Anoop V. Mohta, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for parties.

2. As common issues are raised in all these petitions and respondents are also common, so also the basic provisions of law, therefore, this common judgment.

3. Some of petitioners are educational institutions who have been imparting technical education based upon requisite permission/approval obtained from All India Council of Technical Education (for short “AICTE”).

4. The term “Technical Education” includes pharmacy, architecture and all other technical courses. Some of petitioners are students who have based upon then advertisement applied and accordingly got the admission in the institutions for pharmacy course. They have prosecuted the course accordingly, subject to and in pursuance to various orders passed by this Court in respective petitions, also in view of pending issue about supremacy of AICTE and/or PCI and/or Architecture Council. Admittedly, this controversy/issue is still pending in the Supreme Court as read and referred by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6259 of 2017 (Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal Vs. The State of Maharashtra and othe