JUDGMENT: CHANDURKAR, C.J.: This appeal discloses one more case of students being trapped into talcing admission in an educational institution when the educational institution has really no right to function as such. 2. The unauthorised existence of the educational institution has come to light consequent upon a decision of the Gandhigram Rural Institute, whose Syndicate found that their earlier decision to affiliate what is known as Tamil Institute of Agriculture and Rural Development which is run by a private Educational Trust was not legal and that the Institute could not have been legally affiliated. The Agriculture Institute in question which has a very impressive name is established by a small private Educational Trust whose initial funds were barely Rs. 707. Out of the seven trustees of the Trust, five are members of the same family -- a father, his two sons, his wife and his daughter-in-law. There are two others who appear to be outsiders. Each one contributed Rs.101 to form the Trust fund. This small Trust has claimed to day to have earned an income of Rs. 11,53,879 for the year 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1987. We have referred to this figure as income because the income and expenditure account filed by the Trust shows it as income. It is an unaudited statement. Out of this, Rs.1,17,000 are the proceeds of the residential house of the founder Trustee, Rs. 34,000 is the sale price of land belonging to one of the Trustees, Rs. 30,000 is the contribution by the Managing Trustee, Rs. 1,30,172 is the loan from the Indian Overseas Bank and Rs. 8,42,000 are donations from friends, relatives and well-wishers. The admission fees from the students amount to Rs. 92,910 and the refundable deposits amount to Rs.51,300. 3. There is no material available as to how and in what manner this Trust persuaded the Gandhigram Rural Institute at Gandigram which is a deemed university for the purpose of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘U.G.C. Act’) to send a team for inspection of the Tamil Institute of Agriculture and Rural Development. Neither the Gandhigram Rural Institute nor the Tamil Institute of Agriculture and Rural Development is able to produce any correspondence. 4. On 6.6.1986 a letter came to be addressed by the Chairman of the Administrative Committee of the Gandhigram Rural Institute to the Founder and. Neither the Gandhigram Rural Institute nor the Tamil Institute of Agriculture and Rural Development is able to produce any correspondence. 4. On 6.6.1986 a letter came to be addressed by the Chairman of the Administrative Committee of the Gandhigram Rural Institute to the Founder and. Director of the Subramaniam Educational Trust, Tirunelveli that on the recommendation of the Visiting Committee, recognition is granted to the Tamil Institute of Agriculture and Rural Development, a unit of. Subramaniam Educational Trust, subject to the ratification of the Syndicate of the Institute to conduct the Diploma Course in Agriculture from the academic year 1986-87. It was also informed that the examination will be conducted by the Gandhigram Rural Institute (Deemed University) and Diplomas will be issued by the same institution. There was another letter from the Gandhigram Rural Institute dated 25.7.1986 permitting the Institute in question to admit sixty students in the Two years Diploma Course in Agriculture Science for the year 1986-87. However, it was later discovered that the Gandhigram Rural Institute did not have the power of affiliation and the matter was considered by the Syndicate again on 12.6.1986. The Tamil Institute of Agriculture and Rural Development (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Educational Trust’) was informed that the Gandhigram Rural Institute was in no position to give the recognition. By a second letter dated 26.12.1986, the Registrar of the Deemed University regreted that a wrong decision was taken by the Deemed University earlier. 5. 43 students then filed W.P.No. 6040 of 1987 in this Court for a direction that recognition should be granted to the Educational Trust and that an interim direction should be issued to the Educational Trust and the Deemed University to conduct the second Semester Examination. 6. The learned Judge found that the initial grant of recognition to the Educational Trust was not quite in order and that the unauthorised recognition had, therefore, to be withdrawn. There was, therefore, no question, according to the learned Judge, of conducting any examination of the students. Before the learned Judge, it was also stated by the Deemed University that it would not be possible to absorb the students in the Deemed University. The interim application having been rejected, this appeal has been filed. Virtually, the entire writ petition has been argued before us for quite some time. Before the learned Judge, it was also stated by the Deemed University that it would not be possible to absorb the students in the Deemed University. The interim application having been rejected, this appeal has been filed. Virtually, the entire writ petition has been argued before us for quite some time. Any view we take in this appeal will be equally applicable to the writ petition also. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants, we are disposing of the writ petition also. 7. Mr. Somayajee appearing for the students has heavily relied on certain provisions of the U.G.C. Act and particularly on the provisions of Secs.2(f) , 3 and 22 of the said Act. Sec2(f) of the U.G.C. Act defines ‘University’ as follows: “‘University’ means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act , a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognised by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act”. Under Sec.3 of the said Act, it is provided that the Central Government may, on the advice of the Commission, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of Clause (f) of Sec.2. 8. There is no dispute that the Gandhigram Rural Institute is a Deemed University as contemplated by Sec.3 and consequently the provisions of the U.G.C. Act which are applicable to a University which is established or incorporated by or under a Central Act , a Provincial Act or a State Act will also apply in the case of Deemed University. 