ORDER N. Kumar, J.--The second Petitioner is a Dental College run by the first Petitioner-society. It was started in the year 1987 with an intake of 60 students. The Central Government by its letter dated 3.2.2000 at Annexure-A on the request of the second Petitioner-college increased the admission capacity from 60 to 100 with prospective effect i.e. from the academic year 2000-01 subject to the condition that the said intake is for a period of one year and will be renewed on yearly basis. Accordingly, the Government of Karnataka notified the intake of the second Petitioner-college as 100 in the seat matrix as per Annexure-B. Accordingly the students were admitted to the college through the CET and also under the management quota. For the academic year 2001-02 the Government published the seat matrix and intake of the second Petitioner-college was shown as 60 instead of 100 as per Annexure-C on the ground that Central Government has not informed the State Government about the renewal of the increased admission capacity from 60 to 100. Admissions for the academic year 2001-02 was made on the aforesaid basis and CET allotted students to the second Petitioner-college. Thereafter, the Central Government by its letter dated 21.11.2001 as per Annexure-D enhanced the intake from 60 to 100 for the academic year 2001-02 again for a period of one year. The case of the Petitioner is immediately on 22.11.2001 they wrote to the Government requesting them to include the enhanced intake of 40 seats in the seat matrix and allot the students as per Annexure-E. The said letter according to them was sent by certificate of posting on 22.11.2001 to the Secretary to the Government; Director of Medical Education; Special Officer, CET and to the Registrar of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. 2. For the academic year 2001-02 the last date for admission as fixed by the University was 31.10.2001. After counselling the CET could not fill up one seat under the Government free quota and seven seats under the payment Karnataka category in so far as second Petitioner-college was concerned. Therefore, the Government issued a notification dated 6.11.2001 fixing recounselling under Rule 18(xiv) of the Admission Rules on 15.11.2001. Reconciliation was fixed on 17.11.2001. In the meanwhile some of the non-karantaka students filed Writ Petition Nos. Therefore, the Government issued a notification dated 6.11.2001 fixing recounselling under Rule 18(xiv) of the Admission Rules on 15.11.2001. Reconciliation was fixed on 17.11.2001. In the meanwhile some of the non-karantaka students filed Writ Petition Nos. 36929 to 36937/2001 to which they did not make the second Petitioner-college a party in which a direction was issued by this Court to transfer the unutilised unclaimed Karnataka Payment Category seats to non-Karnataka Category and directed the CET to allot the same to them. In pursuance of the said order the CET sent five students to the second Petitioner fixing the last date for reporting to the Principal for them as on 13.11.2001 and 15.11.2001. The case of the Petitioner is those students instead of coming and getting admitted themselves filed Writ Petition Nos. 42728-739/2001 and Writ Petition Nos. 43277-43283/2001 against the second Petitioner-college complaining that they have not been admitted. In the meanwhile, the Director of Medical Education directed the second Petitioner-college to admit those students. Accordingly they were admitted by the college between 27.11.2001 to 18.12.2001. Accordingly, the aforesaid Writ Petitions were also allowed. One student by name Ms. Snigdha sent by CET cancelled her admission on 17.11.2001. As the CET did not include the enhanced intake of 32 seats in the seat matrix and did not send any student to the second Petitioner-college, the second Petitioner admitted 32 students under the management quota. Thus, the second Petitioner-college admitted in all 92 students for the academic year 2001-02 which is within the intake 100 prescribed by the Central Government. 3. The said list was sent for the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science for approval. The University by its letter dated 4.2.2002 approved the admission of only 50 students and the admission of Petitioners 3 to 44 was rejected on the ground that it was in excess of the management quota. Thereafter, the college wrote letter bringing to the notice of the University that the intake for academic year 2001-02 is 92 and that the 92 admissions made are within the intake, as such those admissions are to be approved. In spite of the same the University has refused to approve the admissions and therefore the Petitioners have preferred these Writ Petitions seeking quashing of Annexures-G and J and for a direction to the University to approve the admissions of Petitioners 3 to 44 and for other consequential benefits. 4. In spite of the same the University has refused to approve the admissions and therefore the Petitioners have preferred these Writ Petitions seeking quashing of Annexures-G and J and for a direction to the University to approve the admissions of Petitioners 3 to 44 and for other consequential benefits. 