Judgment :- The petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in G.O.1(D) No.107, Higher Education Department, dated 24.7.2002 to quash the same and to direct the respondents to pass necessary orders to enable the petitioner to run the self-financing Arts and Science College in the name and style of sri Balamaurugan College of Arts and Science, Salem Main Road, Sathappadi, via, Mecheri, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 2. The petitioner is a Trust registered under the Provisions of the Trust Act, established for the purpose of running unaided Private Arts and Science College. According to the petitioner, Mettur Taluk is located in the most backward part of Salem District. There are many High Schools in the area. But within the radius of 35 kilometers from the proposed College, there is not even a single Arts and Science College. The nearest College is only in Salem City which is 35 kilometers away. 3. In order to fulfill the said requirement in the District, the petitioner acquired the land and took necessary steps for providing the infrastructural facilities by spending huge amount. The petitioner had already made all the required arrangements in a permanent site to open the College during the academic year 2001-2002. An application was submitted to the second respondent on 22.2.2001 and the petitioner also made a cash deposit of Rs.20 lakhs in the joint names of the Trust and Director of Collegiate Education. The petitioner having fulfilled all the requirements prescribed by the State Government under G.O.Ms.No.858, Education, dated 15.7.1989 and enclosed copies of all the necessary documents and other materials. The Inspection Committee was constituted by the second respondent and the petitioner also paid the Inspection Fee of Rs.15,000/-. The local inspection was made on 2.3.2001. Though the Committee had expressed its satisfaction, recommending permission to establish the College during the academic year 2001-2002. By notification dated 14.9.2001, the petitioner was informed about the constitution of the second Inspection Committee to verify the availability of various infrastructural facilities. The second Inspection Committee was also satisfied about the availability of the infrastructural facilities and by the time, the petitioner had spent more than Rs.1.25 crores for fulfilling all the requirements. The major part of the said amount consist of funds borrowed from various financial institutions. 4. The second Inspection Committee was also satisfied about the availability of the infrastructural facilities and by the time, the petitioner had spent more than Rs.1.25 crores for fulfilling all the requirements. The major part of the said amount consist of funds borrowed from various financial institutions. 4. As no orders were passed by the first respondent, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.18947 of 2001. By order dated 10.10.2001, this Court directed the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner on merits. As the said orders were not complied with, the petitioner had to file Contempt Application No.728 of 2001 and D.MURUGESAN, J., directed the Government Pleader to take notice and the matter stood adjourned to 7.12.2001. On 7.12.2001, a copy of the order dated 7.12.2001 was produced stating that the directions of this Court had been complied with. 5. As the order dated 7.12.2001 was adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24711 of 2001. By order dated 30.4.2002, while disposing of batch of writ petitions, the writ petitions were ordered rejecting the reasons cited by the respondents, holding the same to be untenable. The impugned order dated 7.12.2001 was quashed. The first respondent was directed to pass fresh orders within a period of four weeks. Again as the respondents did not pass any orders within the stipulated time, the petitioner had to file the Contempt Application No.419 of 2002. When the Contempt Application was taken up after notice, the Government Pleader produced another order dated 24.7.2002, representing that the orders of this Court had been complied with. With the result, the Contempt Application was closed with liberty to challenge the said order dated 24.7.2002. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition as against the said order contending that the orders suffers from total non-application of mind and also due to vagueness. Hence the above writ petition. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the reasons stated in the impugned order were totally unsustainable in view of the findings rendered by this Court earlier in the batch of cases and in W.P.No.24711 of 2001 filed by the writ petitioner dated 30.4.2002. The only ground on which the application of the petitioner had been rejected was on the question of adequacy for accommodating Arts and Science Colleges in Salem District. The only ground on which the application of the petitioner had been rejected was on the question of adequacy for accommodating Arts and Science Colleges in Salem District. Learned Senior Counsel states that the issue was already decided by P.SATHASIVAM, J., in the judgment dated 30.4.2002 and therefore, it was improper on the part of the respondents to have cited the reason of adequacy for rejecting the petitioner's application. 7. On behalf of the respondents, I have also heard the learned Advocate General. 8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the only ground on which the application of the petitioner is rejected is on the ground that there was no need for any more Colleges in Salem District in view of the statistics furnished in the impugned order. The impugned order states that in Tamil Nadu there are 440 Colleges out of which 247 are self-financing Arts and Science Colleges. It is further stated that the situation has reached the saturation point and therefore the Government have reviewed the intake of the students of self-financing Arts and Science Colleges. It was also found that about 50% of the seats were lying vacant. There were also number of unemployed graduates holding degrees in Arts and Science. It is further stated that in Salem District, out of a total sanctioned strength of 1745 seats, 656 seats were vacant during the academic year 2000-2001. 9. I am unable to sustain the impugned order for the simple reason that the question of adequacy for accommodating the petitioner's College is Salem District, was considered by P.SATHASIVAM, J., in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.24711 of 2001. After considering the mutual contentions in the context of the application of the petitioner-institution, in paragraph-8 of the judgment, the learned Judge has recorded a specific finding that the respondents had committed an error in holding that there was no need for opening a self-financing College in Sathappadi Village, Mettur Taluk. The said conclusion by the learned Judge was reached after considering the entire records inclusive of the data relating to the position prevailing in Mettur Taluk and also the report of the expert committee constituted by the respondents. The learned Judge has also recorded a finding that within a radius of 35 kilometers from the proposed College, there was not even a single Arts and Science College in and around Mettur Taluk. The learned Judge has also recorded a finding that within a radius of 35 kilometers from the proposed College, there was not even a single Arts and Science College in and around Mettur Taluk. 10. In the above background, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order could be sustained. In view of the categoric finding rendered by the learned single Judge, I find it impossible to appreciate that not less than the Official of the rank of Secretary to Government should have passed the impugned order which amounts to deliberately ignoring the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. If the Government was in any manner not satisfied with the finding and the observations of the learned Judge, ought to have filed an appeal against the said order. Not having filed an appeal, the respondents are duty bound to comply with the directions of the learned Judge. On the other hand, the first respondent has chosen to pass the impugned order which is totally contradictory to the specific findings rendered by the learned Judge. This attitude on the part of the first respondent is highly improper. The impugned order in fact amounts to clear Contempt of Court as it results in deliberate obstruction to the course justice and violation of the orders of the Court. 11. The facts stated above would also disclose that in spite of the petitioner having succeeded on two earlier occasions, the petitioner-institution has been driven to the Court for the third time. Even on the two earlier occasions, the petitioner had to approach this Court, by filing contempt applications, as a result of non-implementation of the directions of this Court. It is rather unfortunate that the first respondent should be consistently sticking to an attitude to deliberately disregard the orders of this Court which forces this Court to take serious note of the unconstitutional behaviour of the respondents. For the same reason, though this Court will not usually issue positive directions when it involves the authority being vested with the power or discretion to pass any order, the facts and circumstances of this case warrant issuing positive directions as a result of the deliberate illegal exercise of the discretion, vide, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Comptroller and A.G. Of India vs. K.S.Jagannathan ( AIR 1987 SC 537 ). 12. 12. With the result, I am unable to sustain the impugned order. The writ petition is ordered as prayed with costs and the respondents are directed to pass necessary consequential orders granting permission as sought for by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected WPMPs 56964 and 56965 of 2002 are closed.