M/S.Dhaya College Of Engineering vs The Secretary To Government on 29 June, 2012

Madras High Court

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 29/06/2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

W.A.(MD)No.469 of 2012

and

M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012

and

M.P.(MD)No.5 of 2012

W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011

M/s.Dhaya College of Engineering,

Sivarakkottai Village,

Thirumangalam - 625 706,

Madurai District.

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.

... Appellant

1.The Secretary to Government,

Higher Education Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Fort St. George,

Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Anna University of Technology,

Madurai,

Represented by Registrar,

Madurai - 625 002.

3.The Anna University of Technology,

Chennai. ... Respondents

PRAYER

Appeal is field under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.06.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.7525 of 2012.

!For Appellant ... Mr.S.Wilson

for M/s.Veera Kathiravan

^For Respondent 1 ... Mr.S.Navaneethakrishnan

Advocate General

For Respondents 2&3 ... Mr.K.Chellapandian

Additional Advocate General

:COMMON JUDGMENT

R.BANUMATHI, J.

AND

B.RAJENDRAN, J.

By consent of the parties at the admission stage itself the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal along with the application in M.P.(MD)No.5 of 2012 in W.A.No.1517 of 2011 as the matter pertains to the application is also the same as in the Writ Appeal.

2. According to the appellant, the appellant had obtained necessary permission from the All India Council for Technical Education (in short 'AICTE') for starting a Engineering College and approached the University for grant of affiliation and the Inspection Committee of the petitioner University, made an inspection and submitted a report dated 22.07.2011 and pointed out the following three deficiencies viz.,

"(a) There is a shortage of 175 library books in Science and Humanities; (b) Location of the cafeteria is by the side of the Class Rooms which may create noise in managing the process;

2. According to the appellant, earlier in the first round of litigation they sought for affiliation for the academic year 2011-2012 after completing the alleged deficiencies pointed out by the University pursuant to the latter dated 25.07.2011 in which they have clearly stated thus:

"We are in receipt of your letter No.AUTMDU/REG/AFF/2011-07/355, Dated 22.07.2011, deferring the affiliation to our institution for the academic year 2011-2012 on account of 3 deficiencies identified as noted below.

Sl.No. Deficiency Identified Action Taken

1. There is a shortage of 175 library The shortage in No. of Books books in Science and Humanities. have been purchased and made good.

2. Location of the cafeteria is by the We have shifted the cafeteria to another side of the Class Rooms which may building away from the academic block create noise in managing the process. and it will not create noise in managing the process.

3. Transport facility is not available. 3 Numbers of bus with the capacity of 40 each has been ordered and one number

is purchased, remaining two will reach

to our college campus at the time of

opening of the college.

In view of the above submission and considering the efforts, time and money in creating the various infrastructures including the required human resources, we earnestly appeal and request you to revoke the deferment for the academic year 2011 - 12 and we request you to enable us to participate in the present counselling procedures.

We are confident that you will accede to our just request."

3. According to the appellant college, it rectified the above said three deficiencies and sent a letter to the University on 25.07.2011. Since there was delay in considering the request for grant of affiliation, the appellant college filed W.P(MD)No.8354 of 2011 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent therein to affiliate it under the petitioner herein from the academic year 2011-2012 and consequently, directing the respondents therein to permit the College to admit the students both under the Counselling as well as Management seats commencing from 2011-2012. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated 01.08.2011 and issued a direction to the Registrar of Anna University of Technology, Madurai, to consider the reply dated 25.07.2011 submitted by the respondent college herein and grant affiliation to the educational institution, if the deficiencies are rectified, so as to enable the institution, to admit the students and also to take part in the counselling.

4. Anna University of Technology, Madurai, aggrieved by the said order, preferred W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 and this Court had disposed of the said writ appeal on 09.08.2011 modifying the paragraph No.20 of the order of the learned Single Judge only with a direction to the petitioner University to consider the reply made by the first respondent college dated 25.07.2011 on merits and in accordance with law and based on its own statutes within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. Thereafter, the matter was posted by way of 'being mentioned' and the petitioner University was directed to consider the reply dated 25.07.2011 and pass appropriate orders within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

6. The respondent University sent a letter dated 20.08.2011 stating among other things that the Inspection Committee was not allowed entry inside the college premises and therefore, left with no other alternative to reject the application for affiliation for the present till the college complies with the statutory requirements of the University in full.

7. The said order was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(MD)No.9667 of 2011 and the learned Judge vide order dated 21.10.2011, allowed the writ petition by directing the petitioner University to strictly act in accordance with the orders passed in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011.