4. The State of Karnataka has filed its counter. It is stated that for the academic year 2001-02 State Government requested the Dental Council of India to send the list of recognised colleges and also intake capacity for issue of seat matrix for the academic year 2001-02. The Dental Council of India by its communication dated 15.4.2001 has intimated the State that the intake of second Petitioner-institution is 60 students for the academic year 2001-02 with a note that "Permission for increase of seat from 60 to 100 is not renewed by the Central Government for the academic year 2001-02" as per Annexure-R1. The Director of Medical Education by his communication dated 2.7.2001 while furnishing the status of Dental College for admission for the academic year 2000-01 has permitted the intake of 60 students to the second Petitioner-College for the academic year 2001-02 as per Annexure-R2. On the basis of the aforesaid communication in the seat matrix as per Annexure-C for the academic year 2001-02 60 students were notified for allotment. The Central Government by its communication dated 15.11.2001 requested the State Government not to include the Colleges in the seat matrix who failed to get permission or renewal in time and it was made clear that the renewal permission has to be obtained before 30th September of each year as per Annexure-R3. Accordingly, the students were allotted to the second Petitioner-College. The intake was 60 out of which 30 were free seats, 12 payment Karnataka seats, 9 payment non-Karnataka seats and 9 N.R.I. seats. However, the State Government was able to fill up only 29 free seats, 5 payment Karnataka seats and 15 non-Karnataka seats, since there was no demand the Government could not fill the remaining Government quota seats. The last date fixed for admission was 30.9.2001 and with fine 31.10.2001. 4.1. They submit for the academic year 2001-02 after the end of the casual vacancy round 79 dental seats under the payment Karnataka Category remained unallotted in various Dental Colleges as there was no takers under payment Karnataka Category. The last date fixed for admission was 30.9.2001 and with fine 31.10.2001. 4.1. They submit for the academic year 2001-02 after the end of the casual vacancy round 79 dental seats under the payment Karnataka Category remained unallotted in various Dental Colleges as there was no takers under payment Karnataka Category. Thereafter, some of the non-Karnataka students who had appeared for the CET examination and who had failed to secure the seats under payment non-Karnataka Category filed Writ Petitions before this Court seeking a direction to the CET to convert the unallotted payment Karnataka seats and allot the same to them. This Court by its Order dated 15.10.2001 allowed that Writ Petitions, directed the CET to allot the unfilled payment Karnataka Category to non-Karnataka students. Thereafter, the State Government as per Sub-clause (14) of Rule 18 of the Rules fixed the last date for admission for the academic year 2001-02 as 17.11.2001 as per Annexure-R1. It is submitted on 21.11.2001 the Central Government enhanced the intake of the second Petitioner-institution from 60 to 100, however restricted the admission to 92 students for the academic year 2001-02 after adjusting towards the excess admission made during the year 1999-2000 by the second Petitioner-College. The Petitioner without waiting for the Government response admitted the students for the academic year 2001-02 and thereafter sent the list to the Rajiv Gandhi University for its approval which has been rightly declined by the University. As against 9 NRI seats the Petitioner has admitted 43 candidates in violation of the seat matrix issued by the State Government. Therefore, the admission of the Petitioners 3 to 44 is contrary to law, hence it cannot be approved. 5. The third Respondent-University has filed its counter contending that for the academic year 2001-02 the last date for admission to BDS degree course was 15.11.2001 and last date for admission by the managements to fill up the vacancies if any was 17.11.2001 and the last date for submission of list of admissions made by the management to the Director of Education was 26.11.2001. The College has made excess admission of the Petitioners 3 to 44 on 26.11.2001, 27.11.2001 and 13.12.2001 and therefore those admissions are all illegal and cannot be approved and they have adopted the statement of objections filed by the State Government. 6. The College has made excess admission of the Petitioners 3 to 44 on 26.11.2001, 27.11.2001 and 13.12.2001 and therefore those admissions are all illegal and cannot be approved and they have adopted the statement of objections filed by the State Government. 6. The fourth Respondent-Dental Council of India has filed a memo adopting the statement of objections filed by the third Respondent. 