthorized shifting of college from Garividi Mandal to Cheepurupalli Mandal, sans prior permission from the competent authority. No reference was made to the Government Memo dated 16.11.2022 rejecting the permission for establishment of a junior college by B.S. Educational Society”. No reference was made to the Government Memo dated 16.11.2022 rejecting the permission for establishment of a junior college by B.S. Educational Society”. Yet, the subsequent order i.e., G.O.Rt.No.1 dated 02.01.2023 is sought to be justified stating that to curb the monopoly of the existing private junior colleges, to create healthy competition among the institutions and considering the requests from the residents of the local area to cater educational needs of the people in the nearby Mandals and as no such applications were received from any other management to establish a new junior college in the said region, the Government felt it necessary to permit the management of B.S. Educational Society” to establish a new private un-aided junior college in the name of “Aditya Junior College” at Cheepurupalli from the academic year 2022-23. 10. The learned Single Judge, after due consideration of the matter, while holding that Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 1987 was violated, opined that the G.O.Rt.No.1 dated 02.01.2023 is based on political recommendations, set aside the same and allowed the writ petition vide Orders dated 28.06.2023. Seeking review of the said orders, the respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2023. The learned Judge after hearing the review petitioner-respondent No.3 and referring to the legal precedents, dismissed the review petition by an Order dated 10.05.2024. 11. In the light of the above mentioned orders of the learned Single Judge, the 2nd respondent issued Proceedings dated 29.05.2024, the relevant portion of which reads as follows : “In consequence of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.1379 of 2023 and review petitions I.A.No.2 and I.A.No.4, it is hereby ordered to disaffiliate Aditya Junior College, at D.No.14-19, Sy.No. 113/14, 15, Sivam Junction, Opp: APSWR (G) Jr. College, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram District managed by B.S. Educational Society, Cheepurupalli (V&M), Vizianagaram District and directed the management to handover all the records to the Principal, GVR & SKS Govt. Junior College, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram District and also issue TC’s to the second year students. The Regional Inspection Officer, Vizianagaram is directed to give vide publicity regarding the status of the college to the students and parents. Guide the second-year students to join in nearby colleges.” Contentions of the counsel: 12. Mr. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-appellant College made submissions, inter alia, that the writ petition itself is not maintainable at the behest of the rival colleges. Guide the second-year students to join in nearby colleges.” Contentions of the counsel: 12. Mr. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-appellant College made submissions, inter alia, that the writ petition itself is not maintainable at the behest of the rival colleges. He submits that the appellant-“Aditya Junior College” was established by “B.S. Educational Society” and it has nothing to do with “Sri Aditya Junior College” which was established by the Management of “Sri Sai Sahasra Educational Society” and the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the same are different entities and erroneously came to a conclusion that the unauthorized act of relocation of the college was resorted to by renaming the said “Sri Aditya Junior College” as “Aditya Junior College” and as if it being run by the “B.S. Educational Society”. He submits that the order of the learned Single Judge basing on Rule 4 (2) of Rules 1987 without considering Section 18 of the A.P. Education Act which empowers the Government to grant permission for establishment of an Educational Institution, is not tenable. The learned counsel would further contend that right to impart education is a right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and permission granted to the 3rd respondent College cannot be invalidated on any grounds, much less on the premise that it’s establishment at Cheepurupalli is likely to lead to unhealthy competition. 13. The learned counsel states that about 198 students are pursuing the second year intermediate course in the 3rd respondent College, that when compared to the other colleges at Cheepurupalli, the pass percentage in the 3rd respondent College is more. He submits that unless orders under challenge are set aside and the 3rd respondent College is allowed to function, serious prejudice and irreparable loss would be caused not only to the College, but also to the students who are pursuing the intermediate course. He places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumari, 1976 (1) SCC 671 and Order dated 25.09.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.932 of 2023 (M/s.Galaxy Restaurant & Bar and M/s.New Modern Restaurant & Bar) and T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355 . The learned counsel also refers to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33168 of 2018, dated 29.08.2019 (Vigneswar Educational Society v. State of Andhra Pradesh). 14. Opposing the said submissions, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge contain valid and cogent reasons and warrants no interference in an intra-court appeal. Referring to the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners more particularly W.P.Nos.18717 of 2022 & 35328 of 2022 and the directions therein, dated 4.07.2022 and 01.11.2022 respectively, as also inspection reports in respect of the college in question, the learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent having rejected the permission for establishment of college as there is no viability, without conducting an enquiry or calling for a fresh report, issued orders granting permission. He submits that the said orders have been issued due to political reasons and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge in this regard are based on the material on record. He prays for dismissal of the appeals as also the writ petition. Consideration by the Court: 15. Perused the orders under challenge and gone through the material on record. 16. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that before the learned Single Judge, the appellant College had not caused appearance despite service of notice. In the present appeals, no ground with regard to 'locus’ of the writ petitioners has been raised. Be that as it may. 17. The Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act, 1982’) has been enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the educational system in the State of Andhra Pradesh for reforming, organizing and developing the said educational system and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. As provided under Section 1 (3), the said Act applies to all educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State except, - (i) xxxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxxx (iii) xxxxxxxx (iv) educational institutions imparting intermediate education in so far as the matters pertaining to them are dealt with in the Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1971 (A.P. Act 2 of 1971). 18. As provided under Section 1 (3), the said Act applies to all educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State except, - (i) xxxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxxx (iii) xxxxxxxx (iv) educational institutions imparting intermediate education in so far as the matters pertaining to them are dealt with in the Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1971 (A.P. Act 2 of 1971). 18. As per Section 2 (11) of the Act, "college" means [a college including a medical college established or maintained] and administered by, or affiliated to or associated with or recognized by, any University in the State and includes a junior college recognized by or affiliated to the Andhra Pradesh Board of Intermediate Education. In terms of Section 2 (12) of the Act, "competent authority" is any person, officer or authority authorized by the Government by notification to perform the functions of the competent authority under the Act for such area or for such purposes as may be specified in the notification. 19. Chapter VI of the Act, 1982 deals with the Establishment of Educational Institutions, their Administration and Control. Section 18 of the Act, reads as follows : 18. Government to provide facilities for imparting education - The Government may, for the purpose of implementing the provisions of this Act, provide adequate facilities for imparting general education, technical education, special education and teacher education in the State by - (a) establishing and maintaining educational institutions; (b) permitting any local authority or a private body of persons to establish educational institutions and maintain them according to such specifications as may be prescribed; and (c) taking, from time to time, such other steps as they may consider necessary or expedient. 20. Section 20 of the Act, 1982 deals with permission for establishment of educational institutions. In terms of the said Section, the Competent authority shall, from time to time, conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction, and notify in the prescribed manner through the local newspapers calling for applications from the educational agencies desirous of establishing educational institutions. Section 20 (2) of the Act contemplates that pursuant to the notification under sub-section (1), any educational agency including local authority or registered body of persons may make an application, within such period, in such manner and to such authority as may be notified for the grant of permission therefor. Section 20 (2) of the Act contemplates that pursuant to the notification under sub-section (1), any educational agency including local authority or registered body of persons may make an application, within such period, in such manner and to such authority as may be notified for the grant of permission therefor. As per Section 20 (3) of the Act, any educational agency applying for permission under sub-section (2), shall,- (a) before the permission is granted, satisfy the authority concerned,- (i) that there is need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality; (ii) that there is adequate financial provision for continued and efficient maintenance of the institution as prescribed by the competent authority; (iii) that the institution is proposed to be located in sanitary and healthy surroundings; (b) enclose to the application;- (i) title deeds relating to the site for building, playground and garden proposed to be provided; (ii) plans approved by the local authority concerned which shall conform to the rules prescribed therefor; and (iii) documents evidencing availability of the finances needed for constructing the proposed buildings; and (c) within the period specified by the authority concerned in the order granting permission:- (i) appoint teaching staff qualified according to the rules made by the Government in this behalf; (ii) satisfy the other requirements laid down by this Act and the rules and orders made thereunder failing which it shall be competent for the said authority to cancel the permission. 21. The Government in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 20 and 21 r/w Section 99 of the Act, 1982 framed the Rules, 1987 under Government and private sectors vide G.O.Ms.No.29, Education (Rules), dated 05.02.1987. In terms of Rule 1 (2), the said Rules shall apply to all educational institutions (both Government and private) imparting the following classes/categories of education in the State of Andhra Pradesh : (a) Junior Colleges (All institutions imparting Intermediate education with or without attached high school/degree classes/courses); (b) xxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxx (d) xxxxxxxx (e) xxxxxxxx (f) xxxxxxxx 22. As per Rule 2 (d), the 'Competent Authority' means the authority which is competent to grant permission / recognition / affiliation as the case may be to the educational institutions. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1987 deals with conditions for grant of permission and the Rules 4 (1) and (2) which are of immediate relevance reads thus : 4. As per Rule 2 (d), the 'Competent Authority' means the authority which is competent to grant permission / recognition / affiliation as the case may be to the educational institutions. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1987 deals with conditions for grant of permission and the Rules 4 (1) and (2) which are of immediate relevance reads thus : 4. Conditions for grant of permission- (1) Permission for the establishment of any of the educational institutions mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 or for opening of additional courses in any existing educational institution shall be granted only if the conditions laid down in Section 20 of the Act are satisfied and after obtaining the prior approval of the commissioner under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986; (2) No permission shall be granted if the educational needs of the locality are adequately served already and in the opinion of the competent authority, the opening of a new institution is likely to create unhealthy and undesirable competition with another institution of the same class/category, in the area. 23. Further, Rule 5 deals with application for grant of permission and contemplates that all applications for establishment of a Junior College shall be made to the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education and that the applications accompanied by the documents mentioned in the said Rule shall reach the competent authority not later than the 31st January of the year preceding the academic year in which the institution is proposed to be opened. Rule 6 deals with the conditions for grant of Permission. As per Rule 8 (2), the Commissionerate of Higher Education is the competent authority to grant or refuse permission for the establishment of various categories of Educational institutions indicated under Rule 1 (2) of the Rules 1987. Rule 8 (2) contemplates that the Government, keeping in view of their financial position during the particular financial, academic year and educational needs of the localities on priority basis, shall take a policy decision as to the number of Government and private institutions proposed to be established during the particular academic year, identifying the localities where they are to be established in consultation with the Director and communicate the same to the Commissionarate. The said Rule also contemplates calling for applications by Gazette Notification and / or newspaper advertisement in triplicate, from the educational agencies desirous of establishing Government / private institution of the category specified and in the locality specified along with the fees prescribed to the Board of Intermediate Education / University concerned, as the case may be, following the procedure prescribed under the Rules 5 and 6. 24. That apart, Rule 8 (3) stipulates that the Board of Intermediate Education / University concerned shall scrutinize the applications received in triplicate, from the educational agencies as well as those emanated from the Government and got forwarded through the Director, strictly in accordance with the Rules and Regulations provided under the Act. The said Rule also contemplates conduct of necessary inspection, submission of the inspection report and recommendations to the Director, who in turn submits his remarks to the Commisionerate. Rule 8 (4) envisages that the Commissionerate may, after verification of the application and the inspection report, either grant or refuse the permission. 25. A close reading of the provisions of the Act and Rules referred to above, would make it clear that the establishment of an educational institution - a junior college like in the present case, shall be governed by the procedure contemplated by law. As seen from the record and it is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent-College made a representation to the Hon’ble Member of Parliament seeking permission for establishment of an educational institution / college and the same was forwarded to the Hon’ble Minister for Education. Entertaining of the said representation / application by the Government and granting of permission for establishment of college, according to the Mr. Pitchaiah, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent College / appellant, is traceable to the power conferred on the Government under Section 18 of the Act. It is also his contention that in the light of the said statutory power of the Government, reliance on Rule 4 of the Rules, 1987 by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. 26. Section 18 of the Act contemplates that the Government may provide adequate facilities for imparting education and permission to establish educational institutions, in general terms. Whereas Section 20 of the Act envisages permission of the competent authority for establishment of educational institutions and stipulates a specific procedure as contained therein. 26. Section 18 of the Act contemplates that the Government may provide adequate facilities for imparting education and permission to establish educational institutions, in general terms. Whereas Section 20 of the Act envisages permission of the competent authority for establishment of educational institutions and stipulates a specific procedure as contained therein. That apart, as noted earlier, in furtherance of the provisions of the Act, 1982, the Government framed the Rules, 1987, inter alia prescribing the conditions for grant of permission and making of application in connection thereto. However, referring to a Full Bench decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Society of St.Ann’s, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad V. The Secretary to Government Education Department, Hyderabad, 1993 SCC Online AP 121, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Orders in W.P.No.33168 of 2018 referred to supra, opined that even in the absence of any notification issued by competent authority under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 calling for applications from the Educational agencies desirous of establishing educational institutions, it is open to any educational agency including religious or linguistic minority, to make an application to the State Government seeking permission to establish an educational institution and that it is for the State to decide whether there is need for establishment of an institution and issue of notification is not mandatory. 