Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : In W. P. No. 10499 of 1996, petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarifiled mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned Proceedings of respondent, namely, his Proceedings No. 15843/A1/95 dated 18-4-1996 and quash the same in so far as it defers the consideration of the claim of petitioner for starting new Courses, and consequently direct the respondent to consider the claims of petitioner for starting new Courses for the ensuing academic year, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition which is sworn to by the Secretary of the petitioner-College, it is said that the Institution is run by PSG and Sons Charities, which is a public and Charitable Trust. It has been given an autonomous status by the respondent-University in the year 1978 and ever since that date the Institution is functioning without any complaint from any quarters. While so, on 21-7-1993, a news item appeared in the daily 'DINAMANI' that there were blank marksheets, programme completion certificates and rank certificates pertaining to the College available for sale. It also narrated certain events attracting the attention of the general public. Since the news items did not reflect the true state of affairs, the College wanted to get further particulars and wanted to proceed against the newspaper and its editor for publishing wrong statements. While so, the respondent asked the petitioner as per letter dated 30-7-1993 to offer their remarks regarding the publication. An explanation was submitted on 12-10-1993 putting forth the entire facts and the possibility of fraud being committed on the College. It is said that the so-called mark-sheet and statements referred to in the news item were not actually issued to anyone and that they were not used by any candidate. It is further said that an attempt was made to make a big show out of nothing. The Syndicate of the respondent-University, in its meeting held on 1-10-1993, formed a Sub-Committee to enquire into the allegations with regard to the alleged availability of blank marksheets pertaining to the petitioner's College. The reconstituted members of the Enquiry Committee enquired into the allegations and conducted an enquiry by examining many people as witnesses. The Syndicate of the respondent-University, in its meeting held on 1-10-1993, formed a Sub-Committee to enquire into the allegations with regard to the alleged availability of blank marksheets pertaining to the petitioner's College. The reconstituted members of the Enquiry Committee enquired into the allegations and conducted an enquiry by examining many people as witnesses. Petitioner/College rendered all assistance by providing necessary facilities to the Committee to examine the witnesses and for conducting the enquiry. The Committee sent a Report, and respondent, by letter dated 7-4-1994, informed the petitioner that the Syndicate of the respondent in its meeting held on 24-2-1994 resolved that the recommendation of the Sub-Committee shall be accepted and necessary action will be initiated. Respondent enclosed a copy of the report of the Enquiry Committee, and petitioner was directed to show cause. According to petitioner, the Committee has transgressed into many areas which are not the subject-matter of reference and referred very many matters in excess of the order of reference. On receipt of the show cause notice, petitioner obtained copies of statement of records made during enquiry. Based on that, a reply was submitted on 7-7-1994. It is said that the Syndicate, after elaborate discussions, in its meeting held on 24-6-1995, resolved to drop the matter, and also to caution the petitioner College for the lapses pointed out. The resolution was communicated to petitioner by letter dated 1-11-1995. 3. At the instance of Association of University Teachers, once again the respondent issued a letter on 28-2-1996, giving certain directions like taking of disciplinary action against the persons; to take fool-proof measures to ensure proper accountability of the stock of blank marksheets, statements available, etc. It is said that after the Syndicate has resolved to drop the matter, the University has no Authority whatever, to issue the letter dated 28-2-1996. It is further said that the said direction cannot be made use of for stopping the growth of the Institution. 4. While so, petitioner made applications in October 1993, October 1994 and October 1995 for starting various Courses such as B.Sc. (Computer Science), B.Sc. (Catering Science)/B.Com. III Section, B.Sc. (Bio-Technology), M.B.A. and B.Sc. (Visual Communication). For none of these Courses, respondent has given affiliation. The only reason for refusing to consider the request was that the notice dated 28-2-1996 was not implemented by the College. (Computer Science), B.Sc. (Catering Science)/B.Com. III Section, B.Sc. (Bio-Technology), M.B.A. and B.Sc. (Visual Communication). For none of these Courses, respondent has given affiliation. The only reason for refusing to consider the request was that the notice dated 28-2-1996 was not implemented by the College. It is said that the proposed action by refusing to consider the grant of affiliation to the above said Courses is without jurisdiction, and the non-consideration of petitioner's applications is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is under these circumstances, petitioner has come to this Court for the relief stated above. 