7. Sixth Respondent-Common Entrance Test Cell has filed its statement of objections contending that Petitioners 3 to 44 are not allotted through the CET Cell. Therefore, the said admissions are not valid and legal. Therefore, they contend admissions made contrary to the Rules outsides the purview of the CET cannot be approved by the University and also they adopt the statement filed by the State. 8. This Court while entertaining the Writ Petitions on 27.6.2002 after ordering notice to the Respondents directed the Petitioners 1 and 2 not to make any admissions for the academic year 2002-03 in the management quota till the next date of hearing. By an interim Order passed on 16.8.2002 third Respondent was directed to receive the application of Petitioners 3 to 44 along with examination fee. Subsequently on 13.9.2002 by an interim Order the Respondents were directed to permit Petitioners to take the examination of I year BDS course scheduled to be held from 18.9.2002, if otherwise they are eligible and they were directed not to announce the results until further Orders. On 23.9.2002 by a further interim Order the CET Cell was directed to fill up 9 NRI seats out of an intake of 60 seats as Government free seats. Thereafter, on 30.10.2002 the Petitioner produced a copy of the Order passed by the Central Government permitting the enhancement of admission capacity from 60 to 100. 9. Sri B.L. Acharya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submitted firstly in view of the enhancement of intake from 60 to 100 for the academic year 2001-02 and after adjusting the excess admission done for the academic year 1999- 2000 when the intake was fixed at 92, the Petitioner No. 2 has admittedly admitted 92 students which is well within the intake and therefore the University was not justified in refusing to approve their admissions. Secondly he contended when in spite of a letter being addressed by the second Petitioner to the State Government to include the excess intake into the seat matrix and allot the students accordingly when they failed to do so as the last date fixed for submission of list of management quota of seats was 26.11.2001 the second Petitioner was fully justified in admitting 32 students under the management quota in view of Rule 18(xiv) of the Admission Rules, as such those admissions are legal and valid. Thirdly, he contended out of the 42 students the admissions which is not approved the second Petitioner was entitled to admit 9 students under NRI quota out of 60 intake for the academic year 2001-02. The University has declined to approve those admissions on the ground that the said quota is adjusted towards the excess intake of the academic year 1999-2000 forgetting that the Central Government itself after making so adjustments has allotted 32 out of 40 seats in the excess intake and therefore he submits 8 students admitted in the said category are validly admitted and their admissions have to be approved. Lastly it was contended out of 30 seats the CET allotted only 29 students without filling up one seat out of free seats and the management was entitled to admit one seat under the said category. one more student who had been admitted through CET left the College thus leaving it open to the management to admit the said students. Therefore, the aforesaid 10 students admitted in the aforesaid circumstances cannot be said to be an admission either in excess of intake or contrary to the Rules. Therefore, he submits that the letters addressed by the University refusing to approve the admissions are liable to be quashed and a direction is to be issued to the University to approve those admissions. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents contend the Central Government has enhanced the intake from 60 to 100 on 21.11.2001. The Petitioners 1 and 2 claim that on 22.11.2001 they have addressed a letter to the authorities requesting them to include it in the seat matrix and allot the seats. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents contend the Central Government has enhanced the intake from 60 to 100 on 21.11.2001. The Petitioners 1 and 2 claim that on 22.11.2001 they have addressed a letter to the authorities requesting them to include it in the seat matrix and allot the seats. 23rd of November is a Friday, 24th a Saturday and 25th Sunday and by Monday the Petitioners had admitted all the 32 seats out of the enhanced intake and therefore their contention that Government did not allot those seats and accordingly they fell to the share of the management is totally erroneous. They contend unless those 32 enhanced seats are brought within the purview of the seat matrix and only thereafter if the Government fails to allot seats before the last date fixed for admission and after reconciliation those seats would fall to the share of the management and then only the management gets a right to admit students under the management quota. Therefore, those admissions are made totally contrary to the Rules and procedures they cannot be approved. 11. