Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Lavu Educational Society, Guntur vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 14 June, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(3)ALD632, 1999(3)ALT689, AIR 1999 ANDHRA PRADESH 335, (1999) 3 ANDHLD 632 (1999) 3 ANDH LT 689, (1999) 3 ANDH LT 689
JUDGMENT
1. The order passed by the Government in Memo No.30636/EC-2/98-7 dated 12-1-1999 refusing to accord approval for the establishment of Engineering College is assailed in this writ petition.
2. Though in the writ petition entire gamut of events were traced leading to the filing of this writ petition, only relevant facts and situations are referred to herein.
3. The petitioner is an Educational Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, having number of educational institutions under its control. The 4th respondent-All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter called the 'Council' for brevity) issued notification inviting applications for establishing Engineering Colleges in the Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner submitted the proposal for establishment of an Engineering College at Deshnmkhi (village), Pochampally Revenue Mandal, Bhongiri Revenue Division, Dist. Nalgonda. It is stated that the petitioner complied with all the requirements as per the norms fixed by the Council. The Commissioner for Technical Education of the Government of Andhra Pradesh constituted a Commiltee to inspect the proposed college on 13-12-1997 and 14-12-1997. But, however, the State Government did not forward the recommendations in respect of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not obtain the sale-deed and that the location was changed belatedly. Therefore, the petitioner filed WPNo.44329/1998. This Court by an order dated 19-12-1998 directed the respondents No. 1 and 2 to forward the recommendations to the 4th respondent and accordingly the recommendations were communicated to the 4th respondent.
4. The 4th respondent on receipt of the application together with the recommendations considered the proposals as per the revised AICTE Regulations. The petitioner was informed by proceedings dated 1-6-1998 that the proposal to establish the Engineering College at Deshmukhi (village), Pochampally Mandal, Bhongir Revenue Division, Nalgonda District was found viable. Therefore, to facilitate the further process of the proposal, the petitioner was directed to furnish necessary documents to the Regional Office. It was also stated that the Expert Committee of the Council shall visit the proposed institution, in case the documents are found to be correct. The Council further directed that before the Expert Committee inspects the premises, certain facilities as mentioned in 'a' to 'e' in the communication shall be kept ready. In case the petitioner was not able to fulfil any of the requirements, it would be open for the Council to forfeit the claim for further consideration. The Expert. Committee of the Southern Region after giving notice inspected both the temporary and permanent locations, where the college is to function. After considering the report of the Expert Committee basing on the consultations of the concerned State Government and the Affiliating Body, the Council accorded approval by letter dated 14-7-1998 to the petitioner Society for establishment of the Engineering college for conducting courses in Computer Science Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering, Electrical and Electronics Engineering and Mechanical Engineering with a intake of 40 each in the first three Faculties and 60 in the Mechanical Engineering Course. The said communication was addressed to the Government with a copy to the Institution. It is also stated in the said communication that the institution should shift from its temporary location to the permanent premises within two years.
5. It is stated that the State Government is required to grant approval under Section 20 of the AP Education Act. The Government took a policy decision to establish the Engineering Colleges in the uncovered revenue divisions, but the said policy was held to be unsustainable, yet, in the guise of indirectly implementing the said policy, the case of the petitioner was not taken up and in the meanwhile Counselling for admission to Engineering Courses were commenced. Therefore, the petitioner tiled another writ petition WPNo.23760 of 1998 questioning the inaction of the Government in processing the matter. This Court issued interim directions to consider the grant of approval without reference to the Government policy. The Government while granting permission to 17 new Colleges unconditionally refused to grant permission to certain oilier colleges including the college of the petitioner on the ground that the college was sought to be established in the covered revenue division. Since interim order of this Court was not complied with, the petitioner moved Contempt Petition 1697/1998 and the respondents were directed to be present before the Court, in the meanwhile in order to avoid contempt proceedings, the 1st respondent-State Government issued the proceedings dated 12-1-1999 refusing to grant permission. The said order is assailed in this writ petition.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. B. Adinaraycina Rao submits that the order is wholly illegal, mulct fide and contrary to law. The State Government has no power to refuse the permission when once the Council has already granted approval as required under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the 'Central Act'). Even otherwise, he submits that the grounds on which the refusal was made is untenable and unwarranted.
