JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J.— The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. He has started certain training courses from 1992 and that its registered Head Office is at Dev Paul Chowk, Hamirpur Sujanpur, Tanni Devi. It has got plans of expansion in Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner applied to the Director, Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension, Himachal Pradesh University on 14-3-1997 for recognition pf their courses run by them, The Assistant Director of the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension sent a reply to the petitioners Managing Director on 14-3-1997 that the matter was being considered by the Centre and a decision will be taken soon in the meeting of the Advisory Committee to be held on 20-3-1997. On 25-3-1997 a notification was sent to the petitioner by the Assistant Director of the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension to the effect that in the Resolution No. 8 passed in the meeting held on 20-3-1997. The petitioners proposal to start Computer Course under continuing education programme was approved. It was also stated in the notification that the fee structure of the course will be Rs. 600 per student per month, out of which Rs. 200 per student per month should be given to the department by the petitioner. The communication is found in Annexure P-4. It is seen that there is a blank in the most crucial portion of the communication The relevant part of the communication read thus : "The Advisory Committee of Centre for Adult, Continuing Education and Extension, H.P.U. vide its resolution No. 8 meeting held on 20-3-1997 has been pleased to start computer courses under continuing education programme to be organised by Noble Informatic Training System Pvt. Ltd. Hamirpur." 2. Inspite of the said blank in the notification the petitioner was furnished with a certificate of affiliation issued by the Assistant Director of the Centre on the very same day. But subsequently by communication dated 29-5-1997, the petitioner was informed by the same Assistant Director that the inspection Committee visited the institution to check the infrastructure facilities and found that the infrastructure facilities were inadequate and the staff engaged was not qualified’ Consequently, the permission granted to the petitioner was withdrawn The bank draft sent by the petitioner on 23-5-1997 for Rs. 3,400 was also being returned along with the said communication. 3,400 was also being returned along with the said communication. The petitioner was informed that the University will not be responsible for the students already admitted or being admitted by the petitioner to the course and the petitioner was directed not to use the name of the University in the Course being run by it. It is further stated that the Centre may review its decision if proper facilities were created and the qualified staff is engaged and the petitioner may inform the students accordingly. 3. Aggrieved by the said communication dated 29-5-1997, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition, challenging the validity of the withdrawal of the permission granted. In the petition, it is staled by the petitioner that after getting the affiliation, the petitioner got involved in installing Computers and other ancillary things to provide the facility of Computer to the students and thus installed 10 Computers at Hamirpur, five at Sujanpur and launched a new Centre at Mandi by installing six Computers. It is further stated that each Computer and its installation is costing about Rs 40,000 and thus the petitioner had invested a sum of Rs. 10 lacs besides having rented accommodation and other furniture. The petitioner contends that it is not open to the respondents to withdraw the permission already granted, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner has acted upon the same and spent a huge amount for installing the Computers for running the course. 4. In the reply, the respondents have extracted the Resolution passed by the Advisory Committee in the meeting held on 20-3-1997. The same reads as under; "To open continuing courses.—The Advisory Committee approved the proposal to start computer courses under continuing education programme which are proposed to be organised by NITS Pvt. Ltd Hamirpur. The fee to be charged for this course will be Rs 600 per student p.m. out of which Rs 200 per student p.m. will be given to the Department by the NITS for the developing of infrastructural facilities The modalities will be worked out by the Member-Secretary in consultation with the Chairman of the committee and the amount of honourarium will be fixed for extra work to the existing ministerial staff of the centre by the Chairman of the Committee.” 5. It is also stated in the reply that the Advisory Committee in its meeting on 24-5-1997 resolved to constitute a Committee to inspect infrastructural facilities available with the petitioner and verify the fulfilment of other requirements in terms of the modalities worked out pursuant to earlier decision of the Advisory Committee. The decision of the Advisory Committee is also reproduced in the reply The Committee which was constituted thereby inspected the premises of the petitioner on 26-5-1997 and found that the infrastructure facilities were totally inadequate to warrant permission being granted to the petitioner for running the Course, A copy of the inspection report is annexed as Annexure R-2/A. It is seen therefrom that the facilities made available by the petitioner are wholly inadequate The Committee has made recommendation in the following terms : "The infrastructural facilities available with M/s. NITS are totally inadequate to warrant allowing them to run the course under the Continuing Education Centre of the University, as the students who will come out of the Institute will not be upto the mark as required as per the standards of the university and it will bring bad name to the university since the certificates to such students would also be required to be issued by the university. The Committee recommends that the permission given to NITS may be withdrawn and any money paid by the firm to the university be returned to them. Meanwhile, proper norms of infrastructural facilities which any institution needs to fulfil before it is given a franchise before running a course under the scheme of Continuing Education need to be drawn." 