P.M.R.Institute of Technology v. The Chairman,All India Council for Technical Education,7th Floor, Chander Lok Building,Janpath, New Delhi-110 001 & Ors.

O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsels appearing for the respondents.2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up forfinal hearing and disposal.3. Mr.P.Muthuvelraj, the founder Trustee and Chairman ofP.M.R.Educational Trust, has filed the affidavit in support of thewrit petition, on behalf of the petitioner Institute. He hassubmitted that P.M.R.Educational Trust has been created for impartingquality technical education to the students by establishingEngineering Colleges. The said Trust had established P.M.R. Instituteof Technology and P.M.R.Engineering College at Adyalampattu Villagein Ambattur Taluk, on the outskirts of Chennai city. P.M.R.Instituteof Technology, which is the petitioner Institute, was established bythe Trust, in the year 2000, as a Self-financing College, withoutreceiving any statutory grants. 4. The petitioner Institute has been adhering to the Rules andRegulations stipulated by the All India Council for TechnicalEducation. The petitioner Institute had been granted provisionalaffiliation by the fourth respondent University for the followingprogrammes:Sl.No.DegreeProgramme(s)1.B.E.Aeronautical Engineering2.B.E.Computer Science and Engineering3.B.E.Electrical and Electronics Engineering4.B.E.Electronics and Communication Engineering5.B.Tech.Information Technology6.M.B.A.Business Administration7.M.C.A.Computer Application5. While the petitioner Institute has been conducting the abovementioned courses various issues had cropped up, including the issuerelating to the alleged admission of students, in excess of thepermitted limit, through the Single Window system. The fourthrespondent Anna University had also made various allegations againstthe petitioner Institute stating that it does not have adequatefacilities and amenities, as per the norms of affiliation, includingthe lack of sufficient laboratory equipments, hostel accommodation,canteen, transport etc. It was also alleged that the petitionerInstitute does not have adequate teaching faculty to meet the teacherstudent ratio of 1:15, as required by the All India Council forTechnical Education. It was also alleged that there was impersonationby some of the persons, who were posing as faculty members, duringthe inspection of the petitioner Institute by the InspectionCommittee appointed by the fourth respondent University. It was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further alleged that the petitioner Institute has not beenmaintaining the teacher student ratio of 1:15 by taking into accountthe sanctioned intake of students. 6. While stating the chronology of events that had occurred inthe recent past, it has been pointed out that the All India Councilfor Technical Education, the first respondent herein, being satisfiedwith the performance and the facilities provided by the petitionerInstitute, had granted approval for the academic year 2006-2007, for240 students, for four programmes, on 24.5.2006. On 27.10.2006, thefirst respondent had granted the approval to the petitioner Institutefor the revised intake of 330 students, for the said programmes, forthe academic year 2006-2007. Thereafter, on 2.8.2007, the firstrespondent had granted approval for the revised intake of 480students for seven programmes, for the academic year 2007-2008. 7. On 17.9.2007, the fourth respondent University had grantedaffiliation to the petitioner Institute for an additional number of60 seats, in excess of the number of seats applied for by thepetitioner Institute. The fourth respondent University had alsoallotted the seats through the Single Window System. The firstrespondent had granted approval for the revised intake of 540students, for seven programmes, for the academic years 2008-2010, on17.7.2008. On 18.8.2008, the fourth respondent University haddirected the petitioner Institute to rectify certain defects in theB.Tech (Information Technology) and M.B.A. (Business Administration)programmes. On 20.10.2008, the petitioner Institute had approachedthe first respondent to grant approval for the excess studentsadmitted through the fourth respondent University through SingleWindow System, by mistake. 8. On 24.10.2008, the fourth respondent University had informedthe petitioner Institute that there would be a re-inspectionconducted on 4.11.2008. On 25.11.2008, the fourth respondentUniversity had informed the petitioner Institute about thepostponement of the re-inspection of B.Tech (Information Technology)Programme conducted by the petitioner Institute, stating that itwould be held, on 2.12.2008. Thereafter, on 2.12.2008, it was furtherpostponed to 5.12.2008. During the re-inspection conducted, on5.12.2008, with regard to the B.Tech (Information Technology)Programme, certain enquiries had also been made in the ComputerScience and Engineering Departments. The inspection team had allegedthat, during the enquiries made in respect of the Computer Scienceand Engineering Departments two persons from the school run byP.M.R.Educational Trust and P.M.R. Software Technology wereimpersonating as lecturers in the said Departments. While so, on8.12.2008, the third respondent had granted approval for the fivetechnical courses offered by the Institute, after due verification ofthe records and the facilities provided. On 12.1.2009, the petitionerInstitute had submitted an explanation, with regard to the allegationof impersonation, stating that the said persons were experts withindustrial experience and they were guest lecturers. 9. It has been further stated that there was some unrest amongst https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the students of the petitioner Institute, between 9.2.2009 and11.2.2009, following which an agreement was entered into between thepetitioner Institute and the fourth respondent University, on13.2.2009, for the visit by an enquiry committee to the petitionerInstitute, on 23.2.2009. On 29.4.2009, the fourth respondentUniversity had issued a show cause notice to the petitionerInstitute. On 12.5.2009, the petitioner Institute had submitted adetailed explanation to the show cause notice issued by the fourthrespondent University. Thereafter, on 9.6.2009, the impugned orderhad been issued by the fourth respondent University, suspending theaffiliation of the petitioner Institute for the following programmes: Sl.No.DegreeProgramme(s)SanctionedIntake20081.B.E.Aeronautical Engineering602.B.E.Computer Science and Engineering1203.B.E.Electrical and Electronics Engineering534.B.E.Electronics and Communication Engineering1205.B.Tech.Information Technology1096.M.B.A.Business Administration607.M.C.A.Computer Application60It had also informed the petitioner Institute not to admit studentsfor the said programmes from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. Insuch circumstances, the petitioner Institute had preferred thepresent writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. 