7. In the counter filed on behalf of the Government, it is stated that after the approval was granted by the Council, the availability of infrastructure was inspected by the Team deputed by the Department of Technical Education and on the basis of the Inspection Report of the said Team, the Government found that the accommodation was incomplete and the same was hurriedly arranged at Hyderabad. Therefore, the impugned order was passed by the State Government. The order of refusal is quite legal and valid and the same is within its power. It is further stated that when the Team of Officers were a surprise visit, it was found that the temporary accommodation was still under construction. Counter further states that the State Government is not superimposing any other norms and standards over and above the requirements prescribed by the Council and on the contrary it was only trying to ensure that the College sanctioned by the Council works with proper infrastructure. It is the contention of the Stale Government that it possessed the right to shortlist the application by even laying down the higher standards of qualification than that is laid down by the Centre or Central Authorities and in doing so, the State Authority docs not encroach upon the Entry 66 of the Union List or make a law which is repugnant to the Central Act. Thus, it is submitted that the action of the State Government is quite legal and valid as it is vested with the power under Section 20 of the Act to consider the relevant issues before the approval is granted, even after the approval is granted by the Council.
8. The issues that arises up for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustain able in law?
9. The facts which are not in dispute are that on an application having been made by the petitioner the letter of viability was granted by the Council, a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Central Act. By the said viability letter, the petitioner was directed to forward the following documents to the Southern Regional Office :
"1. (a) Registered sale-deed showing ownership of the proposed land in the name of applicant Society/frust as per AICTE Regulations. (Please note that Registered lease-deed is not acceptable except where the land is owned by Government).
(b) A Land use certificate from the concerned authority.
(c) In case the applicant sociely/ trust is running any other educational institution in the same land where the new institution is proposed to be set up, a registered irrevocable resolution of the applicant society/ trust stating that land as per AICTE norms has been earmarked specifically for setting up the proposed institution.
2. A Joint Fixed Deposit only in a Nationalised Bank in the name of applicant society/trust and concerned Regional Officer as per Regulations fora period often years. (FDR should be created only after getting the signature of the concerned Regional Officer, please refer Annexure-ll)
3. A master plan for the entire institutional complex with the details of the plinth area, including area of laboratories, class rooms, drawing halls, workshops, library, administrative block, hostel etc.
4. Proof of temporary/permanent accommodation along with lay out plan and photographs of the premises where the applicant proposes to start the institute.
5. A processing fee of Rs.50,000 (Fifty Thousand only) in the form of a Demand Draft in favour of the concerned Regional Officer "
It was further stated that the Expert Committee of the Council would visit the institute, if the documents are found to be in order and before the Expert Committee visits the premises the following facilities were directed to be kept ready :
"(a) Classrooms, Laboratories etc. for a minimum of first two semesters as per the Norms of the Council.
(b) Library with adequate number of books & Journals as per Norms for the first two semesters.
(c) Computer Centre with required number of terminals for first two semesters as per Norms.
(d) Identification and consent of atleast 70% staff and Faculty.
(e) Full Time Director/Principal as per AICTE qualifications."