5. An Interlocutory Application was filed in W.M.P. No. 13915 of 1996 seeking a similar relief which is prayed for in the main writ petition. 6. Learned Judge was not inclined to give any interim direction as prayed for, and wanted the writ petition itself to be disposed of finally. 7. In the other writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 7516 of 1998, the relief is for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to implement forthwith the directions given by the Governor and Vice-Chancellor of Bharathiyar university, Coimbatore, as enshrined in Item No. 23, Additional Agenda III of Ordinary meeting of the Syndicate, and pass such further or other orders. 8. In that writ petition also, the news item which was published in Dinamani is stated and also about the Resolution of the Syndicate dated 6-8-1993 to constitute a Sub-Committee to enquire into the alleged irregularities, are mentioned. It is said that after submission of the Sub-Committee's Report, no action was taken and, therefore, the Joint Action Committee of Teachers Association submitted a representation to the Chancellor (Governor) of 2nd respondent-University on 2-2-1996. The Secretary to the Governor informed the Vice-Chancellor of 2nd respondent that she has been directed by the Chancellor to request the Vice-Chancellor to (a) ensure fool-proof measures for proper and safe accountability of the stock of blank mark statements available with the College and make the College management fully responsible and accountable; and (b) ensure that blank mark statements in circulation, if any, are arrested and to prevent any possible misuse and certain other directions. The Vice-Chancellor of 2nd respondent accordingly directed the 2nd respondent's Registrar to take up all points for immediate implementations of Syndicate Sub-Committee's Enquiry Report. The Vice-Chancellor of 2nd respondent accordingly directed the 2nd respondent's Registrar to take up all points for immediate implementations of Syndicate Sub-Committee's Enquiry Report. Letters were also issued to 3rd respondent to take steps and report the action on the basis of findings of Syndicate Sub-Committee's Enquiry report. But no action was taken. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents herein to implement forthwith the directions given by the Governor and the Vice-Chancellor of Bharathiar University, Coimbatore. 9. Petitioner in W.P. No. 10499 of 1996 PSG College is the third respondent in W.P. No. 7516 of 1998. It has filed a counter-affidavit in tune with the allegations made in W.P. No. 10499 of 1996. Hence the same need not be repeated. 10. In both these writ petitions, the University has filed counter admitting therein that the Chancellor has issued certain directions to the University. It is said that the University addressed the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and Director of Collegiate Education, 1st respondent in W.P. No. 7516 of 1998, to take action against the persons who have indulged in the alleged activities. First respondent in his letter dated 10-9-1997, has stated that it is only for the College to take action and he was only an Appellate Authority. It is further said that the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had stated that the enquiry revealed that the blank sheets were printed at Chinthamani Achagam and the press was owned by Smt. K. P. Gandhimatti wife of Sampathkumar, the present Principal of PSG College of Arts and Science, Smt. Radha Arumugam wife of Arumugam, a Lecturer in the same College. The Report also further stated that the Principal was very close to the Management and every effort was made to suppress the above facts before the Syndicate and Sub-Committee. It is also said that the reports were brought to the notice of the College 3rd respondent by letter dated 28-2-1996. But the College gave a very evasive answer and were not ready to take any action in this regard. 11. It is further said in the counter that when the College has not taken any action pursuant to the direction of the Collector, it was decided that the question of considering the affiliation of new courses will be decided only after satisfactory compliance of directions given by it. 11. It is further said in the counter that when the College has not taken any action pursuant to the direction of the Collector, it was decided that the question of considering the affiliation of new courses will be decided only after satisfactory compliance of directions given by it. It is at that time the College has come forward with W.P. No. 10499 of 1996 for the aforesaid relief. It is said that the College is bound to implement the directions given by the University, and, having failed to obey the Orders, affiliation for starting new Courses was rightly refused. Respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Learned Counsel appearing for Bharathiar University placed the entire file before this Court. 13. The question for consideration is, whether the decision of the University to defer the grant of affiliation to start new Courses is proper. 