10. Counter affidavits have not been filed on behalf of therespondents 1 to 3.11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourthrespondent all the averments and allegations contained in theaffidavit filed in support of the writ petition have been denied. Ithas been stated that the petitioner Institute was granted provisionalaffiliation, for the first time, in the year 2001. Thereafter,provisional affiliation had been granted during the subsequent years,till the academic year 2008-2009, for the courses approved by the AllIndia Council for Technical Education. 12. It has been further stated that the petitioner Institute hadapplied for the continuation of the provisional affiliation, on29.1.2008, for the grant of affiliation, for the academic year 2008-2009. The Inspection Committee constituted by the fourth respondentUniversity had inspected the petitioner Institute, on 26.4.2008. Atthe time of inspection several deficiencies in the infrastructuralfacilities, including the laboratory, library and other generalfacilities, as well as deficiencies in the the faculty had been notedand recorded by the Inspection Committee. The deficiencies wereintimated to the petitioner Institute, vide Letter dated 18.8.2008, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ granting sixty days time to submit a compliance report. Thereafter,the petitioner Institute had submitted a compliance report, on16.10.2008. Pursuant to the said compliance report it was informedthat an Inspection Committee would visit the petitioner Institute, on4.11.2008, to verify the rectifications made in respect of thedeficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee. During theinspection conducted by the Inspection committee, on 4.11.2008, therecords submitted by the petitioner Institute were not in order.Hence, the Inspection Committee had once again visited the petitionerInstitute, on 5.12.2008, after granting sufficient time to thepetitioner Institute to keep its records in order. At the time of theinspection, on 5.12.2008, the Inspection Committee had noticed thatsome of their teachers from P.M.R.Matriculation Higher SecondarySchool and some employees of PMR Software Technology were shown asthough they were faculty members of the petitioner Institute. TheCommittee had also noted that there were cases of impersonation. Thecertificates and other documents relating to Ms.S.Sumathi,Ms.R.N.Jennipher and Mr.J.Darwin were used by Ms.G.Amutha,Ms.K.Yogamangalam and another person. When the Inspection committeehad enquired about the cases of impersonation the Principal of thepetitioner Institute had reported that he was unaware of them. 13. It has been further stated that, based on the report of theInspection Committee, the fourth respondent University had issued aletter, dated 30.12.2008, to the Chairman of the petitionerInstitute, calling for an explanation as to why disciplinary actionshould not be initiated against the petitioner Institute. Theexplanation submitted by the Chairman of the petitioner Institute wasnot acceptable and therefore, the matter, with all the relevantparticulars, was placed before the Syndicate of the fourth respondentUniversity. 14. It has been further stated that the Syndicate of the fourthrespondent University, in its meeting held, on 4.2.2009, had resolvedto initiate action against the petitioner Institute. Hence, aCommittee was constituted to enquire into the facts relating to theeligibility and genuineness of the faculty members, who had handledthe classes for the various programmes, during the academic year2008-2009. Further, the Committee was also directed to verify thecomplaints received from the parents and the students of thepetitioner Institute relating to the adequacy of the basic amenities,such as transport, drinking water, toilets, canteens etc., the fineimposed for the lack of attendance and for other reasons, thelaboratory facilities available, the Hostel facilities, especially,for the ladies and the availability of generators. 15. While so, the petitioner Institute had applied for thecontinuation of the provisional affiliation for the academic year2009-2010, on 10.1.2009. The Enquiry Committee constituted, based onthe resolution of the Syndicate, had visited the petitionerInstitute, on 25.2.2009. Based on the enquiry conducted by the saidCommittee it had recommended for initiating suitable action againstthe petitioner Institute, since the Institute had deliberatelysuppressed the true information and had presented wrong statistics in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respect of the faculty members. The report of the Enquiry Committeehad been placed before the Syndicate, in its meeting held on15.4.2009. The syndicate had resolved to issue a show cause notice tothe petitioner Institute as to why the affiliation granted to itshould not be suspended and as to why the admission of students forall the courses should not be stopped from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. Based on the resolution passed by the Syndicate of thefourth respondent University a show cause notice, dated 29.04.1999had been issued, seeking for an explanation regarding the variousdeficiencies that had been noted by the Enquiry Committee. Thepetitioner Institute, vide its letter, dated 12.5.2009, had submitteda reply to the show cause notice. However, the explanation submittedby the petitioner Institute does not explain the specific issuesraised in the show cause notice. Only a vague and untenable reply hadbeen given. After the receipt of the reply to the show cause noticeand after a careful consideration of the said reply, the fourthrespondent University had passed an order, dated 9.6.2009, directingthe petitioner Institute not to admit students from the academic year2009-2010 onwards. 