( 1 )

( 2 ) SINCE the facts that are germane for deciding this Petition are not in controversy, learned counsel for the parties have consented to the final disposal of the Writ Petition itself. Arguments have been addressed in great detail.

( 3 ) THE facts are that the Petitioner/society had set up in the year 1996 a technical institute in the name and style of Institute of Technology and Management at Gurgaon, Haryana, as an unaided self-financed professional college. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) had approved its intake capacity of 160 students in respect of the academic year 1996-1997. Presently, the Society has the approval of the AICTE to admit 370 students for the academic year 2002-2005. It is contended by Mr. Uday Lalit, learned counsel for the Society that it had run into losses, ostensibly because the non-resident quota was not fully utilised. under the scheme established by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan, J. P. vs. State of A. P. , 1993 SC 2178: (1993) 1 SCC 645. Unnikrishnan s case (supra), however, has been reviewed by the Eleven Judge Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation and Others vs. St