14. Answer to the said question will be sufficient to dispose of W.P. No. 7516 of 1998 also. 15. In (Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat). Their Lordships have held that the consistent view is that there is no fundamental right to get affiliation. In paragraph 15, Their Lordships have said that,- "Affiliation to a University really consists of two parts. One part relates to syllabi, curricula, courses of instruction, the qualifications of teachers, library, laboratories, conditions regarding health and hygiene of students. This part relates to establishment of educational institutions. The second part consists of terms and conditions regarding management of institutions. It relates to administration of educational institutions." In paragraph 18, it is further held that, "................All institutions of general secular education whether established by the minorities or the non-minorities must impart to the students education not only for their intellectual attainment but also for pursuit of careers. Affiliation of minority institutions is intended to ensure the growth and excellence of their children and other students in the academic field. Affiliation mainly pertains to the academic and educational character of the institution. Therefore, measures which will regulate the courses of study, the qualifications and appointment of teachers, the conditions of employment of teachers, the health and hygiene of students, facilities for libraries and laboratories are all comprised in matters germane to affiliation of minority institutions. Affiliation mainly pertains to the academic and educational character of the institution. Therefore, measures which will regulate the courses of study, the qualifications and appointment of teachers, the conditions of employment of teachers, the health and hygiene of students, facilities for libraries and laboratories are all comprised in matters germane to affiliation of minority institutions. These regulatory measures for affiliation are for uniformity, efficiency and excellence in educational courses and do not violate any fundamental right of the minority institutions under Article 30." (Emphasis supplied) In Paragraph 31, it was further held that, "Regulations which will serve the interests of the students, regulations which will serve the interests of the teachers are of paramount importance in good administration. Regulations in the interest of efficiency of teachers, discipline and fairness in administration are necessary for preserving harmony among affiliated institutions." In paragraph 32, it has been held thus :- " Education should be a great cohesive force in developing integrity of the nation. Education develops the ethos of the nation. Regulations are, therefore, necessary to see that there are no divisive or disintegrating forces in administration." In (Unni Krishnan, J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh), in paragraph 204, Their Lordships have held that 'the grant of recognition or affiliation is not a matter of course, nor is it a formality. Admission to the privileges of a University is a power to be exercised with great care, keeping in view the interest of the general public and the nation.' (Emphasis). Their Lordships have further held that 'it is a matter of substantial significance the very life-blood of a private educational institution'. It is further held thus :- ".....Ordinarily speaking, no educational institution can run or survive unless it is recognised by the Government or the appropriate authority and/or is affiliated to one or the other Universities in the country. Unless it is recognised and/or affiliated as stated above, it's certificates will be of no use. No one would join such educational institution. As a matter of fact, by virtue of the provisions of the U.G.C. Act, noticed hereinabove, no educational institution in this country except a University is entitled to award degrees. It is for this reason that all the private educational institutions seek recognition and/or affiliation with a view to enable them to send the students trained by them to appear at the examinations conducted by the Government/University. It is for this reason that all the private educational institutions seek recognition and/or affiliation with a view to enable them to send the students trained by them to appear at the examinations conducted by the Government/University. The idea is that if such students pass the said examination, the Government/University will award its degree/diploma/certificate to them. These educational institutions follow the syllabus prescribed by the Government/University, have the same courses of study, follow the same method of teaching and training. They do not award their own degrees/qualifications. They prepare their students for University/Government examinations, request the University/Government to permit them to appear at the examinations conducted by them and to award the appropriate degrees to them. Clearly and indubitably, the recognised/affiliated private educational institutions, supplement the function performed by the institutions of the State. There is not an independent activity but one closely allied to and supplemental to the activity of the State. There is not an independent activity but one closely allied to and supplemental to the activity of the State. In the above circumstances, it is idle to contend that imparting of education is a business like any other business or that it is an activity akin to any other activity like building of roads, bridges, etc. In short, the position is