27. The Hon’ble Full Bench in St.Ann’s case dealt with the issues pertaining to the new policy of the Government of not granting permissions for opening new B.Ed; colleges in the State during the academic year 1990-91. Before answering the questions under reference, the Full Bench, inter alia held thus: “48. When an application is made by any educational agency to the State Government for the grant of permission for establishing an educational institution, the State Government may follow the principles underlying sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act in considering the application for the grant of permission though the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 20 strictly speaking, do not apply for such consideration and they apply only where an application is made to the concerned authority pursuant to a notification issued by a competent authority calling for applications from the educational agencies desirous of establishing educational institutions. While the State Government considers the applications, it can take into account not only the need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality, it can as well take into account the educational needs of the entire State, if the State Government considers it necessary, for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Act. It is for the State Government to decide whether the educational needs of a locality or area or of the entire State shall be taken into account in considering the applications and such a decision has to be arrived at on the basis of all the relevant factors, (emphasis supplied) 49. If the State Government takes a policy decision in the exercise of the statutory power vested in it under Section 18 as regards the establishment of educational institutions in the State on the basis of relevant considerations referred to above, and such a policy decision is not opposed to either fundamental rights or principles of natural justice and it is not found to be otherwise unreasonable or arbitrary, such a policy decision shall not generally be interfered with by the Courts. It will not be possible to lay down precise principles for testing the validity of a policy decision taken by the State Government. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case subject to the general principles referred to by us supra. 50. The need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality, contemplated under Section 20 (3) (a) (i) has to be understood in the context of the educational needs of the locality identified by the competent authority under sub-section (1) of Section 20. Even in a case where the educational needs of a locality have been identified by a competent authority, the need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality shall be subject to the policy decision, if any, taken by the State Government in that regard in exercise of its power under Section 18 of the Act. Even in a case where the educational needs of a locality have been identified by a competent authority, the need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality shall be subject to the policy decision, if any, taken by the State Government in that regard in exercise of its power under Section 18 of the Act. If a competent authority has either not been appointed or after appointment it has not issued any notification calling for applications for establishing educational institutions as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 20, even then, it is open to any educational agency to apply to the State Government for the grant of permission for establishing an educational institution in such a case, it is for the State Government to pass appropriate orders on the application submitted to it, on the basis of the principles underlying sub-section (3) of Section 20 and the policy decision, if any, taken by it as regards the need. But, the State Government has to take appropriate decision having regard to the relevant criteria, whether the educational needs of the locality or of the area or of the entire state shall be taken into account.” (emphasis supplied) 28. A close reading of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench would go to show that even in the absence of a Notification by the competent authority under Section 20 (1) of the Act, 1982, an application for establishment of an educational institution can be made to the State Government and a policy decision may be taken, however a such decision shall be, in compliance with the principles underlying Section 20 (3) of the Act and arrived at on the basis of all the relevant factors and having regard to the relevant criteria i.e., educational needs of the locality. The power conferred on the Government under Section 18 of the Act, 1982 can be exercised only in respect of a policy decision, which shall be in tandem with the Rules and based on consideration of relevant factors. Lest, the permissions granted under the guise of policy decision would frustrate the objection of the Act and render Section 20 of the Act, 1982 otiose and Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules, 1987 redundant. Lest, the permissions granted under the guise of policy decision would frustrate the objection of the Act and render Section 20 of the Act, 1982 otiose and Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules, 1987 redundant. Therefore, though the permission to the respondent-College appears to be in exercise of powers of the Government under Section 18 of the Act, the same shall be in accordance with Law. 29. Further, the policy decision of the Government, as noted above, shall be on consideration of the relevant factors, criteria and due satisfaction that there is need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality. In the present case, it is not in dispute that there are about 8 colleges in the Cheepurupalli Mandal and in such circumstances whether establishment of another college is really required to cater the needs of the locality or granting of permission is likely to create unhealthy and undesirable competition amongst the institutions already established in the locality are the relevant factors, which are to be considered before a decision is taken by the Government. However, no such exercise appears to have been undertaken and no material is placed on record in this regard suggestive of the same. Non-consideration of the relevant factors vitiates the permission. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P., & Renusagar Power Co. and Others, (1988) 4 SCC 59 , the exercise of power whether legislative or administrative will be set aside if there is manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary. Similarly, if the power has been exercised on a non-consideration or non-application of mind to relevant factors the exercise of power will be regarded as manifestly erroneous. 