AICTE approval governs technical institutions; separate State approval cannot be required, and affiliation must follow the Central regime.

The AICTE Act, 1987 was held to occupy the field of approval for new technical institutions, so separate prior State Government approval could not be insisted upon by a State law or university statute. The regulations required consultation with the State Government and the affiliating University, but final approval rested with AICTE; any contrary requirement of State approval was repugnant and unenforceable. The State Government's refusal of permission, based solely on lack of State approval, and the University's consequent refusal of final affiliation were unsustainable. Affiliation had to be considered on the basis of AICTE approval and other non-conflicting statutory requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the coming into force of the AICTE Act, 1987, the State Government or the University could require separate approval from the State Government for establishing a technical institution, and whether any State law or university statute insisting on such approval would be void; (ii) Whether the State Government's refusal of permission and the University's failure to grant final affiliation solely because State approval was not obtained were legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether, after the coming into force of the AICTE Act, 1987, the State Government or the University could require separate approval from the State Government for establishing a technical institution, and whether any State law or university statute insisting on such approval would be void.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the AICTE Act vested in the Council the power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions under Section 10(k). The Regulations framed under the Act required consultation with the State Government and the affiliating University, but the final decision on approval rested with the AICTE Council. The Act was held to occupy the field of approval for technical institutions, and any State law or university statute, if construed as requiring prior State approval, would conflict with the Central Act. Clause 9(7) of the Kerala University First Statute was interpreted as requiring only the views of the State Government, not its approval. A construction demanding State approval would render the provision repugnant to the Central enactment.

Conclusion: The AICTE approval was sufficient, and no separate State Government approval was legally necessary; any inconsistent requirement of State approval was void.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Government's refusal of permission and the University's failure to grant final affiliation solely because State approval was not obtained were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The State Government's refusal was founded on policy considerations and on objections not capable of overriding the AICTE's approval obtained after the prescribed consultative process. Once the AICTE had granted approval after considering the reports and recommendations contemplated by the Regulations, the State could not deny permission on a contrary policy. The University's role in affiliation could not be exercised inconsistently with the Central Act and the AICTE Regulations. If later facts suggested non-compliance with conditions of approval, the proper course was to place those facts before the AICTE for appropriate action, not to refuse affiliation on an independent basis of State approval.

Conclusion: The State Government's refusal was unsustainable, and the University was bound to consider final affiliation on the basis of AICTE approval and other consistent statutory factors.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded. The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside, the order quashing the Government's refusal was upheld, and the University was directed to proceed with the affiliation question in accordance with the AICTE approval and the University's own non-conflicting statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Central statute governing technical education vests approval power in the national authority and the regulatory scheme requires only consultation with the State and University, any State-level insistence on separate approval is repugnant and unenforceable, and affiliation decisions must conform to that Central regime.

---