16. It has been further stated that the earlier reply, dated12.5.2009, submitted by the petitioner Institute to the show causenotice, dated 29.4.2009, was placed before the 40th Standing Committeeon Affiliation. The said Standing Committee concluded that thepetitioner Institute had provided irrelevant and untrue informationto the fourth respondent University. Accordingly, a show cause noticehad been issued to the petitioner Institute asking for anexplanation. The reply of the petitioner Institute, dated 12.5.2009,had been received by the fourth respondent University, on 19.5.2009.The decision of the Standing Committee on affiliation was placedbefore the Syndicate in its 197th meeting, dated 24.6.2009 and theSyndicate had resolved to approve the recommendations of the 40thStanding committee on Affiliation held on 5.6.2009, and to ratify theaction taken based on the recommendations made in that regard. Inview of the fact that the syndicate had passed a resolution ratifyingthe orders passed by the Registrar, the subsequent reply and thedetails furnished by the petitioner Institute, pursuant to the orderpassed by this Court, on 9.7.2009, would be placed before theSyndicate for appropriate decision during its meeting which is likelyto be convened during the first week of August, 2009, for the passingof appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law. 17. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing onbehalf of the petitioner Institute had submitted that the impugnedorder, dated 9.6.2009, passed by the fourth respondent University isarbitrary, illegal and void. Sufficient details had not beenfurnished to the petitioner Institute, in the show cause notice,dated 29.4.2009, issued by the fourth respondent University. Theimpugned order, dated 9.6.2009, has been issued by the fourthrespondent University, without considering the detailed explanation,dated 12.5.2009, submitted by the petitioner Institute. In spite ofthe explanation submitted by the petitioner Institute the fourthrespondent University, had proceeded to pass a drastic order, dated9.6.2009, directing the management of the petitioner Institute not to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admit students for all the seven programmes mentioned therein, fromthe academic year 2009-2010 onwards. The said order would not onlyerode the fair name of the petitioner Institute, but it would alsoadversely affect the interests of the students. Instead of giving anopportunity to the petitioner Institute to rectify the deficienciesfound by the Inspection Committee, if any, the fourth respondentUniversity, had taken the drastic step of invoking Regulation 25 ofthe Statutes and Regulations for Affiliation of the fourth respondentUniversity, which empowers the University to suspend the affiliationof any academic programme conducted by a College or an Instituteprovided the University is satisfied that there are prima facieevidence available, pursuant to the preliminary investigationsconducted by the University, through authorised enquiry committees,with regard to the authenticity of the complaints received, or inrespect of the non-compliance of the statutory provisions, pendingfinal decisions regarding the withdrawal of affiliation. The fourthrespondent University is also empowered to direct the concernedCollege or Institute not to admit fresh students to the academicprogrammes, in respect of which the affiliation had been suspended. 18. The learned counsel had further submitted that thepetitioner Institute which was established by P.M.R.EducationalTrust, in the year 2000, has been strictly adhering to the Rules andRegulations of the All India Council for Technical Education, as wellas the other provisions applicable to the petitioner Institute. Fromthe time of its inception, the petitioner Institute has been grantedprovisional affiliation, by the fourth respondent University, for thevarious programmes conducted by it. While so, a deficiency report,dated 18.8.2008, had been sent to the petitioner Institute to rectifythe deficiencies noted therein. The said report related to only twoof the programmes of the petitioner Institute, namely, B.Tech(Information Technology) and M.B.A (Business Administration). Sixtydays time was given for rectifying the deficiencies and forsubmitting the compliance report. By a communication, dated30.8.2008, the petitioner Institute had sent the compliance report tothe Regional Officer, Southern Regional Office, All India Council forTechnical Education, Chennai, with a request to accord extension ofapproval for the existing courses, beyond the academic year 2008-2009. Thereafter, a communication, dated 20.10.2008, had been sent bythe petitioner Institute requesting for an approval order for theincreased intake of students for the academic year 2008-2009, in theInformation Technology and Electrical and Electronics EngineeringCourses. While so, by a communication dated, 24.10.2008, the fourthrespondent University had intimated the petitioner Institute that anInspection Committee would visit the petitioner Institute, on4.11.2008, to verify the rectification of the deficiencies, inrespect of the academic programmes concerned. Later, by anothercommunication, dated 25.11.2008, it was informed that the Inspectioncommittee would visit the College, on 2.12.2008, to verify therectification of the deficiencies, in respect of the academicprogramme, namely, B.Tech (Information Technology). By a furthercommunication, dated 2.12.2008, it was informed that the Committeewould visit the petitioner Institute, on 5.12.2008, to verify thedeficiencies in respect of the said programme. Later, by a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ communication signed, on 30.12.2008, issued on behalf of the fourthrespondent University the petitioner Institute had been asked toexplain within seven days from the date of the said communication asto why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated, as per theStatutes and Regulations of the fourth respondent University, withregard to the alleged impersonation of the faculty members during there-inspection of the petitioner Institute conducted by the Committee,on 5.12.2008. Thereafter, on 12.1.2000, the petitioner Institute hadsubmitted an explanation to the fourth respondent University statingthat the allegation regarding impersonation by some faculty membersis baseless and false. 19. It was further submitted that, on 11.2.2009, a meeting hadbeen held at the office of the Directorate of Technical Education inwhich the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and other officials of thefourth respondent University had participated. During the saidmeeting the management of the petitioner Institute had clarifiedcertain issues raised by the students and it had also submitted anundertaking to follow certain procedures, with regard to the variousissues and to provide certain facilities, as required by the studentsand the staff of the Institute. 