this; No educational institution except a University can award degrees (Sections 22 and 23 of the UGC. Act). The private educational institutions cannot award their own degrees. Even if they award any certificates or other testimonials they have no practical value inasmuch as they are not good for obtaining any employment under the State or for admission into higher course of study. The private educational institutions merely supplement the effort of the State in educating the people, as explained above. It is not an independent activity. It is an activity supplemental to the principal activity carried on by the State. No private educational institution can survive or subsist without recognition and/or affiliation. The bodies which grant recognition and/or affiliation are the authorities of the State. In such a situation, it is obligatory in the interest of general public upon the authority granting recognition or affiliation to insist upon such conditions as are appropriate to ensure not only education of requisite standard but also fairness and equal treatment in the matter of admission of students. In such a situation, it is obligatory in the interest of general public upon the authority granting recognition or affiliation to insist upon such conditions as are appropriate to ensure not only education of requisite standard but also fairness and equal treatment in the matter of admission of students. Since the recognising/affiliating authority is the State, it is under an obligation to impose such conditions as part of its duty enjoined upon it by Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot allow itself or its power and privilege to be used unfairly. The incidents attaching to the main activity attach to supplemental activity as well. Affiliation/recognition is not there for anybody to get its gratis or unconditionally. In our opinion, no Government, authority or University is justified or is entitled to grant recognition/affiliation without imposing such conditions. Doing so would amount to abdicating its obligations enjoined upon it by Part III : its activity is bound to be characterised as unconstitutional and illegal. To reiterate, what applies to the main activity applies equally to supplemental activity. (In italics). The State cannot claim immunity from the obligations arising from Articles 14 and 15. If so, it cannot confer such immunity upon its affiliates........" (Emphasis supplied) 16. The Statute of the Bharathiar University provides for affiliation of Colleges. In Statute Volume II, Condition No. 8 reads thus :- "8. Conditions of affiliation.- Every college shall also satisfy the Syndicate on the following points :- (a) The accommodation and equipment including Library for teaching; (b) The teaching staff, their character, their qualification and adequacy for teaching the subjects and courses proposed and the conditions of their service; (c) The residence, physical welfare, discipline and supervision of its students; and (d) Such other matters as are essential for the maintenance of the tone and standards of University education." (Emphasis supplied) It is now settled that affiliation cannot be claimed as of right even though a person may establish a College. The University is entitled and is duty-bound to impose conditions regarding the educational character of the Institution. It also can prescribe such terms and conditions regarding the management of the Institution, and for maintaining high standards, before any institution can claim affiliation from the University. It can also impose conditions for the maintenance of the tone and standards of University education. It also can prescribe such terms and conditions regarding the management of the Institution, and for maintaining high standards, before any institution can claim affiliation from the University. It can also impose conditions for the maintenance of the tone and standards of University education. The respondent will be justified in stating that it will consider the question of affiliation only if the conditions are satisfied. I have already extracted the purpose of affiliation and the duty of the University to impose conditions while granting affiliation. It is in this background, we have to consider whether the action of the respondents in deferring the decision to grant affiliation is justified. 17. The fact that there was a news item in 'Dinamani' about the sale of blank marksheets pertaining to the petitioner-College is not disputed. The College has its own explanation for the same. It is also true that the Syndicate, after discussion, thought of dropping the entire matter after giving a warning to the College. But the Association of University Teachers has moved a representation before the Chancellor about the institution and how the name of the College is affected. It wanted the Chancellor to take necessary action. 