Accordingly, the petitioner submitted necessary documents and consequently the Expert Committee of the Southern Region conducted the inspection. Thereafter, the Council has considered the Inspection Report of the Expert Committee and also after consultation with the State Government and affiliating body passed an order on 14-7-1998 granting approval to the petitioner for establishment of the Engineering College from the Academic year 1998-99 in four Faculties as mentioned supra. It was further directed in the said order that in the event of infringement or contravention or non-compliance of the norms and standards as prescribed by the Council, it shall take further action to withdraw the approval and consequent liability arising out of such withdrawal shall solely rests on the petitioner. The approval was given for only one academic session and if the norms and standards stipulated by the Council are fulfilled, further continuation would be considered. The State Government was directed to monitor the progress made by the institution for fulfilling the norms and standards and the Council and also keep informed the Southern Regional Office. Thus, the approval as required under the Act was accorded by the competent body. But, now the State Government is required to consider the matter for graining the approval under Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act which mandates that no educational institution shall be established in the State of Andhra Pradesh except in accordance with the provision of the A.P. Education Act (hereinafter called the 'State Act'). Therefore, the State Government passed the impugned order refusing to grant approval on the following grounds:
"(1)That the said society has shown temporary accommodation at Hyderabad and applied for permanent location at Deshmukhi village of Nalgonda District.
(2) That the temporary accommodation is quite for away from the permanent location.
(3) That after receipt of the All Indian Council for Technical Education's approval, the facilities available in the College were again inspected by an expert team, which found that the society was not having adequate facilities of computers, library and laboratories even at that time also.
(4) That the temporary accommodation was hurriedly arranged in a residential school belonging to the society, where the construction work was still underway."
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner now submits that the reasons given for rejection was wholly irrelevant and the State Government has no such power to reject the approval on the grounds mentioned therein. He relies on the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in M. Sambasiva Rao @ Sambaiah v. Osmania University, Hyderabad, 1997 (2) ALD J (FB), and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Govt. of A.P. v. J.B. Educational Society, DB. The learned Counsel also submits that the State Government is precluded from laying down higher standards than those prescribed by the Council and such an action is ultra vires the Central Act. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute, . The learned Govt. Pleader also relies on the said decision for the purpose that so long as the State acts in accordance with the policy of the State Government, it shall be deemed that the State acted within the permissible limits. The learned Govt... Pleader also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in M/s. Ram Chamira Mawa Lal, Varanasi v. State of War Pradash, , to say that the State Government is entitled to reject the approval even though the Council has granted approval under the provisions of the Central Act.
11. The Full Bench in Sambasiva Rao's case (supra), while considering the validity of the All India Council for Technical Education, 1987 and the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, held that the All India Council for Technical Education Act, is valid and that there was no repugnancy between the provisions of these two enactments. However, if there is any repugnancy, All India Council for Technical Education Act, prevails over the University Grants Commission Act. We are not concerned with the repugnancy-with reference to the two Acts. The Central Act is a special Act concerning the coordination and integrated development of the technical education system at all levels through out the country to promote qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth. The Preamble itself reads thus :
"The Preamble of the Central Act states that it has been enacted to provide for the establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education with a view to (i) proper planning and coordinated development of the technical education system throughout the Country,
(ii) promotion of the qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth,
(iii) regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system, and
(iv) for matters connected therewith."
12. In Adhiyaman's case (supra), the power of the State Government and the University to derecognise and disaffiliate the existing Engineering College was in issue, but the large question that was decided was the conflict between the Central Act. (AICTE Act) on the one hand and the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder and the Madras University Act and the Statutes, Ordinances made thereunder on the other. While dealing with the Central Act and the Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulation) Act, 1965, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of the State Act which impinged upon provisions of the Central Act are void and therefore unenforceable. Accordingly, held that the appointment of a high power committee by the State Government to inspect the respondent college was void. With regard to the Central Act and the Madras University Act, the Supreme Court held as under:
"Thus, so far as these matters are concerned, in the case of the institutes imparting technical education, it is not the University Act and the University but it is the Central Act and the Council created under it which will have the jurisdiction. To that extent after the corning into operation of the Central Act, the provisions of the University Act will be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical college like the engineering colleges. As has been pointed out earlier, the Central Act has been enacted by Parliament under Entry 66 of List I to coordinate and determine the standards of technical institutions as well as under Entry 25 of List III. The provisions of the University Act regarding affiliation of technical colleges like the engineering colleges and the conditions for grant and continuation of such affiliation by the University shall, however, remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the University for grant and continuance of affiliation will have to be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Council in respect of matters entrusted to it under Section 10 of the Central Act".