20. By a communication, dated 13.2.2009, the fourth respondentUniversity had informed the petitioner Institute that an enquirycommittee would visit the Institute, on 23.2.2009, to enquire intothe facts regarding the eligibility and genuineness of the facultymembers who had handled the classes during the academic year 2008-2009. It was also informed that in addition the said Committee couldalso verify the complaints received from the parents and the studentsof the petitioner Institute, regarding the lack of facilities. It wasalso stated that the Committee would also verify the availability ofthe adequacy of basic amenities such as transport, drinking water,toilets, canteens etc., the fine imposed for lack of attendance andfor other reasons, the laboratory facilities, hostel facilities forthe students, including the lady students and the generator facility.Thereafter, the visit of the enquiry committee was re-scheduled to25.2.2009. 21. Thereafter, by a communication, dated 17.3.2009, it wasinformed that an Inspection Committee would visit the petitionerInstitute to verify the deficiencies pointed out earlier and thecontinued fulfilment of the requirements for the programmes offeredby the petitioner Institute as per the noms and standards, curriculaand syllabi of the fourth respondent University, with regard to theprovisional affiliation already granted for the previous academicyear 2008-2009, and for the consideration of granting ofprovisional/permanent affiliation for the existing programmes and forthe additional programmes/variation in the intake of the students inthe existing programmes, subject to the fulfillment of statutoryrequirement for the academic year 2009-2010. 22. Thereafter, a show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, had beenissued to the petitioner Institute asking the management of thepetitioner Institute to submit an explanation for the various aspects https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ noted therein. On 12.5.2009, a reply had been issued by thepetitioner Institute to the said show cause notice explaining indetail, the reasons and the steps taken by the petitioner Institutefor rectifying the defects pointed out by the Inspection team.However, without considering the explanation submitted by thepetitioner Institute and without giving proper reasons, the impugnedorder, dated 9.6.2009, had been issued by the fourth respondentinforming the petitioner Institute that the continuation ofaffiliation for the programmes mentioned therein are suspended andthe admission of students in the said programmes are stopped from theacademic year 2009-2010. Further, it was informed that the petitionerInstitute should not admit students for the said programmes for theacademic year 2009-2010 onwards. 23. With regard to the communication of the fourth respondentUniversity, dated 18.8.2008, relating to certain deficiencies inB.Tech (Information Technology) and M.B.A (Business Administration) acompliance report, dated 30.8.2008, had been sent by the petitionerInstitute to the fourth respondent University. Thereafter, severalcommunications had been received from the fourth respondentUniversity stating that an Inspection Committee would visit thepetitioner Institute to verify the rectifications of thedeficiencies, in respect of the academic programmes concerned.However, by a communication, dated 30.12.2008, the fourth respondentUniversity had asked the petitioner Institute to submit itsexplanation, with regard to the impersonation of some faculty memberson the day of the inspection by the Committee, on 5.12.2008. However,no details had been furnished in the said communication. Thereafter,the petitioner Institute had submitted a detailed explanation, on12.1.2009. 24. By a communication, dated 13.2.2009, the fourth respondenthad informed the petitioner Institute that an Enquiry Committee,which had been constituted, based on the resolution of the Syndicate,would visit the petitioner Institute on 23.2.2009 to enquire into thefacts regarding the eligibility and genuineness of the facultymembers, who had handled the classes during the academic year 2008-2009 and that it would also verify the complaints received from theparents and the students of petitioner Institute, with regard to thelack of facilities and amenities in the Institute. Even in the saidcommunication no details, including the names of the persons who hadimpersonated, had been given. Only in the show cause notice, dated29.4.2009, issued by the fourth respondent University, the detailsregarding the impersonation had been given. On receipt of the showcause notice a detailed explanation had been submitted by thepetitioner Institute, on 12.5.2009. Thereafter, without consideringthe explanation submitted by the petitioner Institute and withoutgiving any further opportunity to the petitioner Institute to explainthe matter, the fourth respondent University had passed the impugnedorder, dated 9.6.2009, suspending the affiliation for the programmesmentioned therein and directing the petitioner Institute not to admitstudents to the said programmes for the academic year 2009-2010onwards. The said impugned order of the fourth respondent, dated9.6.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and void. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25. Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal, the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the fourth respondent University had submitted that theshow cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, issued by the fourth respondentUniversity, had contained three main charges based on which actionwas proposed to be initiated against the petitioner Institute. Thecharges alleged against the petitioner Institute, the explanationsubmitted by the said Institute for the said charges and the decisiontaken by the fourth respondent University thereon, should be readtogether. As such, there are no discrepancies in the impugned orderof the fourth respondent University, dated 9.6.2009, as alleged bythe petitioner Institute. As long as the action taken by the fourthrespondent University and the punishment imposed on the petitionerInstitute are not shocking the conscience of this Court they would beconsidered to be appropriate and sustainable in the eye of law. 26. Even though certain serious defects had been pointed out inthe show cause notice issued by the fourth respondent University, thepetitioner Institute had