9. Sec.22 of the U.G.C. Act which has been heavily relied upon reads as follows: “RIGHT TO CONFER DEGREES: (1) The right of conferring or granting degree shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act , a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under Sec.3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. (2) Save as provided in Sub-sec.(1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, any degree. (3) For the purposes of this section ‘degree’ means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette”. Under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.22 , a right of conferring or granting degree is conferred only on a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act , a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under Sec.3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.22 is in the nature of a prohibition which prohibits that no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, any degree. 10. Now, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-appellants have vehemently contended that undoubtedly the demand University is entitled to confer degrees and this must necessarily imply that it is also entitled to affiliate other institutions and confer degrees on students of those other institutions. The learned counsel was fair enough to concede that such a proposition does not follow on the express words of Sec.22 but that we must spell out an implied power of the Deemed University to confer degrees on students of other institutions also The contention is that the power of affiliation must also be implied in the power to confer degrees. Such an argument is not only not borne out by the provisions of the U.G.C. Act but it runs counter to the provisions of the Madurai-Kamaraj University Act. 11. Admittedly, the Educational Trust and the institution founded by it are situated in Tirunelveli. The area of Tirunelveli falls within the domain of Madurai-Kamaraj University Act, 1965. Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.1, of this Act expressly provides that the Act extends to the area comprising the district of Madurai, Ramanathapuram, Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari in the State of Tamil Nadu. Sub-sec.(7) of Sec.4 which deals with the powers of Madurai-Kamaraj University provides for a power to affiliate colleges to the University as affiliated, professional or post-graduate colleges under prescribed conditions and to withdraw affiliation from colleges. Sub-sec.(7) of Sec.4 which deals with the powers of Madurai-Kamaraj University provides for a power to affiliate colleges to the University as affiliated, professional or post-graduate colleges under prescribed conditions and to withdraw affiliation from colleges. Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.4 empowers the University to hold examinations and to confer degrees, title, diplomas and other academic distinctions on persons who (a) shall have pursued an approved course of study in a University, college or laboratory or in an affiliated or approved college, unless exempted there from in the manner prescribed by the statutes and shall have passed the prescribed examination of the University; or (b) shall have carried on research under conditions prescribed. 12. Therefore, an Institute or College within the territory which is assigned to the Madurai-Kamaraj University can get affiliated only to the Madurai-Kamaraj University and the power to confer degree on students from such Institutes or Colleges vests exclusively in the Madurai-Kamaraj University. The position is made very clear in Sec.5 of the Madurai-Kamaraj University Act which provides in positive terms that ‘no college within the University area shall be affiliated to any University other than the Madurai-Kamaraj University. Sub-secs.(2) and (3) of Sec.5 read as follows: “……………… (2) No institution affiliated to, or associated with, or maintained by any other University established by or under any law in force shall be recognised by the University for any purpose except with the prior approval of the Government and the concerned University. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any affiliation or recognition granted by any other University established by, or under any law in force, to any institution within the University area, prior to the 19th August, 1983, shall be deemed to have been withdrawn on and from the said date”. 13. Under sub-sec.(2), therefore, it is provided that even if there is an institution affiliated to or maintained by any other University established by or under any law in force it shall not be recognised by the University for any purpose except with the prior approval of the Government and the concerned University. From its very terms, this provision operates on the state of affairs as on the day on which the Madurai -- Kamaraj University Act came into force. From its very terms, this provision operates on the state of affairs as on the day on which the Madurai -- Kamaraj University Act came into force. There is a further stringent provision in sub-sec.(3) which expressly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any affiliation or recognition granted by any other University established by, or under any law in force to any institution within the University area, prior to 19th August, 1983, shall be deemed to have been withdrawn on and from the said date. The University area has been defined as the area to which the Act extends under sub-sec.(2) of Sec.1. The effect of Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.5, therefore, is that even if there is an affiliation granted to any institution which is located within the University area prior to 19th August, 1983, that recognition stands statutorily withdrawn. These provisions, therefore, create a positive bar against recognition or affiliation of any Institute or College within the area of Madurai-Kamaraj University by any other University or a Deemed University. 