Full Judgment Text
1
2005:BHC-AS:16711-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5986 OF 2005
1. Yerala Medical Trust & Research )
Centre, )
A Public Charitable Trust, )
duly registered under the provisions
of Public Trust Act, and having )
its Registered Office at )
Curry Road, Mumbai & Institutional)
Area, Sector 4, Kharghar, )
Navi Mumbai 410 210. )
2. Y.M.T. College of Management )
An Educational Institution, )
having its office at Institutional)
Area, Sector 4, Kharghar, )
Navi Mumbai 410 210. )..Petitioners.
Vs.
1. The Stae of Maharashtra )
(Notice to be served on the )
Govt.Pleader, Original Side, )
High Court, Mumbai) )
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
2
2. The Secretary to Government )
Higher Technical Education Dept. )
having its office at Mantralaya, )
Annexe Building, Mumbai 400 032. )
3. All India Council for )
Technical Education, )
A Statutory Body constituted under)
the provisions of AICTE and )
having its office at Indira Gandhi)
Complex, I.P.Estate, )
New Delhi 110 002. )
4. The Regional Officer, )
All India Council for Technical )
Education, Western Regional Office)
2nd floor, Industrial Assurance )
Building, Opp.Churchgate Railway )
Station, Veer Nariman Road, )
Mumbai 400 020. )
5. Union of India )
(Notice to be served at )
Law & Justice Department, Govt. of)
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
3
India, Income-Tax Building, )
New Marine Lines, Mumbai. )
6. The University of Mumbai )
having its office at Fort, )
Mumbai. )..Respondents.
....
Mr.S.G.Surana for the Petitioners.
Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Associate Advocate General with
Mr.P.I.Khemani, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms.Beena Menon for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Mr.R.A.Rodrigues for Respondent NO.6.
....
CORAM : CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & F.I.REBELLO &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ. DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ. JJ.
15th September, 2005.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per F.I.REBELLO, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per F.I.REBELLO, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per F.I.REBELLO, J.)
1. Rule. Heard forthwith.
2. The Petitioners had decided to open a new
college for management i.e. M.B.A. Course.
Permission for opening an MBA Course requires
permission of Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has
framed infrastructure norms for starting new
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
4
management colleges. Pursuant to the Petitioners
submitting the necessary documents, the officers of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 visited the Petitioners’
institution and submitted their report. Based on
that report on 28th January, 2005 the State
Government recommended the Petitioners’ proposal
for establishment of new technical institution to
Respondent No.3. It is the case of the Petitioner
that the State Government observed that the
Petitioners are fulfilling all the necessary norms
and conditions laid down by Respondent No.3. On
the hearing given to the Petitioners by Respondent
No.3, they appeared before the hearing committee of
Respondent No.3 on 29th January, 2005. Respondent
No.3 after considering the recommendations of the
hearing committee and E.C. sub committee issued
letters of intent to the Petitioners for
establishment of new college of management on 10th
February, 2005 and called on the Petitioners to pay
a sum of Rs.15 lacs towards refundable performance
guarantee fee and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards
visiting fees.
3. The Petitioners complied with the said
directions and intimated the same by their letter
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
5
dated 23rd February, 2005. The Petitioners were
awaiting further visit of the expert committee of
Respondent No.3. It is the case of the Petitioners
that Respondent No.3 on 11th April, 2005 without
issuing show cause notice and without hearing the
Petitioners by a letter withdrew the letter of
intent dated 10th February, 2005 for reasons as set
out therein. The Petitioners made several
representations. As they did not hear from
Respondent No.3, they were compelled to file Writ
Petition, being Writ Petition 3559 of 2005 in May
2005. During the pendency of that Petition various
directions were issued and subsequently, the
Petition came to be disposed of by order dated June
30, 2005. A Division Bench of this Court noted the
decision in Writ Petition 3916 of 2001 which has
been disposed of on 17th September, 2001 that with
effect from the academic year 2002-03 the AICTE
shall communicate to the State Government before
30th June each year, the intake capacity of
different colleges concerned in the State of
Maharashtra and the intake capacity so determined
shall not be changed thereafter. The Learned Bench
observed that AICTE, Respondent No.3 had laid down
a national calender/schedule for processing
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
6
applications for establishing new institutions for
2005-06 and that the national calendar commences
from 20th December, 2004 with the submission of