not properly explained the charges levelledagainst it in spite of knowing full well the deficiencies and thedefects and the act of impersonation committed by some of the personsposing as regular faculty members. One of the main discrepanciesnoted by the Enquiry Committee is with regard to the list of facultymembers submitted by the petitioner Institute 19 names which were inthe the list of faculty members submitted by the petitioner Institutein the month of October, 2008, for the academic year 2008-2009, weremissing from the list submitted by the Institute, on 10.1.2009. Noexplanation has been given by the petitioner Institute as to why thenames of 19 faculty members, which were included in the earlier listsubmitted by the petitioner Institute in the month of October, 2008,were left out from the subsequent list, dated 10.1.2009. Even thoughspecific queries had been raised by the fourth respondent University,with regard to the missing names, as well as with regard to theimpersonation in respect of the faculty members, no clear explanationhas been given by the petitioner Institute. The discrepancies pointedout by the Enquiry Committee would tantamount to deficiencies, forthe academic year 2009-2010. Further, it would amount to admission bythe petitioner Institute that the 19 persons shown as facultymembers, for the year 2008-2009, are not available for the academicyear 2009-2010. 27. The learned counsel had further submitted that thepetitioner Institute has purposely given wrong information to misleadthe fourth respondent. Even though serious and specific allegationshave been made, the petitioner Institute has given very vague andelusive answers, without meeting the points raised by the fourthrespondent University. In fact, there is no clear denial of theallegation that there has been impersonation at the time of theinspection. Further, the petitioner Institute has suppressed manyfacts, while submitting the explanation to the show cause notice.Even though the petitioner Institute has been well aware of the factthat three of their faculty members, namely, Ms.S.Premalatha,Ms.V.Kavitha and Mr.Prabhat Rajan Sahoo were full time students ofM.E. Course, in different colleges, they were said to be teaching in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner Institute. Further, the Enquiry Committee had noted inits report that there are inadequacies and deficiencies existing inthelaboratory facilities, canteen, transport, sports, generator andwith regard to the provision of facilities in the ladies hostel. Insuch circumstances, the fourth respondent University had invoked thepowers vested in it, under Section 7.9 of the Statutes forAffiliation, which reads as follows:"7.9. Suspension/Withdrawal of Affiliation of anAcademic ProgrammeThe affiliation (provisional/permanent) grantedto any academic programme(s) in a college maybesuspended/withdrawn after adopting the procedures laiddown in the Regulations. If the college fails tocomply with the provisions made in this behalf or thecollege has failed to observe/implement any of theconditions of affiliation, or the college hasconducted in a manner which is prejudicial to theinterests of University education and/or students." and it had also invoked the powers under Regulation 25 of theRegulations for Affiliation, which reads as follows:R25 Procedure for suspension of Affiliation of an academicprogramme:The University may suspend the affiliation of anyacademic programme (Provisional/permanent) in acollege, provided the University is satisfied thatthere are prima-facie evidences after preliminaryinvestigations by an University authorized inquiringcommittee to verify the authenticity of the complaintsreceived and/ or non compliance of statutoryprovisions pending final decisions regardingwithdrawal of affiliation. During the period ofsuspension of any such academic programme the collegeshall not admit fresh students to the said programme."to pass the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, suspending theaffiliation granted to the petitioner Institute for the programmesshown therein for the academic year 2009-2010. The petitionerInstitute had also been informed not to admit students to the saidprogrammes from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. 28. The petitioner Institute has not alleged mala fides againstthe Inspection Committee or against the respondents, nor has itquestioned the report of the Inspection Committee. In fact, thefailure of the petitioner Institute to give proper explanation forthe deficiencies and the defects pointed out in the report of theEnquiry Committee amounts to acceptance of such deficiencies anddefects. Since the Syndicate of the fourth respondent University isthe appropriate authority to take a final decision in the matter, theinterim order passed by this Court, on 9.7.2009, in M.P.No.1 of 2009, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in W.P.No.11648 of 2009, could not be complied with by the fourthrespondent. The Syndicate of the fourth respondent University isexpected to meet in the first week of August 2009. The subsequentexplanation submitted by the petitioner Institute, dated 10.7.2009,and its request for continuation of the affiliation for the academicyear 2009-2010 would be reviewed. 29. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourthrespondent University had placed before this Court letters, dated5.12.2008, submitted by Ms.K.Yogamangalam and Ms.G.Amutha to theInspection Committee. In the letter submitted Ms.K.Yogamangalam shehad stated that she is working in P.M.R.Software Technology and thatshe had been asked to come to the petitioner Institute, as alecturer, for the purpose of inspection. She had also stated that twomore persons, namely, J.Darwin and R.Kannadasan, were also working inP.M.R.Software Technology, had also come to the petitioner Instituteas Lecturers on the day of the inspection. In the letter, written byMs.G.Amutha it has been stated that she is working as a teacher inP.M.R.Matriculation Higher Secondary School. She had also stated thatshe had come to the petitioner Institute, as a Lecturer, on the dayof the Inspection.30. The learned counsel had also submitted that the fourthrespondent University has ample powers to take appropriate actionagainst the erring colleges and institutes to maintain high standardsin Technical Education. The fourth respondent University also has aduty to initiate appropriate action against the colleges andinstitutes which have failed to provide sufficient facilities for thestudents to pursue the courses of their choice. 