the year 1996 and, thereafter, replaced by fresh Regulations in the years 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, and lastly in the year 2014. Of all, it was only clause (11) of Regulation 8 titled ‘ Conditions for grant of Recognition’ of the NCTE Regulations, 2007, which required prior approval of the Regional Committee to be taken in the case of a change of management/society/trust etc. He further submits that this was omitted from the subsequent Regulations of the years 2009 and 2014. He further submits that since the respondent changed its constitution in the year 2011, the prohibition/bar would not apply, post its omission. 7. To the aforesaid argument, Mr. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that Regulation 8 of the NCTE Regulations, 2007, was consciously omitted from the subsequent NCTE Regulations of 2009 & 2014 because the appellants found it essential to curb the practice of institutions changing their constitution. He further submits that there is an internal communication/letter dated 26th December, 2016, issued by the Headquarters of the appellant no. 1 to all the Regional Committees that no such request for change of constitution be permitted. He submits that in pursuance of such communication, the appellants took the action which was challenged by the respondent by way of the underlying writ petition. 8. Mr. Sharawat opposes the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that the respondent underwent a change in its constitution in 2011, whereas the internal communication/letter was issued on 26th December, 2016. He submits that the said communication, neither being a statutory provision nor a regulation cannot have retrospective effect. On this, Mr. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that though this letter is of the year 2016, the appellant no. 2 while examining the documents of the
