Madrasdated High Court · 2006

V.S.B.Educational Trust rep. by its ChairmanV.S.Balasamy258/204, Dharapuram Road,Kangeyam 638 701Erode District..Petitioner in WP 21576 to 21578/2002Infant Jesus Educational Trustrepresented by its Managing TrusteeB.Stephen,6/1, Nattu Subbaraya Street,Mylapore, Chennai 600 004...Petitioner in WP 21873/2002Asan Memorial AssociationCochin House, Andersan Road,Chennai -8, rep. by its General SecretarySr. A.K.Gopalan..Petitioner in WP 22014, 22580/2002Narayana Gum InternationalInstitute of Science & TechnologyTrust,Chitadaru, Majalumoodu,Arumana, Kanyakumari District... Petitioner in 22253/2002K.T.a. & G.R.S.Educational Trust rep. by its Chairman,K.T.Anbazhagan,18A, Kattur VillagePudupet Post, Tirupattur Taluk,Vellore District...Petitioner in WP 22566/200222567,22568/2002Sivaraja Ramalingam Trust rep.by its Chairman and Managning TrusteeMr.R.Thiagarajan,No.12, I Street, III floorNandanam Extension, Chennai 600 035...Petitioner in WP 24613,24614, 24615/2002Sri Jayaram Educational Trusteerep. by its Managing TrusteeThiru A.Sekar,No.78, II Street, Seetharam Nagar,Cuddalore 607 001...Petitioner in WP 24616,24617,24618/2002Ayanavaram Education Trustrepresented by its Chairman K.Moosa17, Officer's Colongy, AyanavaramChennai 600 023..Petitioner in WP 24697 to24699/2002 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Education Charitable Trust,represented by its Managing Trustee P.Mane,16-B, Rajarathinam Street, Kilpauk, Chennai -600 010..Petitioner in WP 24700 to 24702/2002Sri Padmavathi Balaji Educational Trustrepresented by its Managing TrusteeG.Gowri Shankar,2, Subbraya Avenue, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018..Petitioner in WP 24709 to24711/2002R.V.Educational Trust,RajakkamangalamWest Junction,Rajakhamangalam PostKanyakumari District 629 502 rep.by its Managing Director..Petitioner in WP 24762 &24763/2002Swamy Educational Trustrep. by its Managing TrusteeN.Vallikannu4-A, First Main Road,New Colony, Chrompet,Chennai 600 044..Petitioner in WP 24797 to24799/2002Annai Ammani AmmalEducational and Charitable Trust,rep. by its Managing TrusteeDr.Shivanraj, 37/38, Pulla Avenue,Shenoy Nagar, Chennai -600 030...Petitioner in WP 24899 &24900/2002Er.Perumal Manimegalai TeluguMinority Educational & Chairtable Trustrep. by its Secretary & Trustee P.Kumar,16/2, Vasantha Nagar, Bye Pass Road,Opp.to Arunagiri Complex, Hosur,Dharmapuri District 635 409...Petitioner in WP 24975 to24977/2002S.N.R.Sons Charitable Trust 395 Sarojini Naidu Road,Sidhapudur, Coimbatore 641 044rep. by Power Agent T.K.Ravi..Petitioner in WP 24986 &24987/2002 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Paramaswari Palanisamy CharitableTurst, represented by its Chairman,K. Paramasivam , 128 Bhavani Road,Erode. 638 004.... Petitioner in W.P.21824/2002 to 21826/2002V.P. Muthiah Pillai, Meenakshi Ammal Trust,rep by its Managing TrusteeV.P.M. Shankar,4d North Car Street,Srivalliputhur 626 125Virudhunagar District... Petitioner in W.P.32784/2002 & 32785/2002Sri. S.N.S. charitable Trustrep by its Managing Trustee14, V.c.S. Nagar,G.N. Mills, Port,Coimbatore 641 029... Petitioner in W.P.33045, 33046/2002Tirunelveli Diocese Trust Association CSI rep by its Bishop Bishop's stowe16 North Highground Road,Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District... Petitioner in W.P.34708/2002Vs.1.V.S.B.Educational Trust, rep. by its ChairmanV-S. Balasamy258/204, Dharapuram Road,Kangeyam 638 701Erode District ...First Respondent in WA.1940 TO 1945/2002, 1952 AND 1953/2002.2.The Anna Universityrep. by its Registrar,S.P. Road,Chennai 600 025.3.The Secretary, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tamilnadu Engineering Admissions,Anna University,Chennai 600 025.4.The Centre for Engineering Partnershiprep. by its Director,Anna University, Chennai 600 025....Respondents 2 to 4 in WA.1940 to 1945/2002.Appellants 1 to 3 in WA.1952 to 1953/2002 Respondents 3 to 5 in WP.21576 to 21578, 21873 to 21875, 22566 to 22568, 24613 to 24617, 24697 to 24702, 24709 to 24711, 24762, 24763, 24797 to 24799, 24899, 24900, 24975 to 24977, 21825, 21826, 32784, 32785, 33045, 33046/2002. R.1 Nil Respondents 2,3 and 6 in WP.22580/2002 Respondents 5 and 3 in WP.24986 & 24987/2002 R.1 in WP.22014/2002, Respondents 1 and 2 Nil and R.3 in WP.22253/2002 & R.2 in WP.34708/2002.Paramasivam PalanisamyCharitable Trust rep by its CharimanK. Paramasivam,128 Bhavani road,Erode- 638 004.... First Respondent in W.A.1943/2002 to 1945/20022. The University of MadrasRep by its Registrar,Chepauk, Chennai-5.3. The SecretaryTamilnadu Engineering Advisor 2002Anna University, GuindyChennai- 600 025.4. The All India Council for Technical Educaton rep by its Advisor (E & T)Indira Gandhi Sports ComplexI.P. Estate, New Delhi. 110002.rep by its Secretary & Advisor (E & T).. RR2 to 4 in W.P.22014/2002 RR 2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ &3 nil R4 in W.P.22253/2002 RR2 and 3 nil and R5 in W.P.22580/2002 R6 in W.P. 24986, 24987/2002 RR2 nil and R4 in W.P.21824/025. The Southern Regional Office All India Council for TechnicalEducation Shastri Bhavan,26 Haddows Road,Chennai-6 rep by the Regional Director... R5 in W.P.22253 of 2002The SecretarySingle Window Admissions(Tamil NAdu Engineering Admissions 2002)Anna UniversityGuindy, Chennai-32.... R3 in W.P.24899/2002The SecretarySelection Committee for Admission in to Tamilnadu Engineering CollegesAnna University, Chennai-25.... R2 in W.P.24986, 24987/2002.Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orderof the learned single Judge dated 20.06.2002 made in WPMP No.29840 of 2002in W.P.No.21578 of 2002 2. WPMP 29839/2002 in W.P.21577 of 20023. WPMP 29838/2002 in W.P.21576 of 20024. WPMP 30182/2002 in W.P.21824 of 20025. WPMP 30183/2002 in W.P.21825 of 20026. WPMP 30104/2002 in W.P.21826 of 20027. WPMP 29839/2002 in W.P.21577 of 20028. WPMP 29840/2002 in W.P.21578 of 2002 respectivelyWrit Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India toissue a writ of declaration declaring that the provisions of Proviso toSec 5 (ac) of the Anna University Act 1978 as amended by the amending Actunconstitutional unenforceable honest void afinitio in so far as thepetitionr herein is concerned (W.P.21576/2002, 21873/2002, 24697, 24700,24709, 24797, 32784/2002)Writ of declaration declaring the proviso to section 5 (ac) of theanna University (Amendment) Act 2001 as ultra vires unconstitutional andvoid and further direct the 3rd respondent Anna University to grant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ provisional affiliation forthwith to the petitioner college from 2002-2003and to include the petitioner college in the list of