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions the points that arise for my consideration are as under: (i) Whether the admissions of Petitioners 3 to 44 made by the second Petitioner is in excess of the intake prescribed by the Central Government? (ii) Even if it is not in excess of the intake, whether those admissions are made validly in accordance with law and are liable to the approved? (iii) If those admissions are held to be not validly made what is the appropriate Order to be made in the facts and circumstances of the case? 12. Re. Point No. (i): The material on record discloses and it is also not in dispute that initially when the second Petitioner-College was commenced the intake fixed for the College was 60. On a request made by the second Petitioner for enhancement the Government of India has enhanced the intake from 60 to 100 on 3.2.2002 for the academic year 2000-01 making it very clear that the said permission is granted for a period of one year and will be renewed on yearly basis. On a request made by the second Petitioner for enhancement the Government of India has enhanced the intake from 60 to 100 on 3.2.2002 for the academic year 2000-01 making it very clear that the said permission is granted for a period of one year and will be renewed on yearly basis. Therefore, it is clear that the said enhancement of the intake from 60 to 100 is only for the academic year 2000-01 and every year the request for enhancement would be considered on its merits and only if it is so granted the second Petitioner would be entitled to the enhanced seats. On the basis of the aforesaid enhancement the Government of Karnataka as per Annexure-B has issued the seat matrix for the academic year 2000-01 showing the number of seats of the second Petitioner-College as 100. For the academic year 2001-02 the Dental Council of India addressed a letter dated 15.4.2001 to the Secretary to the Government of India, a copy of which is marked to the Director of Medical Education, Bangalore, notifying that 68 seats is the intake in respect of second Petitioner-College and its request for permission to increase of seats from 60 to 100 is not renewed by the Central Government for the academic year 2001-02. On the basis of the aforesaid communication the Government of India has communicated to the Director of Medical Education that 60 is the permitted intake for the second Petitioner-college for the academic year 2001-02. Accordingly after following the aforesaid procedure in respect of the 60 seats of the second Petitioner-college one seat in the free seats category remained unfilled. Therefore, that one seat the second Petitioner-college was entitled to fill up. Similarly, one student who was admitted to the college after allotment is made through the CET Cell withdrew from the college after the reconciliation. Therefore, the second Petitioner-college was entitled to fill that seat also. Out of the 60 seats the second Petitioner was entitled to admit 9 students under NRI quota and accordingly the Petitioners have admitted 9 students under the management quota. However, on 21.11.2001 i.e. after the reconciliation which took place on 1.11.2001 40 seats were enhanced i.e. 60 to 100. Therefore, the second Petitioner-college was entitled to fill that seat also. Out of the 60 seats the second Petitioner was entitled to admit 9 students under NRI quota and accordingly the Petitioners have admitted 9 students under the management quota. However, on 21.11.2001 i.e. after the reconciliation which took place on 1.11.2001 40 seats were enhanced i.e. 60 to 100. As the second Petitioner had admitted 8 students in excess of the intake for the academic year 1999-2000 the Central Government after adjusting the said 8 seats enhanced the intake for the academic year 2001-02 only to the extent of 32 seats. Therefore, the total intake for the academic year 2001-02 is only 92. It is not in dispute that the total number of students admitted by the second Petitioner-college for the academic year 2001-02 is only 92. Thus, it cannot be said that the second Petitioner has admitted students in excess of the intake for the academic year 2001-02. 13. Re. Point No. (ii): The real controversy between the parties is regarding the mode of addition of the 32 students which was the enhanced intake for the academic year 2001-02. The case of the Petitioners is the Government of India enhanced the intake on 21.11.2001 i.e. after the date prescribed for reconciliation of seats i.e. 15.11.2001. Immediately after the enhancement on 22nd, the very next day, Petitioners 1 and 2 addressed letters to the first Respondent requesting them to include the said seats in the seat matrix and allot the seats. 22nd of November happens to be a Thursday. The said communication is said to have been sent by certificate of posting. The second Petitioner-college is at Bagalkot and the said letters were posted from Bagalkot. No explanation is forthcoming from the Petitioner-college regarding why the said communication was not sent by registered post acknowledgment due or it was sent by a fax or E-mail. 23rd November is a Friday and 24th is a Saturday and 25th a Sunday. According to the Petitioner the first Respondent ought to have taken steps to include the excess seats in the seat matrix and allot the seats and communicate the said allotment to the second Petitioner on or before 25th of November 2001. 