6. It is also stated in the reply that the petitioner had been running the Course since 1992 and it is not as if the Course was started for the first time after getting permission from the University Thus, it is contended in the reply that there is no merit in the writ petition. 7. At the out set, it must be pointed out that there is no rule or regulation which entities the petitioner to get affiliation from the respondents, just because the petitioner has been running a course for certain) number of years privately. No doubt, in the communication sent to the petitioner dated 25-3-1997 purporting to communicate the Resolution passed on 20-3-1997, one part of the Resolution with regard to the modalities to be worked out etc. No doubt, in the communication sent to the petitioner dated 25-3-1997 purporting to communicate the Resolution passed on 20-3-1997, one part of the Resolution with regard to the modalities to be worked out etc. is not mentioned, but the communication itself is not filled up properly and there is a blank in the crucial place. The petitioner ought to have got further clarification from the Centre on receiving such communication. But the petitioner did not choose to do so the said communication itself is dated 23-3-1997 and on 29-5-1997 the permission has been withdrawn. But in the meanwhile an inspection has been held by the inspection Committee and a report has been given by them that the infrastructure facilities are wholly inadequate. The inspection has been held only m the presence of the petitioners official and in fact a list of students has been furnished by the Managing Director of the Company written in hand and the same has been filed as an Annexure to the report of the inspection Committee. 8. When there is no specific rule entitling the petitioner to get affiliation, it is not open to the petitioner to seek a writ to be issued to the respondents for cancelling the withdrawal. 9. The plea of estoppel will not help the petitioner in this case When there is a blank in the communication sent to the petitioner, it was the duty of the petitioner to have got clarification from the authorities concerned as to what exactly was intended by the blank and he should have got a copy of the Resolution by which the conditions were imposed Without ascertaining the conditions, the petitioner cannot claim that he had spent a huge amount for running the courses. Apart from that it is seen that the petitioner is a registered Company and it had started courses in 1992 and it did not depend upon the grant of affiliation by the University. It had been running the Courses even prior to the grant of the affiliation. In such circumstances, the principle of estoppel will not apply in this case 10. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the order of withdrawal is illegal and it should be quashed. In such circumstances, the writ petition has to fail and it is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 11. In such circumstances, the principle of estoppel will not apply in this case 10. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the order of withdrawal is illegal and it should be quashed. In such circumstances, the writ petition has to fail and it is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 11. However, it is open to the petitioner to rectify the mistakes pointed out in the report of the inspection committee and apply once again for grant of affiliation on the footing that the infrastructure facilities have been made adequate after the inspection. In fact, that is mentioned even in the communication dated 29-5-1997 addressed to the petitioner it is open to the petitioner to adopt such a course. 12. However, learned Counsel for the University represents that there is no provision in the ordinances for granting affiliation to private Institutions, like that of the petitioner to start certificate Courses According to learned Counsel, the Centre for Adult, Continuing Education and Extension is a specific project earlier funded by U.G.C. and now by the State Maintenance Grant, Unless and until the University frames sufficient rules and regulations for grant of affiliation to such certificate courses to be conducted by the private Institutions, like that of the petitioner, neither the Centre for Adult, Continuing Education and Extension nor the University shall grant affiliation to any private Institution or body for running or conducing any certificate course in Computer or any other subject. If the University wants to grant affiliation to such courses, it Should in the first instance frame Rates and Regulations foe grafting affiliation to such Institutions, which conduce the Courses. Without doing so the Institutions should not be invited to apply for affiliation or represent to the public that such affiliation will be obtained by such Institutions. It is very unfortunate that the University, which is a statutory body, has allowed its name to be used unauthorisedly by the petitioner Company by virtue of the certificate issued by the Centre for Adult, Continuing Education and Extension. It is very unfortunate that the University, which is a statutory body, has allowed its name to be used unauthorisedly by the petitioner Company by virtue of the certificate issued by the Centre for Adult, Continuing Education and Extension. The University should have taken care to see that the said Centre does not issue such certificates without any rules or regulations as the said certificate could only mislead the members of public and give a wrong impression to them that the University would conduct the examinations at the end of the Courses conducted by the petitioner-Company and certificates of Diploma or Degrees would be issued by the University. It is high time that the University realised its responsibility to the members of the public and acted in the proper manner and also took steps to prevent the mis-use of its name as had been attempted in this case by the petitioner-company with the collaboration of the Centre for Adult, Continuing Education and Extension. C.M.P. No. 496 of 1997 : In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the present application is also dismissed. Application dismissed.