31. The learned counsel had also submitted that the action takenagainst the petitioner Institute, under Regulation 25 of theRegulations for Affiliation, would also have the effect of an orderpassed under Regulation 26 of the Regulations for Affiliation of thefourth respondent University. Regulation 26 of the Regulations forAffiliation reads as follows:"R26 Procedure for Withdrawal of Affiliation ofan Academic Programme:The University may withdraw the affiliation(provisional/permanent) of an academic programme(s) ofa college, for such period that it may deem fit,provided there are proven evidences for grossviolation of statutory requirements of affiliationnorms and/or the college has conducted itself in amanner which is prejudicial to the interest of theUniversity education as revealed after detailedinquiry conducted by a duly appointed committee by theUniversity. The students on rolls are liable to betransferred to other affiliated colleges. No freshstudents shall be admitted to that particular academicprogramme(s) by the college" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32. The impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, passed by the fourthrespondent University is only due to the default of the petitionerInstitute to avail the opportunities given to it, to explain and torectify the defects and deficiencies found by the InspectionCommittee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner Institutehad not been given sufficient opportunity to clarify the defects andthe deficiencies pointed out by the fourth respondent University. Theclaims made by the petitioner Institute are devoid of merits andtherefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 33. While replying to the above contentions of the fourthrespondent University, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner Institute had submitted that the letter said to have beenwritten by Ms.K.Yogamangalam and Ms.G.Amutha, on 5.12.2008, have notbeen shown to the petitioner Institute at an earlier stage. It isclear that the fourth respondent University had relied on evidencescollected behind the back of the petitioner Institute for passing theimpugned order, dated 9.6.2009. It is obvious that sufficientopportunity had not been given to the petitioner Institute to putforth its case before the fourth respondent University, before theimpugned order had been passed. It may also be noted that Regulation25 of the Regulations for Affiliation could be invoked by theUniversity to suspend the affiliation of any academic programme in aCollege or an Institute, only when there have been complaints and forthe non-compliance of the statutory provisions, pending finaldecisions regarding withdrawal of affiliation. Further, the impugnedorder of the fourth respondent University, dated 9.6.2009, virtually,amounts to an order passed under Regulation 26 of the Regulations forAffiliation for the withdrawal of affiliation of the academicprogrammes of a College or an Institute. 34. It has been further submitted that for passing an orderunder Regulation 26, sufficient evidences of gross violation ofstatutory requirements of affiliation norms should be available withthe fourth respondent University and the concerned College orInstitute should have conducted itself in a manner which isprejudicial to the interests of the University education, as revealedafter a detailed enquiry conducted by a duly appointed committee.Such proceedings had not been followed by the fourth respondentUniversity, while passing the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009. Evenin the earlier communications of the fourth respondent University,including the communication, dated 18.8.2008, it had referred to onlytwo academic programmes, namely, B.Tech (Information Technology) andM.B.A (Business Administration), for which the Inspection Committeewas scheduled to visit the petitioner Institute. The deficienciespointed out by the Inspection Committee were to have been rectifiedby the petitioner Institute, within a period of sixty days and acompliance report was to have been submitted, in that regard. Afterthe deficiencies had been rectified and a compliance report, had beensubmitted, the fourth respondent University, having been satisfiedwith the said report, had granted the affiliation for the year 2008-2009. Whileso, the fourth respondent University has raked up the new https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issue of impersonation by certain persons as faculty members of thepetitioner Institute, during the inspection by the InspectionCommittee. Even though the said issue had not been communicated tothe petitioner earlier, it has been raised as an issue in the showcause notice of the fourth respondent University, dated 29.4.2009.The allegation of impersonation is made based only on the two listsof faculty members submitted by the petitioner Institute, one in themonth of October, 2008, for the academic year, 2008-2009 and anotheron 10.1.2009, for the academic year 2009-2010. The report of theInspection Committee relating to the issue of impersonation had notbeen furnished to the petitioner Institute before the impugned order,dated 9.6.2009, had been passed by the fourth respondent University.No documents had been shown to the petitioner Institute as proof ofthe alleged impersonation. The impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, passedby the fourth respondent University is neither in the interests ofthe fourth respondent University nor in the interests of the studentsof the petitioner Institute. 35. The learned counsel had further stated that neitherRegulation 25 nor Regulation 26 of the Regulations for Affiliationcould be invoked by the fourth respondent University to pass theimpugned order, dated 9.6.2009, against the petitioner Institute. Thepunishment imposed on the petitioner Institute is disproportionate innature and it would cause irreparable harm both to the petitionerInstitute, as well as to its students. Therefore, the impugned orderof the fourth respondent University, dated 9.6.2009, is devoid ofmerits and it is unsustainable in the eye of law. CONCLUSION:36. One of the main contentions raised on behalf of thepetitioner Institute is that sufficient opportunity had not beengiven to the petitioner Institute before the impugned order, dated9.6.2009, had been passed by the fourth respondent University. It hasbeen further contended that the impugned order is a non-speakingorder, as it does not give clear reasons for imposing the punishmentof suspension of affiliation for the programmes being conducted bythe petitioner Institute and for directing the petitioner Institutenot to admit students from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards.Further, the order passed by the fourth respondent University iscontrary to the Statutes and the Regulations for Affiliation of thefourth respondent University. Even though the inspection by theInspection Committee was in relation to two of the departments of thepetitioner Institute, the Inspection Committee had gone into variousother aspects without having been authorised to do so. The impugnedorder had been passed by the fourth respondent University, withoutproperly considering the explanation submitted by the petitionerInstitute. It had also been contended that the punishment imposed onthe petitioner Institute is disproportionate to the deficiencies anddefects noted in the enquiry report. 37. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe fourth respondent had contended that in spite of the InspectionCommittee pointing out various deficiencies and defects, based on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ their inspections, the petitioner Institute had not been serious inrectifying them. Serious complaints had arisen with regard to themanner in which the petitioner Institute has been managed. During there-inspection conducted by the Inspection Committee, on 5.12.2008, anumber of deficiencies had been noted. There was also impersonationof certain faculty members by some of the teachers ofP.M.R.Matriculation Higher Secondary School and some of the employeesof P.M.R.Software Technology. Further, there were certain personsshown as faculty members, even though they were pursuing M.E. Coursesin different Engineering Colleges. Since there was no properexplanation from the petitioner Institute the fourth respondentUniversity has been compelled to pass the impugned order, dated9.6.2009, suspending the affiliation for the programmes conducted bythe petitioner Institute and by further directing the petitionerInstitute not to admit students for the said programmes from theacademic year 2009-2010 onwards. It has been stated that the impugnedorder, dated 9.6.2009, had been issued by the fourth respondentUniversity, in view of Section 7.9 of the Statutes for Affiliation,and in view of the Regulations 25 and 26 of the Regulations forAffiliation. Since it is the primary duty of the fourth respondentUniversity to maintain high standards in Technical Education, in theaffiliated colleges and institutions, such a drastic action had to betaken against the petitioner Institute. 38. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of thepetitioner, as well as the fourth respondent University and on aperusal of the records available, it is seen that the fourthrespondent University had conducted inspections of the petitionerInstitute by appointing an Inspection Committee, which had inspectedthe petitioner Institute, on 26.4.2008, for the granting ofaffiliation, for the academic year 2008-2009. Thereafter, a re-inspection had been held, on 4.12.2008 and 5.12.2008. Based on thecompliance report submitted by the petitioner Institute rectifyingthe deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee in respectof B.Tech (information Technology) and M.B.A. (BusinessAdministration). During the re-inspection held, on 5.12.2008, theInspection Committee had reported that some of the teachers ofP.M.R.Matriculation Higher Secondary School and some of the employeesof P.M.R.Software Technology had been shown as faculty members of thepetitioner Institute, amounting to impersonation. Therefore, anEnquiry Committee had been constituted by the Vice Chancellor of thefourth respondent University, based on the resolution of theSyndicate of the University, for suspension/withdrawal ofaffiliation, in respect of the petitioner Institute, under Section7.9 of the Statutes for Affiliation. The Enquiry Committee hadenquired into the facts regarding the eligibility and genuineness ofthe faculty members who had handled the classes during the academicyear 2008-2009.39. Based on certain complaints received, during the period9.2.2009 to 11.2.2009, from the students and the parents of thestudents, who were studying in the petitioner Institute, with regardto certain deficiencies in the facilities provided by the petitionerInstitute, a Committee had been constituted by the fourth respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ University to enquire into the adequacy of the basic amenities,including transport, drinking water, toilets, canteens, hostelfacilities for ladies, provision of a generator, laboratoryfacilities and with regard to the fine imposed by the management ofthe petitioner Institute for lack of attendance and for otherreasons. The Enquiry Committee had visited the petitioner Instituteon 23.02.2009 and had submitted a report to the fourth respondentUniversity pointing out certain deficiencies and defects in respectof the availability of faculty members in the petitioner Institute,as noted in the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, issued by thefourth respondent University. The petitioner Institute had submitteda reply, dated 12.5.2009, to the fourth respondent University,explaining its stand in respect of the issues raised in the showcause notice, dated 29.4.2009. Thereafter, the fourth respondentUniversity, by its impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, had suspended theaffiliation for all the programmes of the petitioner Institute forthe academic year 2009-2010. The petitioner Institute had also beendirected not to admit students to the programmes mentioned in theorder, from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. 40. On analysing the above contentions, it is clear that therehave been certain deficiencies and defects in respect of thepetitioner Institute, as noted by the Enquiry Committee. Even thoughthe petitioner Institute has been contending that the deficienciesand the defects had been rectified and that sufficient explanationhad been submitted to the fourth respondent University, with regardto the issue of impersonation, the fourth respondent University hasnot been satisfied with the submissions made on behalf of thepetitioner Institute. However, it is not in dispute that the impugnedorder of the fourth respondent University, dated 9.6.2009, had beenpassed based only on the explanation, dated 12.5.2009, submitted bythe petitioner Institute to the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009,issued by the fourth respondent University. No clarifications hadbeen called for by the fourth respondent University, from thepetitioner Institute, before the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, hadbeen passed. It is also clear that the Inspection Committee hadrelied on certain documents, which had not been placed before themanagement of the petitioner Institute, before the show cause notice,dated 29.4.2009, had been issued. 