14. A part from these provisions, it is clear to us that the right to confer Degrees referred to in Sec.22 of the U.G.C Act is a right to confer Degrees only on the students of the University or students of the College affiliated to the said University. In the case of a Deemed University the right is restricted only to the students of the Deemed University itself. In the case of the Madurai-Kamaraj University the right to confer degrees is available only in respect of the students of that University or the students who are studying in Colleges affiliated to that University. Sec.22 of the U.G.C. Act does not deal with the question of affiliation at all. There are exclusive and rigorous provisions in the Madurai-Kamaraj University Act dealing with the affiliation of educational institution within the area in which the said Act operates. There was therefore no question of reading in the provisions of Sec.22 any implied power to affiliate any other institution. Any such construction of Sec.22 of the U.G.C. Act will render ineffective the provisions of the Madurai-Kamaraj University Act which deal with affiliation. 15. There was therefore no question of reading in the provisions of Sec.22 any implied power to affiliate any other institution. Any such construction of Sec.22 of the U.G.C. Act will render ineffective the provisions of the Madurai-Kamaraj University Act which deal with affiliation. 15. As we have already pointed out it is not possible for us to ascertain as to how the Educational Trust was able to persuade the Gandhigram Rural Institute to agree to its affiliation because the correspondence is not before us. One fact is, however, clear that there is no power in the Deemed University to grant any such affiliation. That affiliation could have been granted only by the Madurai-Kamaraj University. The Trustees of the Educational Trust who aspired to run an institution for the diploma course must be presumed to know that Tirunelveli is within the jurisdiction of the Madurai-Kamaraj University. It is not known why the Educational Trust did not approach the Madurai-Kamaraj University. It is rather surprising that in the face of the statutory provisions, the Trustees approached the Deemed University and not the Madurai-Kamaraj University. The fact, however, remains that the so-called recognition granted by the Gandhigram Rural Institute was clearly contrary to and prohibited by law. The Syndicate was clearly right when it revoked its earlier provisional decision. 16. We tried to find out from the learned counsel for the Gandhigram Rural Institute how the Institute agreed to affiliate the Educational Trust. The explanation given to us was that there was an Administrative Committee which had taken the decision and it was only after the Vice-Chancellor took office that the position was gone into correctly. Whatever may be the decision of the Administrative Committee, the fact remains that the act of the Deemed University was wholly unauthorised. 17. As a last resort, an argument was advanced was that on account of all this confusion, it is the students who stand to suffer and that the Gandhigram Rural Institute cannot disown its responsibility for the present state of affairs. It is undoubtedly true that theGandhigram Rural Institute is partly responsible for the unfortunate fate of the students. But if a Deemed University could not examine the students or confer the degrees, it cannot be blamed for having taken a correct decision, though later. The Gandhigram Rural Institute has expressed its inability to accommodate the students of the Educational Trust. It is undoubtedly true that theGandhigram Rural Institute is partly responsible for the unfortunate fate of the students. But if a Deemed University could not examine the students or confer the degrees, it cannot be blamed for having taken a correct decision, though later. The Gandhigram Rural Institute has expressed its inability to accommodate the students of the Educational Trust. This Court cannot force respondent-2 to accommodate these students because it is for the Deemed University to run it in the proper manner and to admit students after making a proper selection. 18. Certain decisions were cited before us in order to spell out an implied power of affiliation. Those decision were (1) ST. XAVIERS COLLEGE v. STATE OF GUJARAT ST. XAVIERS COLLEGE v. STATE OF GUJARAT A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1389: (1974)1 S.C.C. 717 and (2) THE PRINCIPAL v. PRESIDING OFFICER THE PRINCIPAL v. PRESIDING OFFICER (1978)2 S.C.R. 5071: 1978 Lab.I.C 184: A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 344, Since we have taken the view that there is no question of an implied power of affiliation and that the recognition was given in express violation of the Madurai-Kamaraj University Act, we do not think it necessary to refer to those decisions. 19. The third decision cited before us, namely, SURESH PAL v. STATE OF HARYANA SURESH PAL v. STATE OF HARYANA (1987)2 S.C.C. 445 : A.I.R. 1987 S.C 2027 dealt with the cancellation of the recognition of a certain certificate course by the Government of Haryana. Certain persons who wanted to take employment as Physical Training Instructors had already taken admission to the recognised course at the time when the course was recognised by the State Government. The Supreme Court on those facts held that since certain persons had taken admission on the basis of the recognition, those persons could not be affected but the persons taking admission after the course was derecognised could not get the benefit of recognition. We fail to see how this decision can be of any assistance. This is a case where the Educational Trust appears to have deliberately attempted to wriggle out of the Madurai-Kamaraj University Act by establishing some sort of rapport with the Deemed University. We fail to see how this decision can be of any assistance. This is a case where the Educational Trust appears to have deliberately attempted to wriggle out of the Madurai-Kamaraj University Act by establishing some sort of rapport with the Deemed University. We are conscious of the fact that our decision is likely to affect adversely the students, but in the interest of curbing the unabated activities of some persons, who start unauthorised educational institutions, such a hard and drastic decision has to be taken. We only hope that the Government will be vigilant enough so as to prevent individuals and institutions from starting unauthorised educational institutions, so that at least hereafter the students will not be trapped or lured into taking admissions in such institutions with the temptation of getting some degrees. 20. The result is that the writ appeal and the writ petition are dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs. B.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.