8. Challenging the vires of the said order, the petitioner University filed W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011 wherein this Court found that the appellant therein/University has not made out any cause much less any prima facie case warranting interference in the order dated 21.10.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.9667 of 2011. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court directed to strictly follow the order dated 09.08.2011 in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011.

9. The order dated 09.08.2011 made in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 makes it very clear that the disposal of the reply dated 25.07.2011 submitted by the respondent college shall be in accordance with law and based on the statutes of the University. The said letter was sent in response to the Inspection Committee's report dated 22.07.2011 wherein only three deficiencies were pointed out.

10. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the University wants to interpret the order passed in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011 by submitting that apart from the directions given in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011, they have been granted liberty to consider the reply dated 25.07.2011 as per the provisions of the statutes and therefore, they are entitled to inspect all the facilities as per the norms of the Anna University of Technology, Madurai. But this has been rejected by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 09.05.2012 made in M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011. He also would contend that even in W.A.(MD) No.1517 of 2011 itself the Division Bench of this Court has found that the respondent University has not made out a case much less any prima facie case warranting interference in the order made in W.A.(MD) No.740 of 2011 dated 09.08.2011.

11. According to the appellant, even after the order dated 20.12.2011 of the Division Bench the respondent University did not proceed further with the grant of affiliation in spite of the request made by the appellant. Thereafter, the University filed M.P.(MD)No.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A.(MD) No.1517 of 2011 seeking extension of time and also to direct the appellant college to cooperate for further inspection. This application came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court on 09.05.2012, by a detailed order, this Court has held that the University has to dispose of the reply of the appellant college dated 25.07.2011 on or before 31.05.2012 and further directed that the appellant college to extend their cooperation to the inspection committee of the respondent University to comply with the order passed in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 dated 09.08.2011 and in W.A.No.1517 of 2011, dated 20.12.2011.

12. The respondent University aggrieved against the said direction, further preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.17760 and 17761 of 2012. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP as they have found no ground was made out for interference in the matters. Therefore, as per the original order of the Division Bench of this Court, they had to have completed the inspection to verify the rectification and grant affiliation in respect of the request of the appellant college dated 30.05.2012 the respondent University reply dated 31.05.2012 by e-mail, they did not inspect the appellant college. Thereafter on the date of Court reopening i.e. on 04.06.2012, the respondent University filed the present application in M.P.(MD) No.5 of 2012 in W.A.No.1517 of 2011 seeking for extension of time for inspection to verify the rectification made for the deficiencies pointed by the University. Pending this application, the appellant college also got further approval/renewal from AICTE for the academic year 2012-2013 and that has also been communicated by the University. This they would also point out in respect of the fact that the University had raised certain objections even in respect of the land use certificate which was communicated to AICTE and only after further inspection, AICTE has granted the further approval/renewal for the academic year 2012-2013 and also they have lost one year and as a law abiding college they did not admit any student for the academic year 2011-2012 in spite of their college being ready and inspite of their college having all infrastructural facilities and staff. Therefore, they would only contend that the respondent has not inspected or filed a report. Hence, the appellant college has preferred the present writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7525 of 2012 seeking for provisional approval of affiliation of the University for the academic year 2012-2013 as the time is clicking down for the new admission and also to participate in the counselling which is to commence from 14th July 2012. But, unfortunately the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that since the application for extension of time for inspection is pending before the Division Bench no temporary or provisional affiliation could be granted. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has now preferred the present appeal.

13. The main contention of the University was that earlier direction of this Court in W.A.No.740 of 2011 and W.A.No.1517 of 2011 in respect of the inspection and report to be filed pursuant to the reply dated 25.07.2011 was rightly obeyed and they have issued notice earlier only because of the non- cooperation of the appellant college during the inspection the same could not be completed. Further they pointed that certain land use certificates were not produced and the same was communicated to the AICTE also.

14. They would further contend that after the order passed on 30.05.2012 by Supreme Court, immediately on 31.05.2012 the respondent University has sent a communication stating that they are trying to appoint a committee as it is vacation time no persons were available and as and when the the committee is appointed they would be inspecting the college to verify the deficiencies which has been earlier pointed out. As there were no Professors and faculties immediately available during vacation they have requested more than 15 people and consequently sent a communication even as early as on 13.06.2012 that they would be inspecting the college on 26.06.2012. In the meanwhile, the University also filed the present application in M.P.(MD) No.5 of 2012 seeking for extension of time for inspection as per the direction of this Court which was later confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Pending all these, they have now constituted the committee and the committee had also inspected the college on 26.06.2012 and the University is awaiting the report of the committee and as and when the committee submitted the report the University will pass orders in accordance with law. Therefore, at this point of time the appellant college rushed to the Court with the writ petition seeking for provisional approval for the academic year 2012-2013 is premature and there is no need for such writ petition at all. Therefore, the writ petition was also rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that pending the application seeking for extension of time to inspect the appellant college, the relief sought for by the appellant could not be granted.

