THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated: 07-03-2011 WRIT APPEAL Nos. 122 AND 123 OF 2011 WRIT APPEAL No. 122 OF 2011 Between: The All India Council for Technical Education, rep., by its Member Secretary, 7th Floor, Chander Lok Building, Jan Path, New Delhi - 110001 ... APPELLANT AND Marketplace Transformation Society, rep., by its President, Dr.M.V.S. Prasad, H.No. 3-3-85/19A, Qutbiguda, Kachiguda X Roads, Hyderabad -500027 and another …RESPONDENTS WRIT APPEAL No. 123 OF 2011 Between: Marketplace Transformation Society, rep., by its President, Dr.M.V.S. Prasad, H.No. 3-3-85/19A, Qutbiguda, Kachiguda X Roads, Hyderabad -500027 and another ... APPELLANTS AND The All India Council for Technical Education, rep., by its Member Secretary, 7th Floor, Chander Lok Building, Jan Path, New Delhi - 110001 …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL Nos. 122 AND 123 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) In essence, the writ petitioners are aggrieved of the rules relating to approval of applications by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for the year 2011-12, consequently, a writ petition challenging the rules. Along side, a miscellaneous petition was filed which begot an interim direction favouring the writ petitioners in respect of clause 1.15 and the relief relating to clause 1.6 was rejected, therefore two appeals. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, relief would be available to the writ petitioners provided rules aforementioned are quashed, but that stage is yet to arrive and in the absence of adjudication on validity of the rules, we do not find any justification for grant of the interim relief. Accordingly, interim relief is set aside. However, regard being had to the nature of controversy and in view of urgency expressed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, we request the learned single Judge to dispose of the matter at the earliest, with liberty to the counsel to make a request, which course perhaps may not be impossible because counter stands already filed by the other side. 3. Writ Appeal No. 122 of 2011 is allowed and Writ Appeal No. 123 of 2011 is dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 07-03-2011 K. Shyleshi