Statutory decision-making must follow the prescribed authority's process; unauthorised suspension of granted permission was void.

Permission for establishing a private educational institution had to be processed only under the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and the 1991 Rules, with the prescribed authority scrutinising the application and the competent committee alone empowered to grant or refuse permission. Once the High Power Committee granted permission and it was communicated, no other authority could suspend or alter that decision. An order made by an authority lacking such power is ultra vires, void, and unenforceable, and the communication keeping the permission in abeyance was quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the communication keeping the High Power Committee's decision in abeyance was without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed.

Analysis: Permission for establishment of a private educational institution had to be processed strictly under Section 5 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and the Odisha Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Junior College/Higher Secondary Schools) Rules, 1991. The prescribed authority was required to scrutinize the application and place its report before the competent committee, and only the committee could grant or refuse permission. Once the High Power Committee granted permission and the same was communicated, no other authority had power to suspend or alter that decision. An order made by an authority not vested with such power is ultra vires and void. The Court applied the settled rule that where a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all.

Conclusion: The impugned order keeping the permission in abeyance was without jurisdiction, was a nullity in law, and was quashed insofar as it related to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute vests decision-making power in a specified authority and prescribes the manner of exercise, any interference by a different authority is void and unenforceable.

---