13. This would further fortify the conclusions drawn by us hereinabove and therefore, it will not be possible for us now to be persuaded by the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Trichy Engineering College (supra), in paragraph 34 to 38 thereof. A careful reading of paragraph 20 in the judgment in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust (supra) would also indicate that the Apex Court has observed that the role of AICTE visa-vis the Universities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of providing guidance, thereby subserving the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself. We find these observations to be weighing enough to grant sufficient authority to the University to take appropriate action in the event any such deficiency is found, but the route and the process of taking such action has to be through the AICTE itself by tendering appropriate information timely and for taking action by the AICTE. We may, therefore, also observe that the AICTE, upon receiving such information, shall be bound to consider and pass appropriate orders and not shelve the issue by avoiding to take action on a report submitted by the University, as it would directly affect the affiliation of the University, the running of the courses and also importantly the fate of the students, who are to be admitted against such courses. We hope and trust that the University and the AICTE will act in coalition and coordination in future in order to ensure that timely action is taken for the purpose of deciding the running of the courses with their intake capacity in accordance