18. By letter dated 9-2-1996, Secretary to the Governor has given the following directions :- "M. SHEELA PRIYA, I.A.S., RAJBHAVAN, SECRETARY TO THE Dt. 9-2-1996. GOVERNOR. D. O. Lr. No. 63/U2/96. Dear Dr. Subramanyan, Sub : BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY - Blank Mark Statement - Alleged scandal in PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore - Action initiated on the Institution - Reg. Ref : Memorandum of Joint Action Committee of College Teachers Association, Bharathiar University Area, dated 2-2-1996 and other connected records. ---- The Joint Action Committee of College Teachers Association represented by its Convenor Dr. M. Natarajan and others have submitted a memorandum to His Excellency the Governor-Chancellor on 2-2-1996. In this representation, it was brought to the notice of H.E. the Governor-Chancellor that the Blank Mark Statements of P.S.G. College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore were circulated in Coimbatore for sale and there were several other allegations against the College and also against the Bharathiar University. Further, the representatives of the Association have stated that the Syndicate of Bharathiar University constituted Enquiry Committee on 6-8-93 and the report of the Syndicate Committee which was submitted in February 1994 was properly acted upon. Further, the representatives of the Association have stated that the Syndicate of Bharathiar University constituted Enquiry Committee on 6-8-93 and the report of the Syndicate Committee which was submitted in February 1994 was properly acted upon. They have levelled certain allegations against the Vice-Chancellor of Bharathiar University and they have pointed out that in the guise of obtaining legal opinion in this matter, the action against the errant institution, i.e., P.S.G. College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore was dropped and it was also charged that under your Chairmanship, the Syndicate at its meeting held on -6-95 decided to drop the issue by giving a simple warning to the College. They also mentioned that the Senate meeting of the University convened on 20-1-96 was abruptly suspended by you without taking up the normal subjects stated on the Agenda, while the above issue was raised on the floor. In this connection, the Registrar, Bharathiar University was summoned to bring forth all records and he has produced the resolutions and other connected records. On examining the connected files, it is seen that the University has taken specific action by refusing to grant provisional affiliation to the courses applied by the PSG College of Arts and Science for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. Despite the explanations offered by the Vice-Chancellor and position note submitted for consideration of the Chancellor, the University has not taken sufficient steps to take necessary corrective and punitive measures against the College authorities who were involved in the Blank mark statement scandal. The University has to ensure that" fool-proof measures have to be evolved to ensure the safe accountability of the stock of blank statements available with the institution concerned and the College Management should be made fully responsible and accountable". The University is advised to consider the matter of initiating disciplinary action against the staff of the College by invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private College Regulation Act, 1976 and report the action taken in this matter early. The University has to ensure that the blank mark statements in circulation, if any is arrested immediately and necessary action taken to prevent any possible action of misuse of such documents by unscrupulous elements. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the memorandum presented to His Excellency the Governor-Chancellor for taking immediate follow-up action. The University has to ensure that the blank mark statements in circulation, if any is arrested immediately and necessary action taken to prevent any possible action of misuse of such documents by unscrupulous elements. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the memorandum presented to His Excellency the Governor-Chancellor for taking immediate follow-up action. I am by direction of His Excellency the Chancellor to request you to take necessary action on all the points indicated above and to take appropriate steps to convene the meeting of the Senate and pursue action and report steps taken in this matter for placing it before His Excellency the Governor-Chancellor. Yours sincerely, Sd. M. SHEELA PRIYA." 19. It is further said in the additional counter-affidavit filed by the University that there was a direction by the Chancellor to refer the matter to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, to take effective steps to prevent free circulation of marksheets, etc. pursuant to the said direction, a vigilance enquiry was conducted and the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption sent a report with the following remarks :- "As per the records of the Collectorate, Coimbatore, the press was owned by Tmt. K. P. Gandhimathi wife of Dr. B. Sampathkumar, the present Principal of P.S.G. College of Arts and Science and Tmt. Radha Arumugam W/o. T. Arumugam, a Lecturer in the same College. They were partners along with three others since 1984. Tmt. K. P. Gandhimathi is presently working as Lecturer in the same College. Dr. P. Sampathkumar, who was Lecturer in 1993 is now made the Principal of the college since he is very close to the management. Because of this proximity, every effort was made to suppress the facts during the course of the enquiry by the Syndicate Sub-Committee and to pressurize the management of Dinamani to publish a note expressing its regret for the "wrong" news published by them. Besides, the management was reluctant to take any action under the conduct rules against the staff of the College for running the printing press. After this, the partners of the Press had created false and back-dated documents as if one T. Sivaraman was the owner of the press and that the staff of the College had no connection with the Press." 