15. The learned Advocate General would submit that in any view of the matter, in view of the subsequent development, especially, as the inspection is completed on 26.06.2012, the writ petition itself is not at all maintainable. Any way, any approval could be granted only as per the inspection report and the University will pass orders in accordance with law.

16. We have heard Mr.Wilson for Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent in the miscellaneous petition. We have also heard the learned Advocate General for the first respondent. Additional Advocate General for respondents 2 and 3 for Mr.Pugalenthi appearing for University.

17. The short point for consideration in the Writ Appeal as well as in the miscellaneous petition is that whether the college which has got approval from AICTE though originally for the academic year 2011-2012 and now renewed for the year 2012-2013 is to be granted provisional affiliation for the academic year 2012-2013 or not. The fact remains that the college has got necessary approval from AICTE to start the college even for the academic year 2011-2012 is not in dispute. It is also now not in dispute that the college has got the renewal/approval for the academic year 2012-2013. The college after getting necessary approval from AICTE, sent an application sought for affiliation from the University. Pursuant to the application, the University after inspection had pointed out even as early as on 22.07.2011 the above said three deficiencies for grant of approval. According to the appellant, the deficiencies were immediately rectified and the same was communicated by letter date 25.07.2011 wherein they have pointed out that how they have rectified and thereafter they have also sought for further inspection to note down the rectification made and grant approval. Thereafter, there were series of litigations between the parties. Suffice to state that in the earlier round of writ petition i.e., in the first writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.8354 of 2011 seeking for affiliation, this Court vide order dated 01.08.2011, passed the following order: "In the above said circumstances, a direction is issued to the Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Madurai, to consider the reply of the petitioner, dated 25.07.2011 and grant affiliation to the educational institution, if the deficiencies are rectified, so as to enable the institution, to admit the students and also to take part in the counselling."

Against which, the University filed an appeal in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 and the Division Bench of this Court modified the order of positive direction which reads as under:

"10. It is true that the said deficiencies regarding conversion have not been pointed out by the appellant - University while not granting affiliation. Since we have already elicited that the Affiliating University has raised only three deficiencies to be complied with and according to the learned counsel for the first respondent college, the first respondent college has complied with all the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee, we modify the paragraph No.20 of the order of the learned Single Judge only with a direction to the appellant University to consider the reply made by the first respondent college dated 25.07.2011 on merits and in accordance with law and based on its own statutes and pass appropriate orders regarding the grant of affiliation.

11. It is now informed that in respect of two other colleges, provisional affiliation has been granted and they are also admitting the students and that privilege has not been given to the first respondent college. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the last date for counselling is 08.08.2011.

12. Considering the above said submission that there is an allegation of discrimination, we are of the view that even though the last date for counselling has expired, the appellant University should consider the reply of the first respondent college dated 25.07.2011 for the purpose of grant of affiliation as per the statutes for the academic year 2011-2012 and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

19. Thereafter, one another team was sent to the college. As they have demanded other than the three items of deficiencies, the college refused to allow them and ultimately, the University rejected the application for affiliation for the present till the full compliance. That order was challenged by the appellant college in W.P.No.9667 of 2011 and that writ petition was allowed by this Court setting aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under: "128. As the judgments relied on by both the learned counsel have already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench, it is not necessary to reproduce again. In the light of the discussion and following the decisions, stated supra, this court is of the view that the University has not acted as per the directions of this Court made in W.A.No.740 of 2011, dated 09/10.08.2011, and has arbitrarily rejected the request of the petitioner for affiliation. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. In the light of the observations and discussions, the respondent-University is directed to strictly act in accordance with the directions of the Division Bench made in W.A.No.740 of 2011, dated 09/10.08.2011 and consider the reply of the petitioner, dated 25.07.2011, as per the statutes stated supra and pass orders on the request for affiliation, within 10 days from today."