41. There is no doubt that the fourth respondent University hasthe onerous duty of maintaining high standards in TechnicalEducation, in the affiliated colleges and institutions. Further, itis also expected of the affiliated colleges and institutions tomaintain discipline amongst its staff and students. It is also theresponsibility of the petitioner Institute to provide sufficientfacilities and amenities for its students to pursue the courses oftheir choice, without any hindrance. If any deficiency or defect isfound in the affiliated colleges and institutes, it would be the dutyof the fourth respondent University to initiate appropriate actionagainst such colleges and institutes to direct them to rectify andmake good such deficiencies and defects. 42. No doubt, the fourth respondent University is empowered, by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Statutes and Regulations for Affiliation, to initiate appropriateaction against the delinquent colleges and institutes. However, suchpowers cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. If it had beenfound that the petitioner Institute had committed some default infollowing the norms of affiliation and in implementing the Rules andRegulations applicable to the Institute, it is for the fourthrespondent University to initiate appropriate corrective measures torectify the same. However, it may not be appropriate for the fourthrespondent University to take such a drastic action, as has been donein the present case, by suspending the affiliation for all theprogrammes of the petitioner Institute and by directing the Institutenot to admit students for the said programmes, from the academic year2009-2010 onwards. Before such action had been taken, under Section7.9 of the Statutes for Affiliation, the procedures contemplatedunder Regulations 25 and 26 of the Regulations for Affiliation oughtto have been followed, in full measure. If there were complaintsagainst a college or an institute, the authenticity of the complaintsshould have been verified, and if the college or institute concernedhad violated some of the statutory provisions, an order could beissued for the suspension of the affiliation, pending final decisionsregarding withdrawal of affiliation. The procedure for withdrawal ofaffiliation of academic programmes, under Regulation 26 could beinvoked if there are proven evidences of gross violation of statutoryrequirements of affiliation norms or if the college or institute hadconducted itself in a manner prejudicial to the interest of theUniversity education, as revealed by a detailed enquiry conducted bya duly appointed Committee. 43. In the present case, no such gross violation of statutoryrequirements were alleged, nor has it been shown that the petitionerInstitute had conducted itself in a manner prejudicial to theinterest of the University Education. No records have been shown bythe fourth respondent University to prove that the petitionerInstitute had been given sufficient opportunity to meet theallegations of impersonation. Even if it was found that theexplanation submitted by the petitioner Institute was inadequate innature, it was open to the fourth respondent University to call forfurther explanations to satisfy itself about the veracity of theallegations levelled against the petitioner Institute. 44. Further, this Court, by an order, dated 9.7.2009, made inM.P.No.1 of 2009, in W.P.No.11648 of 2009, had permitted thepetitioner Institute to submit a detailed explanation to the showcause notice issued by the fourth respondent University on 29.4.2009,along with the relevant records, including the list of facultymembers, and it had further directed the fourth respondent toconsider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits andin accordance with law, within the stipulated time. However, thefourth respondent, by a communication, dated 14.7.2009, inLr.No.1869/CAI/PMRIT/2009, had stated that the representation made bythe petitioner Institute would be considered by the syndicate anduntil then, the decision taken by the Syndicate, in its 197th meeting,would remain as such. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

45. Further, it is noted from the counter affidavit filed onbehalf of the fourth respondent that the Syndicate of the fourthrespondent University would be meeting during the first week ofAugust, 2009, and the matter relating to the petitioner Institutewould be placed before the Syndicate for the passing of appropriateorders, on merits and in accordance with law. 46. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered viewthat if the impugned order of the fourth respondent, dated 9.6.2009,is not set aside it would cause irreparable harm and loss to thepetitioner Institute, as well as to the students of the saidInstitute. Since it would be open to the Syndicate of the fourthrespondent University to reconsider the matter afresh, and to passappropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, inits meeting to be held in the month of August, 2009, or thereafter,this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order ofthe fourth respondent, dated 9.6.2009. Accordingly, the impugnedorder, dated 9.6.2009, issued by the fourth respondent University, isset aside. However, it is made clear that it would be open to thefourth respondent University to consider the request of thepetitioner Institute for the grant of affiliation for the programmesproposed to be conducted by the petitioner Institute, for theacademic year 2009-2010, in accordance with law and after givingsufficient opportunity to the petitioner Institute to put forth itscase. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1.The Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chander Lok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001.2.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.3.The Director of Technical Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 025. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai-600 025.+7 cc to Mr.M.Purushothaman, Advocate, SR.No.34005+1 cc to M/s.G.M.Mani Associates, Advocate, SR.No.34345Writ Petition No.11648 of 2009BKY {CO}TP/24.7.2009.