forms submitted by the institutions located within their territories. The requirement, in Regulation 7(4), of forwarding of the written applications of the institutions, to the State Government, cannot be treated as a mere formality. Quite obviously, the State Government would have, before it, not only an abstract request, for its view as to whether it would be feasible for it to allow commencing of the two new ITEPs, within its territory, or not, but would also have the applications submitted by the institutions located within its territory available for its perusal. It is quite possible that an otherwise recalcitrant State Government may, after perusing the applications submitted by the institutions located within its territory, be of the view that commencing the two new ITEPs would, in fact, be a viable option. The manner in which the NCTE has acted in the present case, has irretrievably foreclosed this option, to the governments of those States and Union Territories, who did not "satisfactorily" respond to the communication, dated 14'"' January, 2019, by the NCTE. Neither would any institution, located within such "excluded" States, Union Territories, or tehsils, have an opportunity to apply for starting the two new ITEPs nor, consequently, would the concerned States or Union Territories have an opportunity to peruse such applications. This opportunity, which is statutorily conferred, on the States and Union Territories, by the scheme set out in Regulation 7 of the 2014 Regulations, could not have been eviscerated by the NCTE, by communicating, in advance, with the governments of the States and Union Territories and, thereby, eliminating some of them from the reckoning altogether. This decision, of the NCTE, does complete violence to the scheme of Regulation 7 of the NCTE Regulations, and