Aggrieved against the same, the University preferred an appeal in W.A.No.1517 of 2011 and that was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court directing the University to reconsider the matter afresh within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order which order is extracted as under:

"5. At the outset, we are constrained to state that the appellant has preferred this writ appeal, inspite of the admitted fact that the Writ Court only set aside the impugned order passed by the appellant herein and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, on the basis of the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011, by order dated 09/10.08.2011 and further directed the appellant to consider the reply submitted by the respondent therein dated 25.07.2011 seeking for the relief of affiliation for the respondent college within a stipulated period of ten days. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not made out any case, much less any prima facie case, warranting interference of this Court in the order passed by the writ Court. It is to be reiterated that the order passed by the writ Court would not prejudice the rights of the appellant herein, as the appellant has been directed only to strictly follow the directions given by the Division Bench in its order, dated 10.08.2011, in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011. However, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that certain observations made by the Court are against them, we make it very clear that the appellant viz., the Anna University of Technology, shall reconsider the matter fresh, as per the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 and also considering the reply submitted by the respondent herein, dated 25.07.2011, and as per the provisions of the statutes, in respect of the application made by the respondent herein, seeking the relief of affiliation to its college, for the academic year 2011-2012 without being influenced by any observation made by the writ Court in its order dated 21.10.2011. It is made clear that the appellant herein shall reconsider the matter afresh, as stated above, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above direction, the writ appeal is hereby disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs."

20. Since even after the order dated 20.12.2011, the application for grant of affiliation was not finalised as the allegations are from both sides that deliberate delay from the University and there was non-cooperation by the college. The University would only contend that even they have sent a communication on 25.01.2012 stating that the inspection committee would be visiting the appellant college, the appellant college have not allowed the team to inspect on all aspects and hence, there was a delay. Therefore, the University filed the applications in M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A.(MD) No.1517 of 2011 seeking for extension of time as well as a direction to the appellant college to cooperate for inspection. This matter was taken up by the Division Bench of this Court on 09.05.2012 and a detailed order was passed which are as follows:

46. Though the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that in the later portion of the order, it has been stated that "we make it very clear that the appellant viz., the Anna University of Technology, shall reconsider the matter fresh, as per the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 and also considering the reply submitted by the respondent herein, dated 25.07.2011, and as per the provisions of the statutes, in respect of the application made by the respondent herein, seeking the relief of affiliation to its college, for the academic year 2011-2012 without being influenced by any observation made by the writ Court in its order dated 21.10.2011," and hence, the petitioner University is entitled to inspect all the facilities, in the considered opinion of this Court, the said submission lacks merit and substance.

47. A careful reading and analysis of the paragraph 5 of the order dated 20.12.2011 in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011, would clearly disclose that the disposal of the reply dated 25.07.2011 is strictly in accordance with the orders passed in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 which was sent in response to the Inspection Committee's report dated 22.07.2011 wherein only three deficiencies were pointed out. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner University to inspect all the facilities available in the college. This Court also makes it clear that the petitioner University is to dispose of the reply dated 25.07.2011 on merits and in accordance with law and based on its own statues and it has been stated so in the order dated 09.08.2011 in W.A(MD)No.740 of 2011. However, taking into consideration the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader, this Court is of the view that extension of time is to be granted to the petitioner University to conduct inspection.

48. In the result,

(i) M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012 is disposed of and the petitioner University is granted time till 31.05.2012 to inspect the respondent college in the light of the reply dated 25.07.2011, submitted by the respondent college.

(ii) M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012 is disposed of with a direction to the respondent college to extend their co-operation to the Inspection Committee of the petitioner University to comply with the orders passed in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011 dated 09.08.2011 and in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011 dated 20.12.2011.

21. The above order was challenged by the University before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 30.05.2012 dismissed the SLP by confirming the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 09.05.2012 and refused to interfere with the mater as there was no ground was made out. Immediately thereafter, the appellant college further requested the University to inspect as the time is running out, by a letter dated 30.05.2012 and a telegraphic message dated 31.05.2012. For which, the University also replied stating that they are organising the inspection committee to verify the compliance of the three deficiencies. The letter of the University is extracted as under:

"With reference to the orders of the Honorable Supreme Court of India cited in reference, I am by direction to inform that, the University is presently organising the inspection committee to verify the compliances of the three deficiencies and the team will be visiting your institution shortly. The exact date and time of inspection will be intimated to you at the earliest."

22. Thereafter, on 04.06.2012, the University has filed the application in M.P.(MD) No.5 of 2012 in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011 seeking for extension of time for a period of one month for inspection and filing report. They have filed this application on the reopening date i.e. on 04.06.2012 as the Supreme Court passed order on 30.05.2012.