approved colleges forthe purpose of single window Selection 2002-2003 (W.P.22253/2002)Writ of declaration declaring the proviso to sec 5 (ac) of the AnnaUniversity Act 1978 (as inserted by the Tamil Nadu Adendment Act 26 of2001) as unconstitutional and of initio void and in applicable to thepetitioner (w.P.22580/2002, 24763/2002) Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 2001 as is published in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette Extra ordinaly No.865 part IV Section 2 dated31.12.2001 as untra vires unconstitutional and void in so far as thepetitioner is concerned (W.P.24613/2002, 24616/2002, 21824/2002)Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider theapplication of the petitioner dated 6.7.2002 for granting affiliation tothe Petitioners college Viz SRR Engineering College at Padur Village,Chingleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District without insisting upon thepremises of the State Government (W.P.24614/2002)Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to include the petitioner'sCollege Viz SRR Engineering College at Padur Village Chingleput Taluk,Kancheepuram District in the list of Engineering Colleges Covered by thesingle window system of admission for the academic year 2002-2003 withoutinsisting upon obtaining affiliation order from the third respondent.(W.P.No.24615/2002)Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents herein to forthwithinclude VSB Engineering college of the petitioner having itsAdministrative officer at No. 204 Dharapuram Road, Kangeyam, ErodeDistrict 638 701 in the list of engineering college covered by the singlewindow system of admission in the academic year 2002-2003 withoutinsisting upon obtaining affiliation order from the 3rd respondent as acondition precedent. (WP.No.21577/2002)2. directing the respondents herein to forthwith include Infant JesusCollege of Engineering, Kilavallanadu Srivaikundam Taluk, TuticorinDistrict of the petitioner (WP.No.21875/2002)3. directing the respondents herein to forthwith include BharathiDasan Engineering College, K. Bandara Palli Triupattur Taluk, VelloreDistrict of the petitioner (WP.No.22568/2002)4. directing the respondents to include the petitioner's college VizSri Jayaram Engineering College' at Jayaram Nagar Chellangkuppam cuddaloreold Town in the list of Engineering College Covered by single windowsystem of admission for the academic year 2002-2003 without insisting uponobtaining affiliation order from the third respondent (WP.No.24617/2002)Writ of mandamus, directing the 3rd respondents to forthwith considerthe application of the petitioner dated 14.6.2002 and pass orders, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ granting affiliation to enable V.S.B. Engineering college of thepetitioner herein, having its administrative office at 204, DharapuramRoad, Kangeyam, Erode District 638701 to fulfil the conditions of approvalgranted by the AICTE regarding bringing the institution functional duringthe academic year 2002- 2003 without insisting upon permission of thestate Government (WP.No.21578/2002)directing the 3rd respondent to forthwith consider the application ofthe petitioner dated 17.6.2002 and pass orders granting affiliation toenable Infant Jesus college of Engineering, Kilavallanadu SrivaikundamTaluk, Tuticorin District of the petitioner (WP.No.21874/2002)directing the 3rd respondent to forthwith consider the application ofthe petitioner dated 6.6.2002 and pass orders granting affiliation toenable Bharathi Dasan Engineering College, K. Bandara Palli TriupatturTaluk, Vellore District of the petitioner (WP.No.22567/2002)directing the 3rd respondent to consider the application of thepetitioner dated 6.7.2002 for granting affiliation to the petitionerscollege Viz Sri Jayaram Engineering College, at Jayaram Nagar,Chellangkuppam, Cuddalore old Town without insisting upon the permissionof the state Government (WP.No.24618/2002)directing the respondents herein to forthwith include Dhanish Collegeof Engineering at Padappai Kanchipuram District the petitioner in thelist of Engineering Colleges Covered by single window system of admissionfor the academic year 2002 - 2003 without insisting upon obtainingaffiliation order from the 3rd respondent as a condition precedent.(WP.No.24698/2002)directing the 3rd respondent to forthwith consider the application ofthe petitioner dated 8.7.2002 and pass orders granting affiliation toenable Dhanish College of Engineering at Padappai, Kancheepuram Districtof the petitioner to fulfil the condition of approval granted by ACC IndiaCouncil for Technical Education regarding bringing the institutionfunctional during the academic year 2002-03 without insisting uponpermission of the state Government (WP.No.24699/2002)directing the respondents herein to forthwith include UdayamEngineering College, Chaikanthargal Village (Nemili Village group)Sriperumbudur Taluk, kancheepuram Distric of the petitiont in the list ofEngineering colleges covered by single window system of admission for theacademic year 2002 - 2003 without insisting upon obtaining affiliationorder from the 3rd respondent as a condition precedent. (WP.No.24702/2002)directing the respondents herein to forthwith include P.B. College ofEngineering at Irungattukkottai Sriperumbudur Tk, Kancheepuram District ofthe petitioner (WP.No.24710/2002) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directing the 3rd respondent to grant affiliation to the petitioner'sEngineering college Viz Udaya School of Engineering,Udaya Nagar, VallamadiJunction, Kanyakumari District 629 204 for the academic year 2002 -2003(WP.No.24762/2002)directing the respondents to forthwith include SRI RAMAKUJAREngineering college, Kalapakkam, Vandalur, Chennai 48 of the petitioner inthe suit of Engineering colleges covered by single window system(WP.No.24799/2002)directing the 2nd Respondent University to grant affiliation to thepetitioner college viz ARJ College of Engineering and Technology atThirumakottai Main Road, Edayanatham Village Mannargudi Taluk, ThiruvarurDistrict from the academic year 2002-2003 (WP N O. 24900/02)directing the third to consider the application of the petitioner dated08.07.2002 for granting affiliation to the petitioner college viz ErPerumal Maanimegalai College of Engineering in Nallagamakottapalli VillageHosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District without insisting upon the premises ofthe state Government (WP 24976/02)directing the respondents to include the petitioner college viz Er.Perumal Manimegalai College of Engineering in Nallagamakottapalli Village,Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District