Limited judicial review upheld approval withdrawal where repeated hearings, current deficiencies, and no valid parity claim were shown.

Limited judicial review applied to the withdrawal of approval and refusal to extend approval, so the court examined only the decision-making process and not substitution of its own assessment. Repeated show-cause notices, inspections, and a hearing before the appellate committee satisfied natural justice, and the allegation of no hearing was rejected because no supporting documents were produced. The earlier CBI reference did not control the matter because the impugned action rested on current inspection findings of substantial infrastructural deficiencies, not minor lapses. The plea of discrimination also failed, since parity cannot be claimed to perpetuate illegality or deficiency. No illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order withdrawing approval and refusing extension was liable to be set aside for violation of natural justice, arbitrariness, or error in appraisal of deficiencies, and whether the institute was entitled to approval despite continued operation from temporary premises and other infrastructural shortcomings.

Analysis: The challenge was examined on the limited scope of judicial review, which extends to the decision-making process and not to substitution of the Court's view on the merits. The record showed that the institute had been given repeated opportunities over successive years, including show-cause notices, inspection by the expert committee, and hearing before the standing appellate/complaint committee under the prescribed approval process. The claim that no hearing was given was rejected because the institute was heard and the committee recorded that no supporting documents were produced. The reliance on the earlier CBI reference did not assist the petitioners since that report was only the starting point and the impugned action rested on present deficiencies found in inspection. The deficiencies were held to be substantial and not merely minor, and the university's academic audit report was found irrelevant because it was not an inspection for infrastructure approval. The plea of discrimination also failed, as parity cannot be claimed to perpetuate an illegality or deficiency.

Conclusion: The impugned order suffered from no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, and the writ petition was not entitled to relief.

---