applications. The Court then observed that the
last date for the completion of the second stage is
30th June, 2005 and AICTE having laid down the
national calender, the Court was of the view that
it would not be appropriate to issue a writ of
mandamus to AICTE in regard to the completion of
the second stage by a particular date. Having
regard to all the circumstances, the Court observed
that it would be appropriate if AICTE considers
whether the applications by the Petitioners for the
current year 2005-06 should be processed further
for this year or whether it should be deferred for
the next academic year and this matter must lie in
the discretion of the expert body. This Court in
its observations observed that it hoped and trusted
that AICTE will arrive at its decision guided by
considerations of fair and just treatment in
accordance with law. There are certain other
observations which we need not advert to as the
Petition can be disposed of by issuing various
directions.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
7
4. The Petitioners contend that on 30th June,
2005 they made a representation and requested
Respondent No.3 to send their experts and to comply
with the directions and/or orders passed by this
Court in Writ Petition 3559 of 2005. The
Petitioners contend that this Court proceeded on
the basis of the assertion of Respondent No.3 that
they had laid down a national calender for
processing the applications for establishment of
new institutions for the academic year 2005-06. It
is pointed out that on the contrary, Respondent
No.3 had already decided to change the national
calender and decided to resort for ongoing approval
and process and therefore issued public notice in
the Times of India dated 31st July, 2005 and
invited applications from the institutions for the
academic year 2005-06 on or before 15th August,
2005. Based on that, the Petitioners made a
representation on 5th August, 2005 and requested
Respondent No.3 to send the expert committee and
issue permission/ approval to the Petitioners for
the academic year 2005-06. The expert committee
visited the Petitioners’ institution and found that
the Petitioners have complied with all the
requirements and the Petitioners are having
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
8
infrastructure which are necessary for running
M.B.A. College. Respondent No.3, however, without
considering the proposal for establishing new
management college for the academic year 2005-06
granted permission/ approval for the academic year
2006-07 on the ground that this was in view of the
judgment of this Court in Writ Petition 3916 of
2001. It is the case of the Petitioners that they
were not parties to this writ petition.
On behalf of the Petitioners it is submitted that
considering the notification dated 31st July, 2005,
issued by Respondent No.3, inviting applications on
or before 16th August, 2005 for opening of new
institutions for the academic year 2005-06 the
Petitioners had satisfied the necessary criteria,
and as such Respondent No.3 was bound to grant
permission and the failure to grant permission
would be contrary to the order of this Court dated
30th June, 2005 in Writ Petition 3559 of 2005.
5. Respondent No.3 have put in their
appearance. On behalf of Respondent No.3, learned
counsel points out that they had addressed a letter
dated 7th July, 2005 to the Principal Secretary,
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
9
Higher and Technical Education, State of
Maharashtra. They therein had set out the
procedure involved and which would take about 20-30
days. Attention was also invited to the judgment
of this Court in Writ Petition 3916 of 2001 that
all decisions regarding course and intake will be
taken on 30th June every year and further
considering 20-30 days time to process the above
case, the State Government was requested to
indicate whether it is possible to initiate
admission process for 2005-06 in case the above
case is considered for approval by AICTE. The
Secretary was also informed that if AICTE does not
receive any reply from the State Government, in
that regard within 15 days, the case will be
processed only for 2006-07. Respondent No.3
thereafter by a letter dated 29th August, 2005
addressed to the Secretary, Higher and Technical
Education with copy endorsed to the Petitioners
bearing in mind the ratio of the judgment of this
Court in Writ Petition 3916 of 2001, granted
approval to the establishment of a new college for
the academic year 2006-07. Various conditions have
been imposed, of which Condition No.1 is that the
institution must have affiliation to a University
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
10
before making admissions. In the absence of such
affiliation, letter of approval shall be treated as
withdrawn. Secondly, the approval course shall
commence as per the academic calender of
affiliating university and if the letter of
approval is received after the closing date of
National level Central Counselling for admissions
in the concerned State/ Union Territory, the letter
of approval will not be valid for making any
admission during the above specified academic year
and shall be treated as withdrawn. It is not
necessary for us to refer to the other conditions.