13. In case where the University or the State may prescribe certain standards which are higher than the standards prescribed by the Council, the Supreme Court observed:
".......It is true that, in practice, it may happened that institutions with higher sources and students and teachers with higher marks and qualifications, respectively, than are prescribed apply and compete for the places, scats or vacancies as the case may be. However, it is equally true that when the vacancies are available for institutions or students or teachers as the case may be, the applicants cannot be denied the same on the ground that they do not fulfil the higher requirements laid down under the State Act, if they are qualified under the Central Act. Similarly, the institutions cannot be de-recognised or disaffiliated on the ground that they do not fulfil the higher requirements under the State Act although they fulfil the requirements under the Central Act. So also, when the power to recognise or de-recognise an institution is given to a body created under the Central Act, it alone can exercise the power and on terms and conditions laid down in the Central Act. It will not be open for the body created under the State Act to exercise such power much less on terms and conditions which are inconsistent or repugnant to those which are laid down under the Central Act".
"That clearly defines the autonomy of the University, not to be autocracy, in relation to the matters covered by the AICTE Act and it is operative in such other areas not covered by the AICTE Act. Therefore, we hold that the powers and functions of the AICTE or the Council under the Act cannot be taken to offend the autonomy of the University. Same thing can be said in relation to the Government or any other agency is concerned, that their area of operation by virtue of any other law including the State Acts cannot be in regard to the matters covered by the AICTE Act."
"Therefore, we conclude that the approval of the Council is necessary as a condition precedent for affiliation of Technical Institutions, Colleges or Institutions by the University or recognition by the Government. But at the same time, it may not be mandatory or compulsory for the Universities to accord affiliation wherever the approval is accorded by the Council. The Government is also not automatically bound to recognise such institutions etc., having approval of the Council. But such refusal of affiliation by the University or recognition by the Government shall not be on the matters or the grounds which are already considered and covered by the AICTE Act and for the determination of the Council while according approval. Because, the Government and University etc. are represented in the Committees of the Council and any such matters in relation to affiliation and recognition even after the approval can only be taken up with the Council, however, the decision of the Council in that regard shall be final. At the same time, the affiliation by the University and recognition by the Government can be refused on any other ground in its own law or any other law nor covering or concerning the matters according the approval under the AICTE Act. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Supreme Court has put an end to all such controversies leaving no scope for res Integra in view of Unnikrishnan 's case and Adhiyaman's case supra."
14. Thus, it is clear that the regulations, made by the Council have force of law and it is binding on all the authorities including the State Government. But, however, the Full Bench observed that refusal by the State Government cannot be made on the grounds which were already considered and determined by the Council while according approval. The Full Bench further observed that the affiliation by the University and the recognition by the Government can be refused on any other grounds in its own law or any other law not covering or concerning the matters according the approval under the Central Act. Therefore, it has to be held that the University and the State Government have power to refuse approval in accordance with the respective enactments. But, however, the power to refuse the approval cannot be invoked on the matters which were considered and covered by the Council.
15. In J.B. Educational Society's case (supra) the Division Bench of this Court while considering the provisions of the Central Act and the A.P. Education Act, the Division Bench has categorically held that the State Government cannot refuse or withhold permission for establishing Private Engineering College in the State, when once the Council under the Central Act grants approval. It was a case where the Council granted permission for establishing of an Engineering College, but, however, the State refused the permission exercising the power under the State Act that Engineering Colleges cannot be permitted to be established in covered revenue divisions as per the policy of the State Government. It was held by me that Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the State Act was repugnant to Section 10(1)(a) of the Central Act. On appeal by the State the Division Bench upheld the repugnancy and consequently the State was directed to consider the cases for grant of permission for locating the Engineering Colleges in the covered revenue division also.