23. Pending this application, the University has also further communicated as early as on 13.06.2012 to the college that they will be inspecting the college on 26.06.2012 for the grant of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2011-2012. Now the Additional Advocate General would contend that pursuant to this letter, already on 26.06.2012 the committee has inspected the college and they are awaiting the report and they will pass orders pursuant to the report submitted by the committee in accordance with law.

24. Even though the University has filed an application on 04.06.2012 for extension of time, the appellant herein also on the same date filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7525 of 2012 for a mandamus to direct the respondent to forthwith grant temporary affiliation to the appellant college and direct the respondents to permit the appellant college to participate in the counselling with counselling code for the Government seats. In this also they would mainly contend that even for the colleges which have been originally granted approval way back in the year 2011-2012 without even affiliation the other two colleges were allowed to participate and intake students for the academic year 2011-2012 whereas when the appellant college has followed the rule of law and refrain from admitting any student for the academic year 2011-2012 even though they have got all infrastructural facilities and faculties waiting for affiliation which has been deliberately not given by the University inspite of earlier two directions of this Court and as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, taking into consideration that the present academic year has also started and counselling is to be commenced from 14th July, 2012 and without affiliation their college cannot participate or advertise for taking students. Hence, the appellant college has filed the writ petition seeking for temporary affiliation. They would also contend that in the meanwhile in spite of the alleged deficiencies pointed out and communicated by the University to AICTE, AICTE has further inspected and granted further affiliation/renewal for the academic year 2012-2013 by their proceedings F.No.Southern/1-763259422/2012/EOA, dated 10.05.2012. This fact has also communicated immediately to the University and they have also further sought for affiliation at least for the academic year 2012-2013 now as the academic year 2011-2012 is over and they have already lost one year.

25. The main grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by them only on the ground that merely because there was a direction to inspect on or before 30.05.2012 and pass orders that cannot be a reason for grant of temporary affiliation and also pointed out that in the light of the application pending in M.P.(MD) No.5 of 2012 seeking for extension of time the appellant was directed to request this Division Bench for the temporary relief of affiliation which is attacked by the appellant.

26. From a reading of the entire history of the case, the whole thing depend upon the original inspection dated 22.07.2011 and the reply dated 25.07.2011 of the college which has stated that the compliance of the deficiencies has been made. Therefore, in the earlier round of litigations this Court has directed the respondent University in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011 to reconsider the matter afresh in tune with the orders passed in W.A.(MD)No.740 of 2011. This order was passed on 20.12.2012 and in spite of this order as both parties were at loggerhead, the affiliation process could not be completed. In the meanwhile, earlier the University filed an application in M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.A.(MD)No.1517 of 2011 and got an order of this Court on 09.05.2012 whereby the University was directed to inspect on or before 30.05.2012 and the appellant college was also directed to cooperate for inspection and SLP was filed against this order and the same was also dismissed and thereafter, the present application for extension of time has been filed.

27. Pending this case since the University has already inspected the college on 26.06.2012 as per their letter dated 13.06.2012, even though the college denies that this was done without the consent of the college. The fact remains that the inspection was contemplated as directed by this Court has been completed by the University as early as on 26.06.2012. This matter was taken up on 27.06.2012 when the Additional Advocate General appearing for the University has clearly stated that they are waiting for the report of the committee and they would pass orders in accordance with law as per the earlier directions of this Court. In view of the subsequent development, the question of granting temporary affiliation at this point of time does not arise. The University will pass orders on the affiliation of the college itself after getting the committee report immediately for the inspection made on 26.06.2012 as per the earlier direction of this Court. Suffice to state that since the inspection is already over on 26.06.2012 the University will get the report from the committee on or before 03.07.2012 and pass order in accordance with law as per the earlier directions of this Court on or before 07.07.2012 as it is pointed that the counselling is scheduled to commence from the second week of July, 2012. The new academic year has already begun and since the matter is pending for more than one year and in the meanwhile the appellant college have also obtained necessary renewal for the academic year 2012-2013. Therefore, pursuant to the earlier directions of this Court, the University will pass orders on the affiliation of the college in accordance with law on or before 07.07.2012 without fail.

28. We would only record as inspection having been conducted on 26.06.2012 the time is granted as prayed for and the miscellaneous petition is closed. AT the same time, in the Writ Appeal the University is directed to get the report of the committee on or before 03.07.2012 and pass orders on the affiliation of the college on or before 07.07.2012 in accordance with law pursuant to the earlier directions of this Court.

In the result the Writ Appeal is partly allowed with the above direction and the miscellaneous petition in M.P.(MD)No.5 of 2012 in W.A.(MD) No.1517 of 2011 is closed.

srm