6. We have also heard learned counsel for the
University. Our attention is invited to Ordinance
116. Ordinance 116 are the terms of various
faculties. In so far as the terms for the first
year of the D.M.S. and M.M.S. courses are as
under:
First Term -1st August to 6th December)Both days
Second Term -2nd January to 2nd May )inclusive
Counsel for both Respondent No.3 as well as
Respondent No.6 point out that for the first
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
11
semester the institution must put in a minimum of
90 days to enable the students to appear for the
examination. It is pointed out that considering
the period now available, it would not be possible
to complete the said terms. Apart from that, on
behalf of the Respondent University learned counsel
points out that there are 9 papers of 100 marks
each and two papers of 50 marks each all together
11 papers which had been put in.
7. On behalf of the Respondent State, Learned
Counsel has drawn our attention to the judgment of
the Apex Court in Medical Council of India v. Medical Council of India v. Medical Council of India v.
Madhu Singh Madhu Singh (2002) 7 SCC 258. We may only advert Madhu Singh
to to what the Apex Court has noted in paragraph 22 of to
the judgment:
"It is to be noted that if any student is
admitted after commencement of the course
it would be against the intended objects of
fixing a time schedule. In fact, as the
factual position goes to show, the
inevitable result is increase in the number
of seats for the next session to
accommodate the students who are admitted
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
12
after commencement of the course for the
relevant session. Though, it was pleaded
by learned counsel for Respondent 1 that
with the object of preventing loss to the
national exchequer such admissions should
be permitted, we are of the view that the
same cannot be a ground to permit midstream
admissions which would be against the
spirit of governing statutes. His
suggestion that extra classes can be taken
is also not acceptable. The time schedule
is fixed by taking into consideration the
capacity of the student to study and the
appropriate spacing of classes. The
students also need rest and the continuous
taking of classes with the object of
fulfilling the requisite number of days
would be harmful to the students’ physical
and mental capacity to study."
8. Considering what is set out above, and the
fact that ultimately it is Respondent No.3 and
Respondent No.6 who have to decide the matter of
grant of approval and matter of affiliation, it
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
13
would not be possible for this Court to issue any
directions to the statutory bodies which will be
contrary to the statutory provisions by which they
are governed. No Court including a Court
exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction will
issue any directions or grant any relief which is
contrary to the statute and more so where there is
no discretion in the statutory authority. It may
be mentioned that Respondent No.6 has specifically
stated through their counsel that they go by the
directions in the matter of the minimum attendance
which a student must put in as set out by
Respondent No.3.
9. We may, however, note one unusual aspect of
the matter. The admission process, spills over a
substantially long period. The judgment of this
Court in Writ Petition 3916 of 2001 was to enable
certainty so that the admission process would go on
undisturbed and that the seats available are filled
in as per procedure laid down. In other words, the
judgment proceeded on the footing that there must
be certainty in the admission process and in that
context observed that the intake capacity would be
as notified by Respondent No.3 as on 30th June of
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
14
each academic year. Respondent No.3, however, as
can be seen in the recent case issued a notice in
July inviting applications upto August 16. The
effect of such notice is that Respondent No.3
having given up its initial calender was willing to
consider granting permission/ approval to new
institutions and/or possibly in some cases
increasing the intake. One of the reasons
Respondent No.3 found itself unable or not in a
position to consider proposal was in view of the
judgment of this Court in Writ Petition 3196 of
2001 which has fixed the intake as of 30th June,
2005. It is only on account of this aspect of the
matter and with a view that students from this
State do not suffer, we are inclined to provide for
certain contingencies as have occurred in the
present case, without departing from the cut off
date for intake as set down in the judgment of this
Court on 17th September, 2001 in Writ Petition 3196
of 2001.
10. In the light of that, the Petition can be
disposed of by issuing the following directions:
i) The State Government will consider the
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
15
intake capacity as on 30th June, 2005 to
commence the process for filling in seats
subject to what is set out hereunder;
ii) If before the last date of the admission/
counselling process, AICTE increases the
intake of existing institutions or grants
permission for new colleges, the State
Government will take into consideration
such additional seats and take steps to
fill in these seats from amongst students
already on their list and without
interfering with the admission process
already completed;
iii) This would, however, be subject to the
condition that such institutions must have
affiliation in terms directed by Respondent
No.3 and the institutional students are in
a position to complete the necessary number
of days for appearing for the examination
in terms fixed by Respondent No.3 as
followed by Respondent No.6.
iv) It is made clear that those who have
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
16
already been admitted before the increased
intake or approval by Respondent No.3 by
granting approval of new institutions or
additional intake will not be entitled to
apply nor will the State consider their
applications for admission in the new
college where approval has been granted or
intake increased.