in the list of Engineering Collegescovers by the single Window System of admission for the academic year2002-2003 without insisting upon obtaining affiliation order for the thirdrespondent (WP 24977/02)directing the respondents 1 to 5 to forthwith include the petitionerscollege Sri Ramakrishna Institute of Technology Coimbatore in the list ofEngineering Colleges covered under Single Window System of Admission forthe academic year 2002-2003 and allot/admit students in the petitionerscollege through Central Counselling (Single window) in compliance with theorder passed by the AICTE dated 02.07.2002 (WP 24987/2002)directing the respondents to include the petitioners college viz PrithiviEngineering College at Kuppandapalayam post, Avinashi Taluk, CoimbatoreDistrict in the list of Engineering Colleges covered by the Single WindowSystem of admission for the academic eyar 2002-2003 without insisting uponobtaining affiliation order from the third respondent (WP 21825/02)declaring that the proviso to Section 5 (ac) of Anna University Act 1978as awarded by the Amendment Act NO. 26 of 2001 published in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazettee NO. 865 dated 31.12.2001 unconstitutionalunenforceable non-gazettee void Abinitio in so far as the petitionerherein in concerned (WP 33045/02)Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent to forthwith consider therequest of the petitioner for affiliation after obtaining the request ofthe petitioner dated 07.08.2002 to issue an application form for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ affiliation of S.N.S. College of Technology at Sathy Road,Vazhiyampalayam, Kalapatti, Coimbatore District for the academic year2002-2003 without insisting upon permission of the State Government (WP33046/02)Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the firstrespondent ending with its Letter No CEP/RN1/GP/3 dated 18.06.2002 andquash the same and direct the first respondent to grant affiliation to theAsan Memorial College of Engineering and Technology, Oragadam Road,Keerapakam Thirukkazhikundram, TN for the academic year 2002-2003 (WP NO.22014/02)Writ of declaration, declaring that provisions of the proviso to Section 5(ac) of Anna University Act 1978 as amended by the Amendment Act and theorder of the 3rd Respondent in CEP/R/NI/GP/5 dated 18.06.2002 areunconstitutional unenforceable non-est, void abinitio in so far as thepetitioner herein is concerned (WP 22566/02)Writ of declaration, declaring that the proviso to Section 5(ac) of AnnaUniversity Act as inserted by the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 2001 as ispublished in the Tamil nadu Government Gazette Extra-ordinary No. 865 PartIV Section 2 dated 31.12.2001 as ultra virus unconstitutional as void inso far as the petitioner is concerned (WP 24976/2002)Direct the Anna University to grant affiliation of the petitioners Collegefor the year 2002-2003 based on the order of the AICTE and withoutinsisting upon the prior permission of the State Government (WP 24986/02)direct the Anna University to grant affiliation to the petitioners Collegefor the year 2002-2003 based on the orders of the AICTE and withoutinsisting upon the prior Permission of the State Government (WP 21826/02)directing the 3rd Respondent to forthwith consider the request of thepetitioner for affiliation after obtaining the request of the petitionerdated 07.08.2002 to issue an application form for affiliation of V.P.Muthiah Pillai Meenakshi Ammal Engineering College for women atVizhuppanoor Village, Krishnan Kovil, Srivilliputhur Taluk,, VirudhunagarDistrict for the academic year 2002-2003 without insisting upon permissionof the State Government (WP 32785/02)Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to forthwith considerthe application of the petitioner and pass order granting affiliation toenabel udayam Engineering College, Chowkanthangal Village (Nemili villageGrouP) Sriperum,badur Taluk, Kancheepuram District of the petitioner tofulfil the conditions of approval granted by All India Council forTechnical Education regarding bringing the institution functional duringthe academic year 2002-2003 withour insisting upon permission of the StateGovernment (WP.No.24701/2002) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Granting affiliation to enable P.B.College of Engineering atIrungattukkottai, Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District of thepetitioner (WP.No.24711 of 2002)Granting affiliation to enable Sri Ramakujar Engineering Collect,Kolapakkam, Vandalur, Chennai - 48 of the petitioner (WP.No.24798/2002)declaring the proviso to section 5(ac) of the Anna University(amendment)Act 2001 as ultravires unconstitutional and void, and further direct the2nd respondent Anna Univerisity to grant affiliation forthwith to theDr.G.U.Pop College of Engineering, Sanyerpuram from the Academic Year2002-2003 (WP.No.34708/2002)Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to treat the petitionerinstitute namely ARJ College of Engineering and Technology atThirumakottai Main Road, Edayanatham Village, Mannargudi Taluk, ThiruvarurDistrict as an approved institute for the purpose of admitting students inthe academic year 2002-2003 for admission under single window admissionsystem of Tamil Nadu Engineering Admission 2002 being conducted by the 3rdrespondent (WP.No.24899/2002)For Appellantsin : Mr.R.Viduthalai, WA.Nos.1940 to 1945/02 Advocate General and for Respondent- assisted by State in all the Mr.M.Sekar, Spl.G.P. Writ PetitionsFor Appellants in : Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal WA Nos.1952, 1953/2002 for Mr.G.M.Mani and for Respondents Associates Anna University in all the Writ Petitions For Petitioners in : Mr.K.Doraisami, W.P.Nos.21873 to 21875, Senior Counsel 24697 to 24699, 24700 for M/s Muthumani to 24702, 24709 to 24711, Doraisamy 33045, 33046, 32784, 32785, 21576 to 21578, 22566 to 22568 of 2002 For Petitioners in : Mr.J.Rajaram W.P.Nos.24613 to 24615 of 2002For Petitioners in: Mr.V.SanjeeviW.P.Nos.24616 to 24618,24975 to 24977, 21824 to 21826/2002 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners in: Mr.P.L.NarayananW.P.Nos.24762 & 24763 of 2002 For Petitioners in : Mr.T.MeikandanW.P.Nos.24797 to 24799 of 2002For Petitioners in : Mr.R.Suresh KumarW.P.Nos.24899 & 24900 of 2002For Petitioners in : Mr.Satish ParasaranW.P.Nos.24986, 24987/2002For Petitioners in : Mr.Habibullah W.P.Nos.22014, 22580/2002 Basha, Sr. Counsel for Mr.Santosh KumarFor Petitioner in : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal W.P.No.22253/2002 For Petitioner in : Mr.K.VijayakumarW.P.No.34708/2002 For Madras University /: Mr.A.V.Elango2nd Respondent inW.P.Nos.22014 of 2002For AICTE /: Mr.N.Muralikumaran,4th Respondent in ACGSCW.P.Nos.22014 of 2002COMMON JUDGMENTP.SATHASIVAM, J.Since all these matters are interlinked; the question raised andthe issue involved are one and the same; they are being disposed of by thefollowing Common Judgment.2. The above writ appeals are by the State against the interimorders/interim directions of the learned Single Judge. Since we aretaking up the main writ petitions themselves for disposal, there is noneed to go into the correctness or otherwise of the interim orders whichare the subject matter of the writ appeals.3. The writ petitioners/Educational Trusts are runningEngineering Colleges, after getting proper approval from the All India https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Council for Technical Education ('AICTE' in short). In some of the WritPetitions, proviso to Section 5(ac) of the Anna University Act, 1978, ischallenged. Some of the petitioners are seeking direction to grantprovisional affiliation while others seek direction for inclusion of theircolleges in the Single Window System.4. It is the common case of the petitioners that the educationalinstitutions run by them applied to the AICTE in prescribed forms, withall enclosures and details, for establishing engineering colleges. It isalso their case that after inspection made by the Expert Committee ofAICTE and after satisfying the norms and standards, the AICTE has accordedapproval to the petitioners' Trusts for establishment of engineeringcolleges with prescribed seats on a further condition that the admissionshall be made through central counselling by the Government of Tamilnadu.It is also stated that the order of AICTE granting approval wascommunicated to Anna University with a request to complete the process ofaffiliation for facilitating admission. It is their further case that allof them satisfied the norms/condition prescribed by AICTE. After theapproval given by the AICTE, the petitioners submitted applications to theAnna University for grant of affiliation.According to the petitioners, they came to know that in view ofthe amendment to the Anna University Act, prior permission from the StateGovernment is required for the colleges being affiliated to theUniversity. As per the proviso to Section 5(ac) of the amended Act, nocollege shall be affiliated to the University unless the permission of theGovernment to establish such college has been obtained and terms andconditions, if any, of such permission have been complied with. Accordingto them, the said amended provision is beyond the legislative competenceof the State Government, repugnant to the Central Act, namely All Indiacouncil for Technical Education Act, 1987 ('AICTE Act' in short),arbitrary and without jurisdiction.It is the claim of the petitioners that so far as theprofessional colleges are concerned, the entire control of theinstitutions is vested only with All India Councils, such as All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education, All India Medical Council, Dental Councilof India, etc. Role of the University in respect of professional collegesis minimal and grant of affiliation is a matter of course. There is nojustification on the part of the University to insist upon priorpermission of the State Government for establishment of a college and forgranting affiliation. They also submitted a separate application to theSecretary, Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions, Anna University, forinclusion of the names of their engineering colleges for counsellingunder Single Window System in the brochure contemplated under Regulation 8(2) of the AICTE (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines forAdmissions in Professional Colleges) Regulation, 1994. 5. Heard Mr.Habibullah Basha, learned senior counsel,Mr.K.Doraisami, learned senior counsel; Mr.V.Sanjeevi, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Mr.K.Vijayakumar, Mr.P.L.Narayanan and Mr.T.Meikandanfor the petitioners; Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Advocate General for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State; Mr.Mani Sankar Gopal for Anna University; Mr.N.Murali Kumaran forAICTE; and Mr.A.V.Elango for Madras University.6. The main contentions of the learned senior counsel for thepetitioners and other counsel are that the order/proceeding of the AnnaUniversity calling upon the petitioners to obtain permission from theState Government to establish their colleges, failing which affiliationwill not be granted by the University, is illegal, arbitrary and violativeof Articles 14 and 30(i) of the Constitution. It is also contended thatthe order of the University is contrary to AICTE Act and Regulations.Once the approval of AICTE has been obtained, there can be no furthercondition imposed by the University for the grant of affiliation. In suchcircumstances, the proviso to Section 5(ac) of the Anna University Actruns contrary to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in 1995 (4) SCC104 (State of Tamil Nadu vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Instituteand others) and 2000 (5) SCC 231 (Jaya Gokul Educational Trust vs.Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Higher Education Department,Kerala). Both these judgments enunciate that it is only the AICTE whichhas the authority to grant approval and that neither the State Governmentnor the University has the authority to give any approval or reject anyapplication. According to them, the grant of approval to establish anengineering college is exclusively governed by the Central Act, namelyAICTE Act, 1987 and the Regulations made thereunder and is referable toEntry 66, List-I of the VII-Schedule of the Constitution of India. Thesaid Central Act, more in particular Section 10(k), and Regulation 8 ofthe Regulations made thereunder, occupied the field relating to grant ofapproval to an engineering college and that neither the State Governmentnor the University has any role in this regard. There is no power vestedin the University or the State Government to enact laws which arerepugnant to the Central Act, especially in regard to grant of approval toestablish technical institutions after the 42nd amendment of theConstitution in 1976 and consequently the impugned provisions of the AnnaUniversity Act is liable to be struck down as ultra vires,unconstitutional and beyond the legislative competence of the StateLegislature.7. On the other hand, Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Advocate General,submitted that even after the approval by AICTE, the permission or NoObjection Certificate