16. The Division Bench after considering the regulations stated thus :
"From the above regulations, it is clear that the State Government or its nominees dealing with the Technical Education, have effective participation in the entire process of decision making by the Council as their objections/ recommendations are considered as State Level Committee at the stage of scrutiny of the applications. Upon the recommendations considered by the State Level Commiltee, final approval is granted by the Council for establishing the Private Engineering Colleges."
17. Thus, the Division Bench has clearly held that the power of State Government in refusing the approval for establishment of technical institution in the covered revenue divisions, was ultra vires of provisions of Section 10 of the Central Act. It follows that the State Government is required to grant approval under Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act, but that is however subject to the power of the Council under Section 10 of the Central Act. It is also clarified by the Full Bench that if the Council has considered the matter and granted approval in consultation with the State Government and the affiliating body the later authorities ceases to exercise the power to reject the approval on the very same ground on which the Council has already approved.
18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao submits that the ground that the distance between the temporary accommodation and the permanent accommodation is far away is irrelevant. Further, the Government themselves have granted permission to number of colleges, where the distance between temporary accommodation and permanent location are more than hundreds of miles and the distance in the instant case is hardly 40 Kms. He submits that in G.O. Ms. No.478 dated 4-11-1998 Sri Venkateshwara College of Engineering, Chittoor was permitted to shift the location from Chittoor to Adoni in Kumool District. Similarly, in G.O. Ms. No.479 dated 4-11-1998 Lakkireddy Balreddy College of Engineering was permitted to shift the location from Nuzvid in Krishna District to Peddapuram Revenue Division of East Godavari District and in G.O. Ms. No.486, dated 7-11-1998 Sri Salyanarayan College of Engineering was permitted to shift the location from Ongole to Paderu of Visakhapatnam District. This point is not seriously contested by the Government as can be seen from the Counter, wherein it is stated that though the distance of temporary accommodation from permanent accommodation is not very important, yet, it is relevant to be taken notice of. When the Government itself granted permission to various other institutions permitting them to establish the permanent locations from the temporary locations it would be a futile argument to contend that still it is an important factor to be kept in view while considering the matter. Thus, I find that the distance between the temporary location and the permanent location is immaterial and more especially when the approval was granted by the Council directing the petitioner to shift the College to the permanent location within two years. Therefore, the Council was aware that the College has to be shifted from temporary location to permanent location. The Council having permitted running of the college from temporary location, it would not be appropriate for the State Government to again consider the very same matter and find that the temporary accommodation is far away from the permanent location. As held by the Full Bench, when once the matter was considered by the Council and approval is granted, the very same matter cannot be again subject matter of the consideration by the State Government and the same is out of purview of the State Government. Thus, I find that the reasons assigned in the impugned order that the temporary accommodation is quite faraway from the permanent location is irrelevant and unwarranted.
