A.K. Sikri, J.

1. The petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession, has filed this writ petition in public interest. The issue brought before the Court by means of this writ petition relates to the starting of a three year degree course for hotel management and catering by the respondent No. 2, namely, National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology. The respondent No. 2 is affiliated to the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) which is arrayed as respondent No. 4. The commencement of this course by the respondent No. 2 with the blessings of the IGNOU is challenged primarily on the ground that the IGNOU, which is a University, provides only correspondence courses and technical courses like the one started by the respondent No. 2 can only be provided through regular practical training. It is further stated that in any case after the Parliamentary enactment in the shape of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short the AICTE Act), it is this Council which regulates and controls the technical education to the students all over India and without the approval of the AICTE the respondent No. 2 could not have started such a course. Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act has been referred to for this purpose. It is also stated that while all over India hotel management institutes are running under the approval of AICTE and provide a four years degree course, the three years degree intended by the respondent No. 2 is in clear violation of the AICTE guidelines and disturbs the uniformity otherwise sought to be maintained. It is also alleged that the academic scheme of teaching for four year degree by which 15 hours practical training is a must in the 1st year and 15 hours in the 2nd year, 15 hours in the 3rd year and 16 hours in the fourth year, teaching course as per law no technical institute can run without approval of AICTE all over India. This act of the respondents is in clear violation of AICTE rules and if it is allowed to run the three years degree course without any practical training the same is in violation of its rulers and IGNOU which is only providing correspondence course only. It is further stated that there is no practical training programme and without practical training the degree of Hotel Management and Catering Course is a clear violation of the AICTE guidelines and it cannot be permitted to run. Thousands of students are getting education all over India in Hotel Management and Catering Training (HMCT) which is duly approved by the AICTE rules and norms. The students who have joined training in four years degree course are wasting their 1 years precious time and money which as per the proposed course the respondents are providing the degree for the same course in three years which is a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that the proposal for running a three years degree course without any practical training programme is in clear violation of AICTE rules which cannot be permitted to run and if it is not restrained immediately it will put a question mark on the career of those students seeking admission in the proposed Training Programme which shall start from July, 2002.

2. It may be stated at the outset that the AICTE (respondent No. 1) has filed its counter affidavit supporting the aforesaid plea of the petitioner. According to it, the respondent No. 2 has illegally signed a Memorandum of Understanding with IGNOU to offer a three years Degree Programme to be run by the respondent No. 2 which is a matter of serious concern for AICTE approved degree HMCT courses, which are of four years duration. Several institutions have apprehended that the students will not be attracted to the AICTE approved four years degree course in HMCT and would rather prefer the three years degree course of the respondent No. 2. It is maintained that such professional degree courses ought to be of four years duration. The AICTE has also taken a categorical stand to the effect that it being an apex body in technical education as per the AICTE Act and Regulations and amendments, no other body is entitled to launch/approve any technical course without the approval of the AICTE. It is also stated that HMCT is a technical course as held by the Calcutta High Court in W.P. No. 1551/98 decided on 22nd September, 1998 entitled Synergy Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors., reported in 1999 (1) CLJ 422. Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 16th July, 2002 in Writ Appeal Nos. 302, 190 and 197/2002 entitled All India Council for Technical Education v. Osmania University and Ors.

3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by IGNOU (respondent No. 4) and National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology (respondent No. 2). Later affidavit is on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. It is not disputed in these affidavits that HMCT is a technical course. However, the IGNOU claims that notwithstanding the AICTE Act or the powers and functions of the Council under the said Act, the IGNOU being a University created by an Act of the Parliament, namely, the IGNOU Act, 1985 has a right to start such a course in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid statute. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University and Anr. v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors., reported in VI (2001) Supreme Laws Today 712=(2001) 8 SCC 676 [LQ/SC/2001/2169 ;] ">(2001) 8 SCC 676 [LQ/SC/2001/2169 ;] [LQ/SC/2001/2169 ;] .