is to be granted by the State Government, since ithas more role in the establishment of engineering colleges in the State ofTamil Nadu. According to him, the condition prescribed by the AnnaUniversity that before the grant of affiliation, permission of the StateGovernment is mandatory, is perfectly in order and there is no ground forinterference.8. We have carefully considered the relevant materials and rivalcontentions.9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners' Trusts haveestablished engineering colleges either as minority institutions or as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ self-financing colleges. It is the claim of the petitioners that onproper application and satisfying all the conditions/requirements theyobtained approval from AICTE. It is also their claim that all theirinstitutions fully satisfied the terms and conditions contained in theRegulations of AICTE and inasmuch as they complied with the requirementsas per the norms they are entitled to get their colleges affiliated to theUniversity, namely Anna University. It is their further case that afterobtaining letter of approval from AICTE they submitted applications tothe Anna University for grant of affiliation and at that time they came toknow that in view of the amendment to the Anna University Act priorpermission from the State Government is required for the college beingaffiliated to the University. An amendment to the Anna University Act hasbeen brought in by Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 2001, whereby the technicalinstitutions (engineering colleges) in the State of Tamil Nadu have beenbrought under the purview of AICTE Act and as such Anna University isempowered to grant affiliation to the engineering colleges proposed to bestarted in the State. As per the proviso to Section 5(ac) of the AmendedAct, prior permission of the State Government for establishment of thecolleges is required for getting affiliation to the colleges. It is theclaim of the petitioners that the said amended provision is beyond thelegislative competence of the State Government, repugnant to the CentralAct, namely AICTE Act, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.10. The pith and substance of the stand taken by the petitionersis that insofar as as the professional colleges are concerned, the entirecontrol of the institutions is vested only with All India Councils, suchas All India Council for Technical Education, All India Medical Council,Dental Council of India, etc. The role of the University in respect ofprofessional colleges is minimal and grant of affiliation is a matter ofcourse. It is also their claim that there is no justification on the partof the Anna University to insist upon the prior permission of the StateGovernment for establishment of the college for granting affiliation.11. After coming into force of AICTE Act, 1987, the entire fieldrelating to grant of approval for new technical institutions lies with theCouncil established under Section 3 of the Act. Chapter-III of the Actdeals with the powers and functions of the Council. Section 10(k) ofAICTE Act empowers the Council to grant approval for starting newtechnical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmesin consultancy with the agencies concerned. Though Regulation 8(4)(e)ofAICTE Regulation insist that No Objection Certification from the StateGovernment was mandatory with effect from 20.11.2002, on 28.11.2005 itselfAICTE issued another Notification to the effect that No ObjectionCertificate from the concerned State Government is not mandatory. Theprovisions in the AICTE Act, 1987, which is a central Act and theRegulations made thereunder cover the entire field of establishment of anengineering college. It has been repeatedly held by this Court and theHon'ble Supreme Court that the Central Act, more particularly Section 10(k) of the Act and Regulation 8 of the Regulations made thereunder,occupied the field relating to grant of approval for establishing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ engineering colleges and that neither the State Government nor theUniversity has any role in this regard. After the enactment andregulations, there is no power vested in the university or the StateGovernment to enact laws which are repugnant to Central Act, especially togrant approval for establishing new technical institutions after the 42ndAmendment to the Constitution in 1976. As rightly argued, once approvalfrom AICTE has been obtained, there can be no further conditions imposedby the Anna University for grant of affiliation and any such conditionwill be in conflict with the approval granted by AICTE and as such illegaland unsustainable in law. This has been laid down in the judgment of theSupreme Court reported in (1995) (4) SCC 104 (Adhiyaman's case) andfollowed by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2000) 5 SCC 231(Jaya Gokul's case). 12. In Adhiyaman's case, the question involved before the SupremeCourt was whether, after coming into force of the AICTE Act, 1987, theState Government has power to grant and withdraw permission to start atechnical institution as defined in the Central Act. After referring tovarious Entries, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded thus:"30. A comparison of the Central Act and the UniversityAct will show that as far as the institutions impartingtechnical education are concerned, there is a conflictbetween and overlapping of the functions of the Council andthe University. Under Section 10 of the Central Act, it isthe Council which is entrusted with the power, particularly,to allocate and disburse grants, to evolve suitableperformance appraisal systems incorporating norms andmechanisms for maintaining accountability of the technicalinstitutions, laying down norms and standards for courses,curricula, staff pattern, staff qualifications, assessmentand examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for chargingtuition fee and other fees, granting approval for startingnew technical institutions or introducing new courses orprogrammes, to lay down norms or granting autonomy totechnical institutions, providing guidelines for admissionof students, inspecting or causing to inspect colleges, forwithholding or discontinuing of grants in respect of coursesand programmes, declaring institutions at various levels andtypes fit to receive grants, advising the Commissionconstituted under the Act for declaring technicaleducational institutions as deemed universities, setting upof National Board of Accreditation to periodically conductevaluation on the basis of guidelines and standardsspecified and to make recommendations