20. After this, the partners of the Press had created false and back-dated documents as if one T. Sivaraman was the owner of the press and that the staff of the College had no connection with the Press." 20. Based on the above remarks, the University wrote to the Director of Collegiate Education, with a request to take proper steps against the College management and the staff of the College, who have been responsible for the lapses in the examination and examination related work under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption was requested to take up this responsibility, since the University was not equipped with suitable hands to deal with the case professionally. A letter was also written to the Principal of the petitioner College to take disciplinary proceedings against those who owned such press which had business dealing with the college and the college authorities who have awarded contract to them, to take fool-proof measures immediately to ensure proper accountability of the stock of blank mark statements available with the college and the persons responsible for the safe custody be made fully responsible for the stock under intimation to the University. The Principal of the College was also requested to submit the details of the blank mark statement printed so far by the College from the time autonomy was granted, and the number of mark statement issued, and remit the unused blank mark statement (old pattern) to the University for safe custody in the University Examination Section. He was also required to take disciplinary action against the staff who were responsible for examination work during the period of leakage, for their lapses, under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976, and report action taken. 21. The Director of Collegiate Education expressed his inability to initiate any action on the ground that it has got only appellate power, and the Secretary of the College is the competent authority to take disciplinary action against the employees. 22. Secretary of the College was evasive in his reply. He only said that none of the members of the staff were owners or partners of Chinthamani Cchchagam in 1993 or in 1992, 1991, etc. and the Enquiry Committee's assertion that someone was a partner was not correct. Smt. Gandhimathi was a partner before she joined the College as Lecturer. 22. Secretary of the College was evasive in his reply. He only said that none of the members of the staff were owners or partners of Chinthamani Cchchagam in 1993 or in 1992, 1991, etc. and the Enquiry Committee's assertion that someone was a partner was not correct. Smt. Gandhimathi was a partner before she joined the College as Lecturer. Subsequently, she dissolved her partnership and got relief from the press. The Management of Chinthamani Achchagam had sold the press in 1994-95 and have wound up everything at the end of that year (1994-95). Now Chinthamani Achchagam does not exist in Coimbatore. After the publication in Dinamani, they have switched over to computer printing and they have installed necessary computers in the section. The computer sheets are printed in the examination section itself. The Enquiry Committee had not pinpointed any one of the above as responsible for the mark sheet availability and so the College cannot take legal action on any of them. Moreover, as they have been relieved already, the College has no right and power to proceed against them. 23. It is clear from the Vigilance Report that the Management of the press had created back-dated documents as if one Sivaraman was the owner of the Press and the staff of the College had no connection with the press. When this is the finding on enquiry, and on that basis, action is sought to be taken, the College management, for one reason or other, did not think of taking any action. The Enquiry Report also says that the Principal has got great influence with the Management, and they wanted to close the chapter for ever. In fact, an attempt was also made asking the Editor of the Tamil daily 'Dinamani' to withdraw the publication made. Such was the influence of the Management to see that the truth does not come out. Prima facie, from the Vigilance Enquiry, it is clear that the wife of the Principal and also the wife of a Lecturer were partners. Without the knowledge of the Principal or the Lecturer, the mark sheets would not have been printed in the Press. Regarding the accounting of mark sheets also, no answer has been given by the Management till date. Whether the Principal or the Lecturer Arumugam had any connection could be found out only if a full-fledged enquiry is conducted. Without the knowledge of the Principal or the Lecturer, the mark sheets would not have been printed in the Press. Regarding the accounting of mark sheets also, no answer has been given by the Management till date. Whether the Principal or the Lecturer Arumugam had any connection could be found out only if a full-fledged enquiry is conducted. On the basis of direction by the Chancellor, the University directed the Management to take necessary action. The Management did not think of proceeding with the matter. On the other hand, it has come to this Court with W.P. No. 10499 of 1996. 