JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, C.J. Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel; Mr. P.Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel; and Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing through video conferencing; represents Mr. Tarun G.Reddy, Mr. Sairam Kanakamedala, Ms. B.Avani and Ms. Rubaina S.Khatoon, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General for the State. Mr. M.Mehboob Ali, learned Standing Counsel for All India Council for Technical Education. Mr. Abdul Quddus Mohammed, learned counsel appears for Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University 2. These intra court appeals emanate from an order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in W.P.No.23539 of 2024 and batch, by which the learned Single Judge has rejected the interlocutory applications filed by the appellants seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh mop-up round of TGEAPCET 2024-25 counselling for all the engineering courses for the academic year 2024-2025 by notifying all the courses offered by the appellants with full intake capacity and to permit admission in all the courses offered by the appellants. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are heard finally. For the facility of reference, facts from W.A.No.1062 of 2024 are being referred. 4. The appellant No.1 is a society registered under the provisions of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. The appellant No.1 runs an engineering college in the name and style of Vidya Jyothi Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as, “the institution”), where technical education in engineering and technical courses is being imparted. The institution has been granted approval by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and has also received affiliation from the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU). In view of the increase of admission of seats in some of the courses offered by the appellants, the institution sought to adjust its seats by decreasing the number of seats in other branches and by increasing the number of seats offered by the appellants in the course of B.Tech Computer Science Engineering (CSE). The said increase was sought to be achieved by the institution by reducing 30 seats from B.Tech Civil Engineering and 30 seats from B.Tech Mechanical Engineering with the course of B.Tech CSE. The appellants, therefore, submitted a proposal to the State Government for adjustment of the seats. 5. However, the proposal submitted by the appellants failed to evoke any response. The said increase was sought to be achieved by the institution by reducing 30 seats from B.Tech Civil Engineering and 30 seats from B.Tech Mechanical Engineering with the course of B.Tech CSE. The appellants, therefore, submitted a proposal to the State Government for adjustment of the seats. 5. However, the proposal submitted by the appellants failed to evoke any response. Thereupon, the appellants filed W.P.No.19102 of 2024, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 19.07.2024 directing the State to consider the proposal submitted by the appellants within one week. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the State Government issued a memo dated 26.07.2024 rejecting the proposal submitted on behalf of the appellants. The appellants challenged the rejection of the aforesaid proposal in a writ petition, namely W.P.No.20537 of 2024. 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 09.08.2024 dismissed the writ petition. The appellants assailed the validity of the order in a writ appeal, namely W.A.No.953 of 2024. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 13.08.2024, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and quashed the rejection memo dated 26.07.2024 and directed the State to consider the proposal of the appellants expeditiously. The State Government thereupon, by an order dated 23.08.2024, rejected the proposal submitted on behalf of the appellants, inter alia, on the ground that the vacancies are still available in CSE branch at the appellants’ college as well as in the colleges of Moinabad locality and in the colleges located in the Ranga Reddy District wherein the appellant No.2 is located. It was accordingly held that there is no discernible need for merger of the existing courses/adjustment of seats in B.Tech (CSE) as sought by the appellants. 7. The appellants thereupon filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.23541 of 2024, wherein the validity of Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”), was challenged. In addition, the appellants also challenged the validity of the memo dated 23.08.2024 by which their proposal for increase of intake capacity was rejected. The said writ petition was listed before a Division Bench of this Court. In addition, the appellants also challenged the validity of the memo dated 23.08.2024 by which their proposal for increase of intake capacity was rejected. The said writ petition was listed before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 04.09.2024, inter alia, noted that the validity of Section 20 of the Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B.Educational Society (2005) 3 SCC 211. The Division Bench of this Court, therefore, held that once again the validity of Section 20 of the Act cannot be challenged and held Section 20 of the Act to be intra vires. The writ petition along with other writ petitions were directed to be listed before the learned Single Judge. 8. Along with the writ petition, the appellants had filed an interlocutory application in which the prayer was sought to conduct a fresh mop-up round of TGEAPCET 2024-25 counselling for all the engineering courses for the academic year 2024-2025 by notifying all the courses offered by the appellants with full intake capacity and to permit admission in all the courses offered by the appellants. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dated 05.09.2024, passed in W.P.No.23539 of 2024 and batch, inter alia, held that for the academic year 2024- 2025, the admissions to B.Tech courses have been completed and the courses have commenced from 19.08.2024. It was further held that admission schedule prescribed to all courses has to be rigidly followed and it will not be extended beyond the time specified in the admission schedule. The learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Education Promotion Society for India v. Union of India (2019) 7 SCC 38 . Accordingly, the interlocutory applications seeking the interim reliefs were rejected. Hence, this appeal. 9. Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, have submitted that there are 70 educational institutions which impart education in the technical courses. It is further submitted that out of 70 educational institutions, in respect of 56 institutions, the permission to increase the intake capacity has been granted and the and the educational institutions run by the appellants alone have been subjected to hostile discrimination. In support of the aforesaid submission, reference has been made to paragraphs 64 and 65 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.23541 of 2024. In support of the aforesaid submission, reference has been made to paragraphs 64 and 65 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.23541 of 2024. It is also submitted that the institutions run by the appellants have been approved by the AICTE and the No Objection Certificate (NOC) has also been granted by the JNTU. It is also submitted that there are no laches on the part of the appellants and the appellants have been diligently prosecuting the remedy. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 4 SCC 697. 10. Mr. P.Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, has submitted that the application submitted by the appellants has been rejected on factually incorrect premise inasmuch as seats in CSE branch have been filled up. It is also submitted that approval has been given to the institutions by the AICTE as well as by the JNTU. It is also argued that as per the academic calendar 2024-2025 prescribed by the AICTE, the last date of admission to the technical courses is 15.09.2024. However, the learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer for interim relief on the assumption that the last date for admission to the courses is over and the academic session has commenced. 11. Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, while inviting the attention of this Court to page No.284 of the paper book annexed to W.A.No.1062 of 2024, has submitted that no seats are vacant in the CSE course and after sliding process on 20.08.2024, all the vacant seats in CSE branch have been filled up. It is further submitted that there is no complaint with regard to the infrastructure facilities as well as the staff in respect of the institutions run by the appellants. It is further submitted that the deadline of 15.09.2024 fixed for admission to the engineering course by AICTE does not apply to the case and if the prayer for interim relief is not granted, the challenge to the order dated 23.08.2024 would be rendered academic and no effective relief can be granted to the appellants even if the appellants succeed in the writ petitions. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha v. PT.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 , Dhaya College of Engineering v. Anna University (2014) 16 SCC 355 and Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) v. Union of India (2017) 15 SCC 702 . 12. On the other hand, Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General, has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has contended that the issue involved in the instant appeals is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar v. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (2019) 17 SCC 729 . It is further submitted that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision which has been taken by the State Government in refusing to grant NOC to increase the intake capacity. It is further pointed out that the permission granted by the JNTU is subject to the permission which may be granted by the State Government. It is submitted that in the case of the other remaining institutions in the State, the approval for intake capacity has been granted by taking into account the need of the locality. It is also pointed out that the remaining institutions in the State were denied the increase in intake capacity for ten years. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for grant of interim relief is made out. 13. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. 14. From the perusal of the record, the following facts would emerge:- i) The additional intake capacity in respect of the institutions run by the appellants is approved by the AICTE sometime in May/June, 2024. ii) The JNTU has granted the NOC dated 21.03.2024 to the appellants’ educational institutions, which is subject to the permission from the State of Telangana. iii) In paragraphs 64 and 65 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.23541 of 2024, the appellants have made an averment that the permission to all the other educational institutions in the State of Telangana for increasing the intake capacity has been granted and only in case of the appellants, a different criteria has been adopted. iii) In paragraphs 64 and 65 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.23541 of 2024, the appellants have made an averment that the permission to all the other educational institutions in the State of Telangana for increasing the intake capacity has been granted and only in case of the appellants, a different criteria has been adopted. It had been pleaded that the proposal for increase in intake capacity is to be adjudged on the same criteria which is applicable to one and all and the case of the appellants cannot be treated on different yardsticks and policies. At this stage, there is no material on record to rebut the same. iv) The impugned order dated 23.08.2024 refers to the position before the internal sliding process on 20.08.2024. According to the respondents themselves, 95.59% seats in CSE have been filled up. v) As per the academic calendar 2024-2025 fixed by the AICTE on 02.05.2024, the last date of admission to the engineering courses is 15.09.2024. vi) The appellants are not guilty of delay and laches and have been prosecuting the proceeding diligently. vii) In case the interim relief as prayed for by the appellants is not granted, the challenge to the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 would be rendered academic, as no substantive relief can be granted to the appellants in the event of their success. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, in our opinion, the appellants have made out a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience also lies in their favour. In case the relief, as prayed for, is not granted, the appellants shall suffer irreparable injury. 16. Insofar as the reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra) is concerned, the issue involved in the aforesaid appeal was whether the University is bound to give NOC for opening an educational institution or for a new course irrespective of the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction. While dealing with the aforesaid issue, the Supreme Court has held that large number of institutions are not to be opened up to die an unnatural death on the principles of survival of the fittest and due to non-availability of teachers/staff. The instant appeals do not pertain to opening of new educational institutions. While dealing with the aforesaid issue, the Supreme Court has held that large number of institutions are not to be opened up to die an unnatural death on the principles of survival of the fittest and due to non-availability of teachers/staff. The instant appeals do not pertain to opening of new educational institutions. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra) has no application to the facts of the case in hand. 17. For the aforementioned reasons, the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in W.P.No.23539 of 2024 and batch, is set aside and the respondents are directed to conduct a mop-up round of counselling in respect of increased intake capacity in the seats available in the institutions of the appellants. Needless to state that in the mop-up round of counselling, it shall clearly be notified that the aforesaid exercise is being taken up in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court and the admission of the students against such courses shall be subject to outcome of the orders which may be passed in W.P.No.23539 of 2024 and batch. 18. The respondents may file the counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge within a period of two weeks from today. The learned Single Judge is requested to deal with the writ petitions expeditiously. 19. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and any observations/findings made in this judgment have been made only for the purposes of deciding these appeals and shall have no bearing on the merits of the matters pending before the learned Single Judge. 20. In the result, the appeals are allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.