to it or to theCouncil or the Commission or other bodies under the Actregarding recognition or de-recognition of the institutionor the programme conducted by it. Thus, so far as thesematters are concerned, in the case of the institutesimparting technical education, it is not the University Act https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the University but it is the Central Act and the Councilcreated under it which will have the jurisdiction. To thatextent, after the coming into operation of the Central Act,the provisions of the University Act will be deemed to havebecome unenforceable in case of technical colleges like theengineering colleges. As has been pointed out earlier, theCentral Act has been enacted by Parliament under Entry 66 ofList I to coordinate and determine the standards oftechnical institutions as well as under Entry 25 of ListIII. The provisions of the University Act regardingaffiliation of technical colleges like the engineeringcolleges and the conditions for grant and continuation ofsuch affiliation by the University shall, however, remainoperative but the conditions that are prescribed by theUniversity for grant and continuance of affiliation willhave to be in conformity with the norms and guidelinesprescribed by the Council in respect of matters entrusted toit under Section 10 of the Central Act."13. In Jaya Gokul's case cited supra, the following conclusion oftheir Lordships in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment is relevant."22. As held in T.N.case the Central Act of 1987 and inparticular, Section 10(k) occupied the field relating to"grant of approvals" for establishing technical institutionsand the provisions of the Central Act alone were to becomplied with. So far as the provisions of the MahatmaGandhi University Act or its statutes were concerned and inparticular Statute 9(7), they merely required the Universityto obtain the "views" of the State Government. That couldnot be characterised as requiring the "approval" of theState Government. If, indeed, the University statute couldbe so interpreted, such a provision requiring approval ofthe State Government would be repugnant to the provisions ofSection 10(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and would again bevoid. As pointed out in T.N.case there were enoughprovisions in the Central Act for consultation by theCouncil of AICTE with various agencies, including the StateGovernments and the universities concerned. The State-LevelCommittee and the Central Regional Committees containedvarious experts and State representatives. In case ofdifference of opinion as between the various consultees,AICTE would have to go by the view of the Central TaskForce. These were sufficient safeguards for ascertainingthe views of the State Governments and the universities. Nodoubt the question of affiliation was a different matter andwas not covered by the Central Act but in T.N.case it washeld that the University could not impose any conditionsinconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulation or theconditions imposed by AICTE. Therefore, the procedure for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ obtaining the affiliation and any conditions which could beimposed by the University, could not be inconsistent withthe provisions of the Central Act. The University could nottherefore, in any event have sought for 'approval' of theState Government.23. Thus we hold, in the present case that there was nostatutory requirement for obtaining the approval of theState Government and even if there was one, it would havebeen repugnant to the AICTE Act. The University Statute 9(7) merely required that the "views" of the State Governmentbe obtained before granting affiliation and this did notamount to obtaining "approval". If the University statuterequired "approval" it would have been repugnant to theAICTE Act. ...." 14. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for thepetitioners, both these judgments have clearly laid down that it is onlyAICTE which has the authority to grant approval and neither the StateGovernment nor the University has the authority to give approval or toreject any application and that, if there is any statutory requirementmade under any law by the State Government or the University, it will berepugnant as it is incongruent with the Central Act, namely All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education Act, 1986.15. It is also useful to refer to a Division Bench decision ofthis Court reported in 2005 (2) CTC 182 (Bharathidasan University vs.Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Educational and Charitable Trust). The batch ofcases dealt with therein relates to the issue declining to consider andgrant affiliation to the colleges proposing to establish B.Ed. TrainingCourse by the Universities in the State of Tamil Nadu. By stating thatSections 14 and 15 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993are similar to the one contained in Section 10(k) of AICTE Act or 10-A ofthe Indian Medical Council Act; and by pointing out that the judgments ofthe Supreme Court in Jaya Gokul's case (cited supra) and ThirumurugaKirubananda Variar's case-[(1996) 3 SCC 15] would clearly apply to theNCTE Act; it was contended by the educational institutions that afterapproval by the Body under NCTE Act, no other permission or approval isrequired from any authority. The Division Bench, after considering therelevant provisions of NCTE Act, AICTE Act and Indian Medical Council Act,1956, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Adhiyaman's case, Jaya Gokul'scase and Thirumuruga Kirubananda Variar's case and after finding thatEntry 66 of List-I, which is Union List and the same is reflecting in thepreamble of NCTE Act, concluded that the provisions contained in the NCTEAct and the Regulations made thereunder regulate the establishment andadminister the Teacher Training Institutes and that the Regional Committeealone is empowered to consider the claim for recognition even in a casewhere the State Government has refused to grant No Objection Certificate.The Bench was also of the view that if the Regional Committee is satisfiedwith regard to the fulfilment of requirements for grant of recognition, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is the duty of the examining body, namely Universities, to grantaffiliation without insisting upon the institutions to produce the priorpermission of the State Government based on the resolution of theirSyndicate in accordance with their respective University Act and statutesand the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act as it is illegal andcontrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. While finding so, theDivision Bench directed the respective Universities to pass orders on theapplications made by the respective institutions.16. In 2006 (3) SCALE 675 = JT 2006 (4) SC 201 (State ofMaharashtra vs. S.D.S.S.Mahavidyalaya), in respect of NCTE Act, thefollowing conclusion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 67 and 71of the judgment is relevant:"67. In view of the fact, however, that according tous, the final authority lies with NCTE and we are supportedin taking that view by various decisions of this Court, NCTEcannot be deprived of its authority or power in taking anappropriate decision under the Act irrespective of absenceof No Objection Certificate by the State Government/UnionTerritory. Absence or non-production of NOC by theinstitution, therefore, was immaterial and irrelevant so faras the power of NCTE is concerned.......71. It is thus clear that the Central Government hasconsidered the subject of Secondary Education and HigherEducation at the national level. The Act of 1993 alsorequires Parliament to consider Teacher Education System'throughout the country'. NCTE, therefore, in our opinion,is expected to deal with applications for establishing newB.Ed. colleges or allowing increase in intake capacity,keeping in view 1993 Act and planned and co-ordinateddevelopment of teacher-education system in the country. Itis neither open to the State Government nor to a Universityto consider the local conditions or apply 'State policy' torefuse such permission. In fact, as held by this Court incases referred to hereinabove, State Government has no powerto reject the prayer of an institution or to overrule thedecision of NCTE. The action of the State Government,therefore, was contrary to law and has rightly been setaside by the High Court."17. Before winding up, it will be useful to refer anotherJudgment of the Supreme Court which arises from AICTE Act. In 2005 (3)SCC 212 (Govt. of A.P. v. J.B. Educational Society), the Hon'ble SupremeCourt considered Section 20 (3)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Act, 1982,with reference to Section 10 of the AICTE Act, 1987, and finally held thatSection 20(3)(a)(i) is not in any way repugnant to Section 10 of the AICTE https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act and it is constitutionally valid. The appeals before the SupremeCourt were filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, challenging the decisionof the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ AppealNos.1571 of 1997, 84 of 1998 and 85 of 1998. The Division Bench partlyconfirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge holding that Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (in short "theA.P.Act") is void and inoperative and the State Government had nolegislative competence to pass such a legislation as the State provisionwas in the field already occupied by the enactment made by Parliament,viz.., the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTEAct). It was also held that in view of Section 10 of the AICTE Act withregard to establishment of technical institutions in general, the saidspecial enactment legislated by Parliament would prevail over the A.P.Act to the extent of its repugnancy. The Writ Petitioners/privateeducational institutions wanted to establish engineering colleges in theState of Andhra Pradesh. They applied to the authorities under the AICTEAct and approval was granted to them for the academic year 1997-98 by theAICTE Council. The Writ Petitioners made applications under Section 20 ofthe Act for permission to establish the Institution. Permission wasrejected on the ground that the writ petitioners had been seekingpermission to establish colleges in the places where already there were anumber of colleges and that the State Government was not satisfied aboutthe educational needs of that locality. In that view of the matter,permission was declined. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petitions werefiled. The petitioners in the Writ Petitions contended that in view ofSection 10 of the AICTE Act, no permission of the State Government underSection 20 of the Act was required as the field is completely covered bythe AICTE Act. It was argued that once the approval was granted by theCouncil, the State Government cannot refuse permission on the ground thatthe proposed educational institution may not subserve the educationalneeds of the locality. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand,contended that Section 20 of the A.P. Act and Section 10 of the AICTE Actoperate in different fields, there is no conflict between these provisionsand that they are not repugnant to each other and the decision of theDivision Bench is erroneous. It was also contended by the appellant'scounsel that the State Legislature has legislative competence to pass theenactment and that, in view of Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, the Statealone would be competent to say whether an Institution should beestablished in an area to serve the educational needs of that locality.After referring to the relevant provisions and the earlier judgments ofthe Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka ((2002) 8SCC 481); Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (((2003) 6SCC 697); and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust's case (cited supra); theirLordships have held as follows:-" 21. The educational needs of the locality are tobe ascertained and determined by the State. Havingregard to the Regulations framed under the AICTE Act,the representatives of the State have to be included inthe ultimate decision-making process and having regard https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the provisions of the Act, the writ petitionerswould not in any way be prejudiced by such provisionsin the A.P.Act. Moreover, the decision, if any, takenby the State authorities under Section 20(3)(a)(i)would be subject to judicial review and we do not thinkthat the State could make any irrational decision aboutgranting permission. Hence, we hold that Section 20(3)(a)(i) is not in any way repugnant to Section 10 of theAICTE Act and it is constitutionally valid"18. If the said decision is applied, proviso to Section 5(ac) ofthe Anna University Act, 1978, cannot be held to be unconstitutional. Wehave already refereed to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court inAdhiyaman's case, Jaya Gokul's case and S.D.S.S. Mahavidyalaya's case(cited supra), wherein it was specifically held that there was nostatutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State