24. An argument was advanced by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in W.P. No. 10499 of 1996 that nobody has a case that these blank marksheets have been misused. 25. The public have come to know of the printing and distribution of the blank marksheets. Such a fraudulent attempt was checked at the earliest moment. The University is entitled to ask the Management to account for such lapses. It can also direct the Management to take steps to prevent further distribution of the blank marksheets. It also wanted the total number of mark shets printed and also the number of mark sheets issued. Those accounts can be given only by the Management. They are bound to follow such directions, and then only the standard of the Institution could be maintained. A Temple of Learning should not be converted into a place of sale of blank marksheets and Certificates. Bona fide students who come out of the College meritoriously after seriously studying the subjects, will be disappointed if marksheets are allowed to be sold. If blank marksheets are allowed to be sold, the standard of education will be affected, and the College will cease to be an Institution of learning. Therefore, the petitioner-College is bound to obey the directions of the Chancellor and implement the same. So long as the Directions are not obeyed petitioner cannot come to this Court with a complaint that the affiliation has been unjustly denied. 26. In view of my finding that the action of the University is proper, naturally, Writ Petition No. 7516 of 1998 will have to be allowed. 27. The question that arises for consideration is, what is the direction to be given, and in what way it will have to be complied with. 28. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner-College Mr. 26. In view of my finding that the action of the University is proper, naturally, Writ Petition No. 7516 of 1998 will have to be allowed. 27. The question that arises for consideration is, what is the direction to be given, and in what way it will have to be complied with. 28. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner-College Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy submitted that an enquiry commission may be set up by appointing a retired Judge to probe into the allegations, and a Report may be called for. He also further submitted that the same Commission may be directed to file a Report as to the ways and means to prevent any lapses in future. 29. I do not think that an enquiry by a retired Judge is sufficient in this case. The matter will have to be investigated thoroughly, and persons responsible for the lapses should be fastened with the liability. According to the University, it is not equipped with a suitable mechanism to deal with cases of this nature. The University itself is of the view that the matter will have to be investigated by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The lapses alleged are criminal in nature, and the machinery intended for investigating such matters should be entrusted the responsibility of finding out the truth. I feel that it is only proper, as suggested by the University, to direct the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to investigate the matter. Therefore, there will be a direction as follows :- The Registry is directed to inform the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tamil Nadu, and request him to take up the investigation in this case. The said Department will probe into the matter further and pinpoint the persons and Authorities responsible and liable for printing the marksheets, etc. at Chinthamani Achchagam. The Investigation Department will also investigate and report as to the persons responsible in the College, and if any outsider had contact with that Press regarding printing of the marksheets during the relevant time, that will also be found out. Investigation will also be made to find out whether Chinthamani Achchagam was not working at that time, and also whether any back-dated document was created to show that one Sivaraman was the owner of that Press, and if so, person responsible for creating such document should also be identified. Investigation will also be made to find out whether Chinthamani Achchagam was not working at that time, and also whether any back-dated document was created to show that one Sivaraman was the owner of that Press, and if so, person responsible for creating such document should also be identified. The Investigation agency also will find out whether the wife of the Principal or the wife of the Lecturer Arumugam still continue to have any connection with the Press. Whether the present Principal Mr. Sampath Kumar and Lecturer Mr. Arumugam are also involved in the alleged fraud will also be investigated. The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption will conduct a full-fledged enquiry, complete the same and file a Report within four months from today, before this Court, for further action. Post W.P. No. 7516 of 1998 on 1-7-1999, for further orders. 30. In view of my finding that petitioner in W.P. 10499 of 1996 is not entitled to any relief, that writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 31. Connected W. M.Ps. in W. P. No. 10499 of 1996 are also dismissed. Order accordingly.