4. The respondent No. 2 in its affidavit has emphasised that it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and was set up by the Government of India, Ministry of Tourism in the year 1982. It is a national body engaged in regulating education in Hotel Management and catering to Government sponsored institutes of Hotel Management. Its affairs are looked after by a Board of Governors constituted of senior Government functionaries and eminent persons in the field of hotel industry. The Council regulates academics of 24 affiliated institutes of Hotel Management situated all over the country and it has a very great reputation of imparting high quality of education in the hospitality field. Students qualifying through the Council have done very well in the hotel and allied industry. It is further stated that the Council, which regulates academics of a number of institutes spread all over the country, has maintained the highest standard of education and is an undisputed leader in the field of hospitality education in the country and would try to improve the same rather than to compromise on low standard education as alleged by the petitioner. The degree awarded to the students would be recognised by all concerned and the hotel industry has welcomed the degree programme. It is also sought to be contended that if any private institute offers a course of four years which is recognised by the AICTE, the same cannot be a criteria for not starting a three years degree course as has been done by the respondent No. 2. It is also pointed out that many institutes/colleges in association with foreign universities have been imparting education for the grant of three years in Hotel Management and if the respondent No. 2 has started such a degree programme it cannot be faulted with, on any account. It is in no way inferior in any respect including in its content and quality. The affidavit of respondent No. 2, inter alia, reads as under:

That the petitioner is trying to make out a case that the degree to be awarded in Hotel Management is a technical course. It is submitted that National Council is responsible body for implementing required practical and theory inputs as per the established programme and now in association with respondent No. 4 (IGNOU) the programme has further been enriched by incorporating additional subjects. It is submitted that three years course has built in full complement of practical classes. The programme also has theory classes for food production, food and beverage services, front office operations, accommodation operations, hotel accounts, food science and nutrition, french, business communications, computer applications, principles of management, food and beverage management, financial management, tourism sales and marketing, law and enterpreneurship development.

The programme has also a built of 22 weeks practical training in hotel and allied industry in the second year of the programme. The Scholars are also required to prepare and present a research project in the final year of their studies. The degree as such is not only confined to practical lab work alone, the scope of the contents of the course is much larger and broader. From July, 2002 over 7,000 students in 1st, 2nd and 3rd years have enrolled in the affiliated institutes from July, 2002 for the said three years degree programme.

5. It is also mentioned that the respondent No. 2 has institutes situated at Delhi, Lucknow, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Chandigarh, Srinagar, Gurdaspur, Patna, Kolkata, Shillong, Guwahati, Bhubaneswar, Gangtok, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Shimla, Chennai, Trivandrum, Goa and Mumbai. According to it, the programme launched has witnessed stupendous popularity and about 2000 candidates to the first year of degree course were selected from approximately 16,000 applications received by the said respondent. It is claimed that the student community at large have been benefited by the introduction of the course and the petitioner who is a nobody and busy body has just filed the present writ petition by abusing the process of the Court.

6. As pointed out above, the AICTE is a body constituted by the of the Parliament, namely, the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. AICTE has been established with a view to promote, plan and coordinate the development of technical education system throughout the country and for the promotion of qualitative improvements of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith. Its powers and functions are set out in Section 10 of the AICTE Act which reads as under:

Section 10. Power of the Council :

It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may

(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curicula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations;

(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees;

(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned;

(o) provide guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education.

7. Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act defines technical education in the following terms:

Technical education means an institution, not being a University, which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions.

8. It cannot be denied that in terms of the aforesaid definition, Hotel Management and catering course would be a technical course. This is so held specifically by the Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Synergy Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), observing:

Para 13 : It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that despite such position, the aforesaid provisions of the do not prohibit running of such institution without the approval of the Council, whatever might be the value of the Diploma and Degree which is awarded by such institutions and the Council has no power to prohibit running of such an institute without such approval.

Para 14 : I am unable to accept such contention of the petitioner. In exercise of power conferred by Clause (j) and Clause (o) of Section 10 read with Section 23 of All India Council for Technical Education Act, All India Council for Technical Education (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines for Admission in Professional Colleges) Regulation, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as the said regulation), has been framed with effect from 20th May, 1994. Regulation 4(1) of the said regulation specifically provides that no individual, firm, company or other body of individuals with whatever name called, shall on and from the commencement of the said regulation be permitted to establish a professional college. Regulation 4(4) provides, no professional college shall be established or a new Technical Educational course or programme started without the approval of the Council. Regulation 5 lays down the various restrictions as to the admission of students.

Para 15 : The provisions of the read with the said regulation indicate beyond any doubt that no professional college in Hotel Management, which comers within the meaning of the technical institute under the said Act can be established without the approval of the Council nor such an institution can be carried on without contesting to the various regulatory measures provided for in the and the regulation.

9. Therefore, any institute starting such a course will have to take approval of the AICTE. However, the stand of the respondents 2 to 4 is that in case of a University like the respondent No. 4 no such approval is required and provisions of Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act are not applicable to the universities including the respondent No. 4 in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University and Anr. (supra). This is the question which falls for determination in the present case.

10. Before addressing the aforesaid question, it would be appropriate to take stock of the relevant provisions of the AICTE Act and Regulations and some of the decisions of the Apex Court on the powers and jurisdiction of the AICTE interpreting such provisions.