Rule made absolute accordingly. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
2005:BHC-AS:16711-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5986 OF 2005
1. Yerala Medical Trust & Research )
Centre, )
A Public Charitable Trust, )
duly registered under the provisions
of Public Trust Act, and having )
its Registered Office at )
Curry Road, Mumbai & Institutional)
Area, Sector 4, Kharghar, )
Navi Mumbai 410 210. )
2. Y.M.T. College of Management )
An Educational Institution, )
having its office at Institutional)
Area, Sector 4, Kharghar, )
Navi Mumbai 410 210. )..Petitioners.
Vs.
1. The Stae of Maharashtra )
(Notice to be served on the )
Govt.Pleader, Original Side, )
High Court, Mumbai) )
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
2
2. The Secretary to Government )
Higher Technical Education Dept. )
having its office at Mantralaya, )
Annexe Building, Mumbai 400 032. )
3. All India Council for )
Technical Education, )
A Statutory Body constituted under)
the provisions of AICTE and )
having its office at Indira Gandhi)
Complex, I.P.Estate, )
New Delhi 110 002. )
4. The Regional Officer, )
All India Council for Technical )
Education, Western Regional Office)
2nd floor, Industrial Assurance )
Building, Opp.Churchgate Railway )
Station, Veer Nariman Road, )
Mumbai 400 020. )
5. Union of India )
(Notice to be served at )
Law & Justice Department, Govt. of)
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
3
India, Income-Tax Building, )
New Marine Lines, Mumbai. )
6. The University of Mumbai )
having its office at Fort, )
Mumbai. )..Respondents.
....
Mr.S.G.Surana for the Petitioners.
Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Associate Advocate General with
Mr.P.I.Khemani, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms.Beena Menon for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Mr.R.A.Rodrigues for Respondent NO.6.
....
CORAM : CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & F.I.REBELLO &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ. DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ. JJ.
15th September, 2005.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per F.I.REBELLO, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per F.I.REBELLO, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per F.I.REBELLO, J.)
1. Rule. Heard forthwith.
2. The Petitioners had decided to open a new
college for management i.e. M.B.A. Course.
Permission for opening an MBA Course requires
permission of Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has
framed infrastructure norms for starting new
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
4
management colleges. Pursuant to the Petitioners
submitting the necessary documents, the officers of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 visited the Petitioners’
institution and submitted their report. Based on
that report on 28th January, 2005 the State
Government recommended the Petitioners’ proposal
for establishment of new technical institution to
Respondent No.3. It is the case of the Petitioner
that the State Government observed that the
Petitioners are fulfilling all the necessary norms
and conditions laid down by Respondent No.3. On
the hearing given to the Petitioners by Respondent
No.3, they appeared before the hearing committee of
Respondent No.3 on 29th January, 2005. Respondent
No.3 after considering the recommendations of the
hearing committee and E.C. sub committee issued
letters of intent to the Petitioners for
establishment of new college of management on 10th
February, 2005 and called on the Petitioners to pay
a sum of Rs.15 lacs towards refundable performance
guarantee fee and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards
visiting fees.
3. The Petitioners complied with the said
directions and intimated the same by their letter
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
5
dated 23rd February, 2005. The Petitioners were
awaiting further visit of the expert committee of
Respondent No.3. It is the case of the Petitioners
that Respondent No.3 on 11th April, 2005 without
issuing show cause notice and without hearing the
Petitioners by a letter withdrew the letter of
intent dated 10th February, 2005 for reasons as set
out therein. The Petitioners made several
representations. As they did not hear from
Respondent No.3, they were compelled to file Writ
Petition, being Writ Petition 3559 of 2005 in May
2005. During the pendency of that Petition various
directions were issued and subsequently, the
Petition came to be disposed of by order dated June
30, 2005. A Division Bench of this Court noted the
decision in Writ Petition 3916 of 2001 which has
been disposed of on 17th September, 2001 that with
effect from the academic year 2002-03 the AICTE
shall communicate to the State Government before
30th June each year, the intake capacity of
different colleges concerned in the State of
Maharashtra and the intake capacity so determined
shall not be changed thereafter. The Learned Bench
observed that AICTE, Respondent No.3 had laid down
a national calender/schedule for processing
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
6
applications for establishing new institutions for
2005-06 and that the national calendar commences
from 20th December, 2004 with the submission of
applications. The Court then observed that the
last date for the completion of the second stage is
30th June, 2005 and AICTE having laid down the
national calender, the Court was of the view that
it would not be appropriate to issue a writ of
mandamus to AICTE in regard to the completion of
the second stage by a particular date. Having
regard to all the circumstances, the Court observed
that it would be appropriate if AICTE considers