30. Assuming that Section 18 of the Act confers unbridled power to the Government to grant permission for establishing an educational institution / college to cater the educational needs of students of any particular locality / Mandal, the order granting permission shall be based on material on record. In the present case, it is pertinent to mention here that two inspections in respect of the respondent-College were conducted and thereafter the Government vide Memo dated 16.11.2022 rejected its request for establishment of new private unaided junior college at Cheepurupalli inter alia on the premise that there is no viability for establishment of the same. In the present case, it is pertinent to mention here that two inspections in respect of the respondent-College were conducted and thereafter the Government vide Memo dated 16.11.2022 rejected its request for establishment of new private unaided junior college at Cheepurupalli inter alia on the premise that there is no viability for establishment of the same. While it is curious to note that the said rejection proceedings were not challenged, yet within a short time of about 1 1/2 months, the Government changed its decision and granted permission for establishment of the 3rd respondent-College through the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. There is no reference to the subsequent inspections or reports forming the basis for granting the permission, much less on a request, if any, made by the respondent college to reconsider the earlier rejection orders. In the absence of any material justifying the orders granting permission, the same cannot be sustained. 31. On a close scrutiny of the material on record and appreciation of the chronological events, it would appear as though under the camouflage of a new college - ‘Aditya Junior College’ established by another society, “Sri Aditya Junior College” which was unauthorizedly shifted from Garividi to Cheepurupalli, got permission / approval for relocation of the College, indirectly. Facts and Circumstances of the case lends support to the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the permission was granted due to political considerations and the same cannot be viewed as baseless, erroneous or perverse. 32. Coming to the other contention with regard to the 'locus standi’ of the writ petitioners, Rule 4 (2) of the Rules, 1987 inter alia contemplates that ‘no permission shall be granted, if the opening of a new institution is likely to create unhealthy and undesirable competition with another institution of the same class or category, in the area.’ In the light of the statutory provisions referred to supra, granting of permission without verification of the relevant aspects or report, amounts to violation of the Rules and effects the rights of the writ petitioners to impart education in a healthy and competitive manner. The establishment of the Educational Institution in question without adherence to the statutory provisions certainly effects the writ petitioners’ interest and therefore they have 'locus’ to question the Government Order dated 02.01.2023. As such, the writ petition instituted by them is maintainable. Be that as it may. 33. The establishment of the Educational Institution in question without adherence to the statutory provisions certainly effects the writ petitioners’ interest and therefore they have 'locus’ to question the Government Order dated 02.01.2023. As such, the writ petition instituted by them is maintainable. Be that as it may. 33. The judgment in Jasbhai Motibhai’s case (referred 1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent-College is distinguishable on facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 and a stand was taken by the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the setting up of a rival cinema house in the town will adversely affect his monopolistic commercial interest, causing pecuniary harm and loss of business due to competition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that such harm or loss is not wrongful in the eye of law, because it does not result in injury to a legal right or a legally protected interest, the business competition causing it being a lawful activity. 34. Insofar as the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (referred 2 supra) is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition that right to establish and administer educational institutions is guaranteed under the Constitution to all citizens under Articles 19 (1)(g) and 26, and to minorities specifically under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. However, the establishment of such educational institutions shall be governed by the relevant enactments - in the present case, the A.P. Education Act and the Rules, 1987 framed thereunder, applicable to the 3rd respondent-Educational Institution in question. 35. Considering the matter in its entirety, in the light of the conclusions arrived at supra, this Court is not persuaded to take a different view to that of the learned Single Judge, which otherwise also does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Further, the order in the Review Petition is based on sound judicial principles and contain valid reasons, warrants no interference by this Court. Therefore, the contentions advanced on behalf of the 3rd respondent are rejected. 36. As the proceedings challenged in W.P.No.12220 of 2024 are consequent to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, upheld by this Court, no interference is warranted. 37. In the result, writ appeals and the writ petition are dismissed. Therefore, the contentions advanced on behalf of the 3rd respondent are rejected. 36. As the proceedings challenged in W.P.No.12220 of 2024 are consequent to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, upheld by this Court, no interference is warranted. 37. In the result, writ appeals and the writ petition are dismissed. However, this order would not preclude the 3rd respondent-College from making an appropriate application seeking permission for establishment of a Junior College at Cheepurupalli, which if made, shall be dealt with, strictly in accordance with the Law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.