11. Under Regulation 4 of the Regulations, as amended upto date, no course or programme shall be introduced by any technical institute, University or college and no approved intake capacity of seats shall be varied except with the approval of the AICTE. An application for introduction of a new course or increase intake of students in the degree level institutions is to be made in the prescribed form in terms of Regulation No. 5. Procedure as to how the application for introduction of a new course or increase intake of students in the existing course has to be processed, is laid down in Regulation 8.

12. Regulation 8 of the Regulations of the Council consists of 12 Sub-regulations and the extract of Regulation 8 relevant for the purposes of this writ petition is as under:

8. (Scrutiny of applications):

(1) On receipt of a copy of the application submitted to the Council for obtaining a letter of viability, the concerned University or the Directorate of Technical Education, having jurisdiction in the area in which the new technical institution is to be started, shall make arrangements for scrutiny and verification of the information contained therein.

(2) It is the University or the Directorate of Technical Education, as the case may be, desires to have a local inspection of the site, it may constitute its Local Inspection Committee (LIC) and under intimation to the applicant make such inspection of site.

(3) On receipt of the report of the Local Inspection Committee or after verification of the particulars contained in the application to the satisfaction of the University or the Directorate of Technical Education as the case may be or by such other means as it may deem proper, it shall give its recommendations to the respective State Government or the University Grants Commission with a copy to the Council.

(4) Requirement of grant of approval(1) After the commencement of these regulations:

(a) no new technical institutions or Universities Technical Department shall be started; or

(b) no course or programme shall be introduced by any technical institution, University including a deemed University or University Department or College; or

(c) no technical institutions, Universities or deemed Universities or University Departments or Colleges shall continue to admit students for Degree or Diploma courses or programmes;

(d) no approved intake capacity of seats shall be increased or varied; except with the approval of the Council.

(6) Subject to the provisions of Sub-regulation 9, the Regional Committee or the Board of Studies, as the case may be shall deliberate on the status of the various proposals and the recommendations of the State Government, University or the Directorate of Technical Education and University Grants Commission thereon and give its recommendations to the Council by March 31.

(7) After considering the recommendations of the agencies concerned and after making such further enquiry as it may deem necessary, the Council may, by 15th April,

(i) issue a letter of viability on the proposal to the applicant stating therein that the proposal is viable and that the applicant may proceed to take further action for getting final approval of the Council under these regulations; or

(ii) issue a letter of regret to the applicant stating therein the specific ground or grounds on which the application has been rejected:

Provided that no application shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(9) In case of applicants for introduction of new courses or programme or for increase in the intake capacity of seats in any institution facilities only shall be required to be furnished by May 15.

(10) An Expert Committee appointed by the Chairman of the Council shall, at the cost of the applicant visit the premises of the proposed institution or existing institution, as the case may be, and verify all the details furnished in the application, prior to final approval being given.

(11) The report of the Expert Committee and other relevant information obtained by the Council shall be placed before Executive Committee for its decision.

(12) Subject to the provisions of Sub-regulation (8), the final decision of the Council shall be communicated to the State Government concerned or the University Grants Commission, the University of the Directorate of Technical Education concerned, as the case may be, the Regional Office concerned and the applicant by 15th June in case the application was made before the preceding 31st December.

13. The aforesaid Regulation prescribes in detail the procedure which is to be adopted by the AICTE before granting approval to a particular course. As per this procedure even the comments from the University, to which the concerned colleges are affiliated, are called for and its views are considered before taking a final decision. The University can also desire the AICTE to have an inspection of the college to find out the viability of introduction of a new course or increasing the intake in an existing course.

14. The Apex Court had occasion to interpret the aforesaid Regulation and other provisions of the Technical Education Act in few cases. Two such cases are State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others, etc., reported in JT 1995 (3 [LQ/SC/1995/489] ) Supreme Court 136 and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Kerala and Another, reported V (2000) Supreme Laws Today 440=(2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 231 [LQ/SC/2000/701] .

