1. The short and common question arises for determination in this batch of writ petitions is, whether the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is justified in rejecting the application/ applications filed by the petitioners for establishing a new technical institution (college) that is to run Bachelor in Pharmacy and Diploma in Pharmacy courses on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order?

2. The aforesaid question is required to be unlocked in the following factual backdrop: -

3. The petitioners are educational institutions owned and managed by their respective educational societies duly registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, in order to establish and run technical institution to impart education in technical courses like Bachelor in Pharmacy and Diploma in Pharmacy. They made applications to respondent No.2 AICTE for grant of approval to run the said courses for the academic session 2018-19. The AICTE is established under Section 3 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short, 'the AICTE Act'). The said applications were processed and ultimately, the Central Regional Committee of respondent No.2 on 9-2-2018 passed resolution and thereafter, the said applications were rejected by order dated 4-4-2018 on the ground that NOC was not produced in two cases and as per the perspective plan and the decision of the Central Regional Committee, deficiency was noted and their applications were rejected on the report of the Re-Scrutiny Committee. Calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the decision taken by respondent No.2, this batch of writ petitions have been filed stating inter alia that the order of respondent No.2 is unsustainable and bad in law, as the NOC is required to be issued by the State Government for considering to establish the technical institution and even in accordance with Regulation 4.18 of the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2016 (for short, 'the Regulations'), no views of the State Government were forwarded and perspective plan has been relied upon by the AICTE, whereas in the perspective plan, the State Government has not made recommendation that approvals for courses of Bachelor in Pharmacy and Diploma in Pharmacy should not be granted in districts which have the Pharmacy College, as such, the order is unsustainable and bad in law.

4. Return has been filed by the main contesting respondent AICTE opposing the writ petitions stating inter alia that the State Government did not issue NOC for the petitioners and on the basis of perspective plan of the State of Chhattisgarh, the Central Regional Committee meeting of AICTE, Bhopal was held on 9-2-2018 under the Chairmanship of Dr. Sunil Kumar, Vice-Chancellor and a decision has been taken for further processing for establishment of new pharmacy institutions only in those districts where no existing pharmacy institutions are there in the State of Chhattisgarh and no other new institution of the State, and the applications have rightly been rejected.

5. The State Government has also filed its return supporting the order passed by the AICTE rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners.

6. No rejoinder has been filed.

7. Since common question of law and fact is involved in these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

8. Mr. Kanak Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, would vehemently submit that the petitioners have fundamental right to set up an educational institution and to impart education which has been recognized by the Supreme Court in the matter of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, (2002) 8 SCC 481 followed in the matter of P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others,. (2005) 6 SCC 537 The