19. Coming to the other ground that the temporary location of the petitioner was not having adequate facilities of Computers, Library, Laboratory and that the accommodation was hurriedly arranged in a residential school. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that same arguments will also apply to these objections. He refers to the lelter of viability dated 1st June, '1998 wherein the petitioner was directed to keep the facilities which were already extracted supra before the Expert Committee visits the place. The facilities include Class Rooms, Laboratories, Library with adequate number of Books, Computes Centre with required number of terminals. The Expert Committee of the Southern Region inspected the premises of the petitioner and sent its Report to the Council for necessary consideration. The Council after considering the Report of the Expert Committee and also after consulting the Government and the Affiliating Body issued proceedings dated 14-7-1998 according approval for establishment of the College. Thus, the issue relating to these facililies once considered by the Council again cannot be reconsidered by the State Government for coming to a different conclusion. The Supreme Court in Adhiyaman's case (supra), while considering the provisions of the Central Act and functions of the Council established under the Act vis-a-vis State Act Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulation) Act and Rules, Madras University Act, held that the State Acts cannot lay down the standards and requirements higher than prescribed by the Central Government for technical institutions and cannot deny the situations/seats to the applicants on the ground that they did not fulfil the higher standards or requirements. As already observed by me that the power of the State Government under Section 20 is available to the State Government, to grant or refuse the permission but the refusal cannot on the matters already decided by the Council while granting approval. Admittedly, in the instant case, the refusal made by the State Government" is on the ground which were already considered. The learned Government Pleader, however tried to impress upon this Court that after approval was granted by the Council, a surprise check was made by the Team consisting of professor of Engineering from J.N.T.U. University and two technically qualified officers of the Technical Education Department on 28-7-1998 and it found that the deficiencies as mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, it is always open for the State Government to inspect the locations at any point of time even after approval was granted by the Council. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. When once the approval is granted by the Council on the premise that it was satisfied with the facilities provided by the institution regarding class rooms, laboratories, library, computer centre as per the norms fixed by the Council and after satisfying it and after consulting with the State Government and the Affiliating Body. granted the approval for establishment of the Engineering College, the State Government is precluded from again considering the availability of facilities independently by making a surprise check. The State Government cannot act either as supervising body over the inspections made by the Expert Body constituted by the Council or take a contrary view. When once the inspection was done by the Expert Committee and it was salisfied with the facilities the question of second inspection by the State Government for the purpose of satisfaction once again does not arise. At the most, it may be open for the State Government to bring it to the notice of the Council about the deficiencies. The Council is clothed with the power to take action either to re-visit or inspect the institution and if it finds that there was infringement/contravention or non-compliance of the norms or standards prescribed by the Council, it is always open for the Council to withdraw the approval. In view of this, specific power with the Council, it would not be appropriate for the State Government to sit over the decisions taken by the Council with regard to the facilities provided. Under these circumstances, I find that the second ground is also unsustainable as the same is not available for the reconsideration by the State Government.
20. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that there is no inconsistency with the action taken by the Government in furtherance of the action already taken by the Council. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in M/s. Ram Chandra Mawa Lal's case (supra). In that case, the Central Government issued notification on 1-6-1974 under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act fixing the sale price of the fertilizers under Clause 3 of the Fertilizer Control Order, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act. The Government of Uttar Pradesh under Defence of IndiaRuIes issued another notification on 14-6-1974 directing that no registered dealer of fertilizers shall charge or retain, enter into, enforce any contract for changing in respect of any fertilizers sold to any person or on or after 1-6-1974 from any stock held on 31-5-1974, a price exceeding the minimum price fixed by the Central Government under earlier notification dated 11-10-1973. The Notification issued by the UP State was challenged on the ground that it was in contravention of Central Order dated 1-6-1974. The High Court upheld the validity of the notification dated 14-6-1974. The matter carried to the Supreme Court by the dealers. One of the contention raised before the Supreme Court was that the State Government has no power to issue the notification under the Defence of India Rules in respect of an essential commodity (fertilizer) covered by the Central Government notification issued under Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 made in exercise of the power conferred under the Essential Commodities Act. The Supreme Court finding that there was no inconsistency observed as follows :
"The Central notification, as discussed earlier, is altogether silent on the ramification regarding sales from out of existing stocks acquired by the dealers at lower rates. The impugned State notification, on the other hand, deals exclusively with this aspect. The State notification speaks on a refinement of the subject about which the Central notification is blissfully unaware and on which it is altogether silent. The two do not overlap. There is therefore no real inconsistency The principle may be stated thus. The Centre and the State both cannot speak, the voice of the Centre will drown the voice of the State. The State has to remain 'silent' or it will be 'silenced'. But the State has the right to 'speak' and can 'speak' (with unquestionable authority) where the Centre is 'silent' without introducing disharmony. If the Centre sits only on a portion of the Chair, the State can sit on the rest of the portion-with arms thrown on the shoulders of each other. While the State cannot sit on the lap or on the shoulders of the Centre, both can certainly walk hand-in-hand, lending support to each other, in a friendly manner, towards the same destination. If the Centre has built a wall, and has left a gap from which intruders can infiltrate, the State can fill the gap in the wall, and thus make its own contribution to the common cause. What is more, each in theory and principle must be presumed to be conscious of the need for accord and need for accommodating each other in the interest of National Harmony."