15. In State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others, etc. (supra), it was held that the provisions of the AICTE Act including its preamble make it abundantly clear that the Council was established for co-ordinated and integrated development of the technical education system at all levels throughout the country and is enjoined to promote qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth. The Council is also required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system. It is also required to provide guidelines for admission of students and has power to with-hold or discontinue grants and to derecognise the institutions where norms and standards laid down by it and directions given by it from time to time are not followed. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Council has on its Board, representatives not only of the States but also of the State Universities who have a say in the matter of laying down the norms and standards which may be prescribed by the Council for such education from time to time. The Council has further the regional committees and the constitution and functions of the committees are to be prescribed by the regulations of the Council. It was further held that the subject covered by this statute is fairly within the scope of Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III. These regulations alongwith other regulations made by the Council and the rules to be made by the Central Government under the are laid before the Parliament. Hence, on the subjects covered by this statute the State could not make a law under Entry 11 of List II prior to Forty-Second Amendment nor can it make a law under Entry 25 of List III after the Forty-Second Amendment. It was held by the Court that if there was any such existing law immediately before the commencement of the Constitution within the meaning of Article 372 of the Constitution, as the Madras University Act, 1923, on the enactment of the present Central Act, the provisions of the said law if repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act would stand impliedly repealed to the extent of the repugnance. It was further held that under Section 10 of the Central Act (AICTE Act) it is the Council which is entrusted with the power, particularly, to allocate and disburse grants, to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems incorporating norms and mechanisms for maintaining accountability of the technical institutions, laying down norms and standards for courses, curicula, staff pattern, staff qualifications, assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition fee and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions or introducing new courses or programmes, to lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions, providing guidelines for admission of students, inspecting or causing to inspect colleges, for withholding or discontinuing of grants in respect of courses and programmes etc.

16. In the case of University of Delhi and Another v. Shri Karan Ahuja and Ors., reported in 2002 II AD (Delhi) 822, the Division Bench of this Court delineated the role of the AICTE by observing as under:

In view of the law laid down in State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others, etc. (supra), and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Kerala and Another (supra), it cannot be disputed that it is the AICTE which is entrusted with the power, particularly, to allocate and disburse grants, to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems incorporating norms and mechanisms for maintaining accountability of the technical institutions, laying down norms and standards for courses, curicula, staff pattern, staff qualifications, assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition fee and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions or introducing new courses or programmes, to lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions, providing guidelines for admission of students, inspecting or causing to inspect colleges, for withholding or discontinuing of grants in respect of courses and programmes, etc. It is the Council which is required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system. Again it is the Council which is required to provide guidelines for admission of students and has power to discontinue grant and to de-recognise the institution where norms and standard laid down by it and directions given by it from time to time are not followed. Again it is within the domain of the council to grant approval to a new course or to recognise a new institute for imparting technical education. At this stage the University or the State Government can send their comments to the Council which are to be taken into consideration by it while taking decision on the grant or non-grant of approval of such a course.

17. When this is the legal position carved out on the basis of the legal provisions contained in the AICTE Act and the regulations as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, can it be said that simply because the respondent No. 1 is an University, no such approval of the AICTE is required at all and further that the respondents 2 to 4 are not bound to follow the curriculum and four years duration provided for such a course.

18. In this respect it was submitted by Mr. Tewari, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 that IGNOU was established through an Act of the Parliament (No. 50 of 1985) and as per Section 5(1) of this Act empowers it, inter alia, (i) to provide for instruction in such branches of knowledge, technology, vocations and professions as the University may determine from time and to make provision for research (ii) to plan and prescribe courses for degree, diplomas, certificates or for any other purpose. Section 5(1) (v), (vi) and (vii) of this Act further empowers the University to co-operate with and seek the co-operation of, other universities and institutions of higher learning, professional bodies and organisations for such purposes as the University considers necessary. It was further submitted that Section 5(1)(xxi) empowers IGNOU to recognise any institution of higher learning or studies for such purposes as the University may determine and to withdraw such recognition. The collaboration between IGNOU and the respondent No. 2 is as per the provisions of the system which is almost six generations away from the traditional correspondence courses. The methodologies adopted for teaching through distance learning by the respondent No. 4 is also mentioned in the counter affidavit. It was also submitted that Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act was not applicable to universities including the respondent No. 4 and following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University and Anr. (supra), were strongly relied upon by the learned Counsel:

AICTE created under the is not intended to be authority either superior to or supervise and control the universities and hereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programme in any of its departments or units. A careful scanning through of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act is juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-a-vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and hereby and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to University Grants Commission for appropriate action. The conscious and deliberate omission to enact any such provision in the AICTE Act in respect of universities is not only a positive indicator but should be also one of the determining factors in adjudging the status, role and activities of AICTE vis-a-vis universities and the activities and functioning of its departments and units.

xxx xxx xxx

If Section 10(k) does not cover a University but only a technical institution a regulation cannot be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of technical institution to apply to universities when the maintains a complete dichotomy between a University and technical institution. AICTE cannot make any regulation in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act, notwithstanding Sub-section (1), which though no doubt enables such regulations being made generally to carry out the purposes of the, when such power is being circumscribed by the specific limitation engrafted therein to ensure them to be not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and the Rules....