whether the applications by the Petitioners for the
current year 2005-06 should be processed further
for this year or whether it should be deferred for
the next academic year and this matter must lie in
the discretion of the expert body. This Court in
its observations observed that it hoped and trusted
that AICTE will arrive at its decision guided by
considerations of fair and just treatment in
accordance with law. There are certain other
observations which we need not advert to as the
Petition can be disposed of by issuing various
directions.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
7
4. The Petitioners contend that on 30th June,
2005 they made a representation and requested
Respondent No.3 to send their experts and to comply
with the directions and/or orders passed by this
Court in Writ Petition 3559 of 2005. The
Petitioners contend that this Court proceeded on
the basis of the assertion of Respondent No.3 that
they had laid down a national calender for
processing the applications for establishment of
new institutions for the academic year 2005-06. It
is pointed out that on the contrary, Respondent
No.3 had already decided to change the national
calender and decided to resort for ongoing approval
and process and therefore issued public notice in
the Times of India dated 31st July, 2005 and
invited applications from the institutions for the
academic year 2005-06 on or before 15th August,
2005. Based on that, the Petitioners made a
representation on 5th August, 2005 and requested
Respondent No.3 to send the expert committee and
issue permission/ approval to the Petitioners for
the academic year 2005-06. The expert committee
visited the Petitioners’ institution and found that
the Petitioners have complied with all the
requirements and the Petitioners are having
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
8
infrastructure which are necessary for running
M.B.A. College. Respondent No.3, however, without
considering the proposal for establishing new
management college for the academic year 2005-06
granted permission/ approval for the academic year
2006-07 on the ground that this was in view of the
judgment of this Court in Writ Petition 3916 of
2001. It is the case of the Petitioners that they
were not parties to this writ petition.
On behalf of the Petitioners it is submitted that
considering the notification dated 31st July, 2005,
issued by Respondent No.3, inviting applications on
or before 16th August, 2005 for opening of new
institutions for the academic year 2005-06 the
Petitioners had satisfied the necessary criteria,
and as such Respondent No.3 was bound to grant
permission and the failure to grant permission
would be contrary to the order of this Court dated
30th June, 2005 in Writ Petition 3559 of 2005.
5. Respondent No.3 have put in their
appearance. On behalf of Respondent No.3, learned
counsel points out that they had addressed a letter
dated 7th July, 2005 to the Principal Secretary,
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
9
Higher and Technical Education, State of
Maharashtra. They therein had set out the
procedure involved and which would take about 20-30
days. Attention was also invited to the judgment
of this Court in Writ Petition 3916 of 2001 that
all decisions regarding course and intake will be
taken on 30th June every year and further
considering 20-30 days time to process the above
case, the State Government was requested to
indicate whether it is possible to initiate
admission process for 2005-06 in case the above
case is considered for approval by AICTE. The
Secretary was also informed that if AICTE does not
receive any reply from the State Government, in
that regard within 15 days, the case will be
processed only for 2006-07. Respondent No.3
thereafter by a letter dated 29th August, 2005
addressed to the Secretary, Higher and Technical
Education with copy endorsed to the Petitioners
bearing in mind the ratio of the judgment of this
Court in Writ Petition 3916 of 2001, granted
approval to the establishment of a new college for
the academic year 2006-07. Various conditions have
been imposed, of which Condition No.1 is that the
institution must have affiliation to a University
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
10
before making admissions. In the absence of such
affiliation, letter of approval shall be treated as
withdrawn. Secondly, the approval course shall
commence as per the academic calender of
affiliating university and if the letter of
approval is received after the closing date of
National level Central Counselling for admissions
in the concerned State/ Union Territory, the letter
of approval will not be valid for making any
admission during the above specified academic year
and shall be treated as withdrawn. It is not
necessary for us to refer to the other conditions.
6. We have also heard learned counsel for the
University. Our attention is invited to Ordinance
116. Ordinance 116 are the terms of various
faculties. In so far as the terms for the first
year of the D.M.S. and M.M.S. courses are as
under:
First Term -1st August to 6th December)Both days
Second Term -2nd January to 2nd May )inclusive
Counsel for both Respondent No.3 as well as
Respondent No.6 point out that for the first
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
11
semester the institution must put in a minimum of
90 days to enable the students to appear for the
examination. It is pointed out that considering
the period now available, it would not be possible
to complete the said terms. Apart from that, on
behalf of the Respondent University learned counsel
points out that there are 9 papers of 100 marks
each and two papers of 50 marks each all together
11 papers which had been put in.