21. The Supreme Court further held that the State notification promoted and served the objects of both laws and emphasised that endeavour must be made to place harmonious interpretation which would avoid collision between the two.
22. Taking clue from this, the learned Govt. Pleader submits that what the Stale Government in the instant case has done was that it only promoted the object of the Council and did not act contrary to the decisions taken by the Council. 1 am afraid, 1 cannot accept this contention. "The Supreme Court though held that both the notifications issued by the Central as well as the State have to be read harmoniously and that the purpose of the State notification was to promote, serve the object of both the laws. But, in the instant case, the State Government had taken a contra decision to that of the Council. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action of the Government has promoted and aided the action taken by the Council. As already stated, when once the Council has granted the approval after satisfying itself, that the facilities such as Class Rooms, Library, Computer Rooms etc. were provided, it is not open for the State Government to again ponder over the said issues. The matters which were already considered and decided cannot be a subject matter for reconsideration by the State Government. Of course as held by the Full Bench, it is always open for the State Government to consider the matters which were not dealt with by the Council and that too the consideration must conform to the regulations made by the Council under the Central Act. Any extraneous or irrelevant considerations would be contrary to the provisions of the Central enactment.
23. The learned Govt. Pleader, however, submits that the power of judicial review has to be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a limited sphere. There is no doubt about this proposition. The Supreme Court has clearly indicated and demarcated the parameters of the judicial review in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 (6) SCC 651 and Asia Foundation and Construction Limited v. Trafalgaqr House Construction Limited, . But, in the instant case, order of the Government goes contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and Full Bench. The Council being a Supreme body under the Act, the other authorities including the State Government even though they are authorised to grant permission under the respective laws shall have to yield to the decisions taken by the Apex Body under the Central Act. The grounds on which the decision was taken by the Council cannot be revised or reviewed by the State Government in the guise of exercising the power under the State enactment.
24. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are quashed.
25. However, the learned GP submits that the approval granted by the Council was only for the academic year 1998-99 and the same has expired. Therefore, no relief can be granted. The Division Bench was faced with the similar situation in J.B. Educational Society's case (supra). The Divisional Bench directed the Council to renew the approval for the current year and further directed the State Government to consider the grant of permission after the Council renews its approval. Therefore, simitar directions are necessary in the instant case also. Accordingly, the Council-4th respondent is directed to renew the approval for the academic year 1999-2000. But, however, the further question that falls for consideration is whether a positive direction could be issued for grant of permission. In normal circumstances, this could have directed the Government to consider the matter for grant of permission under Section 20 of the Act. Admittedly, the State Government has rejected the permission on the ground of distance and lack of certain facilities and by necessary implication it has to be construed that the Government was satisfied in respect of other matters for grant of permission. In the case dealt with by the Division Bench, the application was rejected on the ground that no college could be permitted to be established in covered revenue divisions thereby the other issues were not considered by the Government. Therefore, direction was granted to State Government to consider the application for permission.
26. Under those circumstances, the State Government is directed to grant permission to the petitioner to establish Engineering, College. In view of the declaration of EAMCET results and consequential impending admissions for current academic year 1999-2000 and in order to facilitate the petitioner to admit the students to various Engineering courses, it is directed that the Council shall renew the approval for the academic year 1999-2000 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and no such renewal the State Government shall grant permission within a period of one week.
27. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the above directions.