19. The submission of the learned Counsel was that in the aforesaid case the Supreme Court was directly concerned with the question which is involved in the present case.

20. In order to appreciate this submission, one will have to clearly spell out as to what this case actually decides. It is clear from the aforesaid observations in Bharathidasan University and Anr. (supra), that the Supreme Court held that since Section 10(1)(k) does not cover University but only a technical institution a regulation cannot be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of technical institutions to apply for Universities when the maintains a complete dichotomy between a University and technical institution and accordingly held that Regulation No. 4 compelling an University to seek and obtain prior approval of AICTE before starting any new department or course or programme in technical education is void. It was also held that Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act clearly excludes University from the purview of technical institution. The Supreme Court was of the view that when by definition a university is excluded from a technical institution, to interpret that such a clause or such an expression, wherever the expression technical institution occurs, will include a University will be reading into the something not provided therein.

21. Thus the issue involved in Bharathidasan University and Anr. (supra), was relevant only to the extent that it was held by the Supreme Court that prior approval of the AICTE was not necessary in the case of a University for starting any new department or course or programme in technical education by the University. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others, etc. (supra), was specifically referred to in this case. The ratio of the said case, which was also followed in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra), was in no way diluted which dealt with the powers and functions of the AICTE which, inter alia, included the power to lay down norms and guidelines in respect of matters entrusted to it under Section 10 of the AICTE Act. Thus, the two sets of the cases. namely, Bharathidasan University and Anr. (supra), on the one hand and Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others, etc. (supra), on the other hand, are to be read harmoniously as they operate in totally different fields.

22. If the respondent No. 4 had started the degree course in hotel management as a department of its own, the position would have been different and the University could in that eventuality seek shelter behind Bharathidasan University and Anr. (supra). However, that is not the position here. It is the respondent No. 2 which is an independent society registered under the Societies Registration Act, which has started this course. It has sought and is being given affiliation by the respondent No. 4/University. In the matter of grant of or continuance of affiliation, it would be the judgment in Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others etc. (supra), as followed in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra), that would be relevant. In such a situation as per these judgments the affiliation has to be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by AICTE. To put it differently, the provisions of AICTE Act cannot be by-passed by an institution which is otherwise a technical institute as defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act on the pretension that it has sought affiliation with an University and University is not required to seek prior approval of AICTE.

23. It is trite law that what cannot be done directly will not be permitted to be done indirectly. It cannot be denied that but for the so-called MOU between the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 or the affiliation of respondent No. 2 with the respondent No. 4 University, the respondent No. 2 being a technical institution imparting technical course, was bound to seek approval of AICTE. This position would not change merely because it is now affiliation with the University. If the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University and Anr. (supra), is read in the manner respondents 2 and 3 contend it may frustrate the very purpose for which AICTE was enacted by the Parliament as any institution would conveniently avoid the rigours of the by seeking affiliation with a University. Therefore, it is only when a University as a department starts such a course itself or programme in technical education or a technical education as an adjunct to the University itself is to conduct technical courses that no such approval of the Council is required.

24. While coming to the directions which can be given in such a case, we have to bear in mind that the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner as a public interest litigation. Further, the respondent No. 3 is a University created by a statute. The respondent No. 2 is also an accredited institution with repute. It is not an institution run by some private persons like a shop and cannot be said to be a fly-by-night institution. The courses conducted by it command much credibility, acceptability and respectability. It has already granted admission to thousands of students in its three years course in hotel management which is subject matter of challenge in the instant case. In such circumstances, directing the respondent No. 2 to forthwith discontinue the said course may not be in public interest. The respondent No. 2 claims that the three years course devised by it is in no way inferior to the courses approved by the AICTE in any respect including its content and quality. In that view of the matter and keeping in view the legal position, interest of justice would be sub-served by giving the following directions.

I. The respondent Nos. 2/4 shall apply to AICTE for the recognition of the aforesaid course. This application should be moved immediately and not later than one week from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

II. AICTE shall process the said application and take a decision thereon within three weeks thereafter. For this purpose, AICTE would examine as to whether the three years course in hotel management as started by the respondent No. 2 is feasible and in case any amendments are to be made therein, it would give necessary directions which would have to be incorporated by the respondent No. 2.

III. It may be specifically mentioned that it would be open for the respondent No. 2 to impress upon AICTE about the feasibility of three years course. However, in case the AICTE comes to the conclusion that the duration of the course should be four years, the respondent No. 2 shall implement these directions of the AICTE in respect of course content as well as duration.

25. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions but without any order as to costs.