7. On behalf of the Respondent State, Learned
Counsel has drawn our attention to the judgment of
the Apex Court in Medical Council of India v. Medical Council of India v. Medical Council of India v.
Madhu Singh Madhu Singh (2002) 7 SCC 258. We may only advert Madhu Singh
to to what the Apex Court has noted in paragraph 22 of to
the judgment:
"It is to be noted that if any student is
admitted after commencement of the course
it would be against the intended objects of
fixing a time schedule. In fact, as the
factual position goes to show, the
inevitable result is increase in the number
of seats for the next session to
accommodate the students who are admitted
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
12
after commencement of the course for the
relevant session. Though, it was pleaded
by learned counsel for Respondent 1 that
with the object of preventing loss to the
national exchequer such admissions should
be permitted, we are of the view that the
same cannot be a ground to permit midstream
admissions which would be against the
spirit of governing statutes. His
suggestion that extra classes can be taken
is also not acceptable. The time schedule
is fixed by taking into consideration the
capacity of the student to study and the
appropriate spacing of classes. The
students also need rest and the continuous
taking of classes with the object of
fulfilling the requisite number of days
would be harmful to the students’ physical
and mental capacity to study."
8. Considering what is set out above, and the
fact that ultimately it is Respondent No.3 and
Respondent No.6 who have to decide the matter of
grant of approval and matter of affiliation, it
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
13
would not be possible for this Court to issue any
directions to the statutory bodies which will be
contrary to the statutory provisions by which they
are governed. No Court including a Court
exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction will
issue any directions or grant any relief which is
contrary to the statute and more so where there is
no discretion in the statutory authority. It may
be mentioned that Respondent No.6 has specifically
stated through their counsel that they go by the
directions in the matter of the minimum attendance
which a student must put in as set out by
Respondent No.3.
9. We may, however, note one unusual aspect of
the matter. The admission process, spills over a
substantially long period. The judgment of this
Court in Writ Petition 3916 of 2001 was to enable
certainty so that the admission process would go on
undisturbed and that the seats available are filled
in as per procedure laid down. In other words, the
judgment proceeded on the footing that there must
be certainty in the admission process and in that
context observed that the intake capacity would be
as notified by Respondent No.3 as on 30th June of
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
14
each academic year. Respondent No.3, however, as
can be seen in the recent case issued a notice in
July inviting applications upto August 16. The
effect of such notice is that Respondent No.3
having given up its initial calender was willing to
consider granting permission/ approval to new
institutions and/or possibly in some cases
increasing the intake. One of the reasons
Respondent No.3 found itself unable or not in a
position to consider proposal was in view of the
judgment of this Court in Writ Petition 3196 of
2001 which has fixed the intake as of 30th June,
2005. It is only on account of this aspect of the
matter and with a view that students from this
State do not suffer, we are inclined to provide for
certain contingencies as have occurred in the
present case, without departing from the cut off
date for intake as set down in the judgment of this
Court on 17th September, 2001 in Writ Petition 3196
of 2001.
10. In the light of that, the Petition can be
disposed of by issuing the following directions:
i) The State Government will consider the
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
15
intake capacity as on 30th June, 2005 to
commence the process for filling in seats
subject to what is set out hereunder;
ii) If before the last date of the admission/
counselling process, AICTE increases the
intake of existing institutions or grants
permission for new colleges, the State
Government will take into consideration
such additional seats and take steps to
fill in these seats from amongst students
already on their list and without
interfering with the admission process
already completed;
iii) This would, however, be subject to the
condition that such institutions must have
affiliation in terms directed by Respondent
No.3 and the institutional students are in
a position to complete the necessary number
of days for appearing for the examination
in terms fixed by Respondent No.3 as
followed by Respondent No.6.
iv) It is made clear that those who have
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::
16
already been admitted before the increased
intake or approval by Respondent No.3 by
granting approval of new institutions or
additional intake will not be entitled to
apply nor will the State consider their
applications for admission in the new
college where approval has been granted or
intake increased.
Rule made absolute accordingly. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:03:00 :::