Governmentand even if there was one it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act.In this regard, it is also relevant to the ultimate observation made bythe three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, ie., S.D.S.S. Mahavidyalaya'scase. Though it was observed by the Bombay High Court that the provisionsof Sections 82 and 83 of the Maharasthra University Act are null and void,in view of National Council For Teacher Training Act, 1993, in para No.77of the Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the decision tothe following effect:-" ......... To us, it appears that what theHigh Court wanted to convey was that the provisions ofSections 82 and 83 would not apply to an institutioncovered by 1993 Act. As per the scheme of the Act,once recognition has been granted by the NCTE underSection 14(6) of the Act, every university ('examiningbody') is obliged to grant affiliation to suchinstitution and sections 82 and 83 of the UniversityAct do not apply to such cases. "19. Coming to the two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court viz.,J.B. Educational Society's case (cited supra) and S.D.S.S. Mahavidyalaya'scase (cited supra), it has to be borne in mind that Their Lordships of theApex Court are unanimous on the point that when there is a conflictbetween the Parliament and State legislature and such conflict between thetwo enactments being irreconcilable, the parliamentary legislation wouldprevail notwithstanding the exclusive power of the State Legislature tomake a law with respect to a matter enumerated in the State List. In thatbackground, we gave our heedful attention to the issue before us. We seethat J.B. Educational Society's case was decided by Their Lordships of theSupreme Court on 23rd February, 2005, and that, at the time of deciding thesaid case, Notification of the AICTE to the effect that NOC from theconcerned State Government is not necessary was not at all there as itcame into existence only on 28.11.2005, i.e., nearly 10 months after thepronouncement of the Judgment in the above case. Hence, by applying the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ latest decision rendered by a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court inS.D.S.S. Mahavidyalaya's case, we hold that once recognition has beengranted by the AICTE, the University is obliged to grant affiliation tothe Institutes concerned. 20. It is worthwhile to mention that AICTE Regulations 8(4)(e)notified whereby NOC from State Government was made mandatory with effectfrom 20.11.2002. However, it is not in dispute that on 28.11.2005 AICTEnotified to the effect that NOC from the concerned State Government is notmandatory. The said Notification reads as under:-" ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, NEWDELHINOTIFICATIONNEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 28, 2005PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING OF PROPOSALS FOR INSTRODUCTIONOF ADDITONAL COURSES/INCREASE/VARIATION IN INTAKE INTHE EXISTING TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS(A) The Regional Office shall in parallel, forward,within 15 days from the date of receipt of theproposal, one copy each of the proposals complete inall respects to the concerned State Govt./UnionTerritories and Affiliating University for obtainingtheir recommendations within 30 days.(b) The State Govts. and the AffiliatingUniversities, while forwarding the recommendations,shall provide reasons and justification to substantiatetheir stand and do so by the date stipulated by theCouncil from time to time. The recommendations of theconcerned State Government and the AffiliatingUniversities shall be taken into consideration, amongvarious other relevant factors, before considering theproposals for introduction of new courses or programsand/or increase in intake and/or variation in theintake capacity. Obtaining No objection Certificate(NOC) by the Applicant Institutions from the concernedState Government is not mandatory. The Council shallhave the right to overrule the recommendations of theState Government while deciding the matters ofintroduction of new courses or programs and/or increasein intake and/or variation in the intake capacity."21. In the light of the above discussion, legal position andnotification of AICTE dated 28.11.2005; we hold that proviso to Section-5(ac) of the Anna University Act, 1978 would not apply to an Institutioncovered by AICTE Act, 1987. As per the scheme of the Act, oncerecognition has been granted by AICTE, the University is obliged to grant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ affiliation to such institution and proviso to Section 5(ac) does notapply to such cases. Writ Petitions are disposed of on the above terms.In view of the disposal of W.Ps., Writ Appeals filed by the EducationDepartment against interim orders are dismissed. No costs. ConnectedMiscellaneous Petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.Gb/JI.To1. The Registrar, Anna University, S.P. Road, Chennai-25.2. The Secretary, Tamilnadu Engineering Admissions 2002,Anna University, Guindy, Chennai 600 025.3. The Director, The Centre for Engineering PartnershipCentre for Affiliation, Anna University, Chennai 600 025.4. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education, Secretariat,Chennai 9.5. The Director of Technical Education, Chennai 25.6. The Secretary and Advisor [E & T] All India council for TechnicalEducation, Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, IP Estate, New Delhi 110 002.7. The Regional Director, The Southern Regional Office, All India council for Techinical Education, Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai 6.8. The Secretary, Single Window Admissions [Tamil Nadu Engineerijng Admissions 2002],Anna University, Guindy, Chennai 32.9. The Secretary, Selection Committee for Admission into Tamil Nadu, Engineering Colleges, Anna University, Chennai 25.3 cc To Mr.N.Muralikumaran, ACGSC, SR.35688, 35685, 35687.1 cc To Mr.V,Sanjeevi, Advocate, SR.357061 cc To M/S.Muthumani Doraisami, Advocate, SR.35804.1 cc To M/S.G.M.Mani Associates, Advocate, SR.35760.Writ Appeal Nos.1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1952, 1953 of 2002Writ Petition Nos.21576, 21577,21578, 21873, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 21874,21875, 22014, 22253,22566,22567, 22568,22580, 24613,24614,24615, 24616, 24617,24618, 24697, 24698,24699,24700, 24701,24702, 24709,24710,24711, 24762, 24763,24797, 24798, 24799,24899,24900, 24975,24976, 24977,24986,24987, 21824, 21825,21826,32874, 32785,33045,33046, 34708 of 2002 vc[co]gp,km,kk,nm,sr,rvl/2.11compared by MT/ MSRL