23rd November is a Friday and 24th is a Saturday and 25th a Sunday. According to the Petitioner the first Respondent ought to have taken steps to include the excess seats in the seat matrix and allot the seats and communicate the said allotment to the second Petitioner on or before 25th of November 2001. As no communication was received by them as on 26.11.2002 which was the last date fixed for the managements to send the list of students admitted by them, on 26th they have admitted all these 32 students and sent their list for approval. Therefore, they contend by virtue of Rule 18(xiv) as the State Government did not allot those seats the college has a right to fill up those seats and accordingly those seats have been filled up by the college. The said admissions are valid and the University is bound to approve the said seats. 14. In Order to appreciate the aforesaid contention it is necessary to look into the scheme framed by the Government of Karnataka for admission to the professional courses. The Government of Karnataka has framed the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") for the selection of candidates for admission to engineering institutions as well as medical and dental institutions. The said Rules do not apply to the candidates (including foreign candidates) sponsored by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development. Rule 1 deals with title, commencement and applications of the said Rules whereas Rule 2 contains the definitions. Rule 3 provides for academic eligibility and Rule 4 sharing of free and payment seats. Rule 5 provides for Karnataka and non-Karnataka quota and Rule 6 provides for allocation of payment seats falling to the share of the State Government. Rule 7 deals with eligibility for Karnataka quota seats and Rule 8 eligibility for Non-Karnataka quota seats. Rule 9 provides for determination of merit, Rule 10 provides the procedure for calling of application for entrance test, etc., and Rule 11 deals with conduct of entrance test. Rule 12 deals with preparation and publication of general merit list. Rule 13 deals with publication of seat matrix and admission schedule which is the relevant Rule for the purpose of deciding the case on hand. Rule 12 deals with preparation and publication of general merit list. Rule 13 deals with publication of seat matrix and admission schedule which is the relevant Rule for the purpose of deciding the case on hand. According to Rule 13 the Government shall notify the provisional seat matrix not later than one week from the date of declaration of merit list by the Entrance Test Committee and call for objections. Sub-rule (b) of Rule 13 states that any increase in intake or introduction of new courses in any institution after the notification of the seat matrix for the relevant year shall not be taken into account for the purpose of admission under these Rules. The Special Officer shall display conspicuously at the admission Centre full and comprehensive details regarding the seats being filled through the entrance test against free seats and payment seats in the various institutions and the courses referred to in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 and each day a specified number of candidates shall be called by the Special Officer based on interse merit and reservation. The candidates shall be allowed to exercise the option and select a seat of their choice strictly in the order of their merit in two stages, viz., (i) preliminary round and (ii) admission round. Soon after the completion of admission round the Special Officer shall publish in the premises of CET Cell a list containing details of all the casual vacancies that arise till the date of publication of such a list. A notification shall be published in at least two newspapers with wide publication in the State announcing the publication of such a list. After the last date fixed for the candidates to join the institutions which they are admitted the Principal of the respective institutions shall send the list of candidates who have joined to the Special Officer within one week therefrom. After the closing date for admission as fixed by the Government is over a reconciliation meeting regarding the number of unfilled and unallotted seats shall be held between the CET Cell, the Directorate of Technical Education, Directorate of Medical Education and the respective colleges and after identifying the vacant seats issue notification regarding such seats by the concerned Directors. Such seats shall be filled by the colleges. 15. Such seats shall be filled by the colleges. 15. In the back ground of the aforesaid procedure as the case of the Petitioners is wholly based on Sub-rule (xiv) of Rule 18 the same requires consideration. The said rule reads as under: After the closing date for admission as fixed by the Government is over a reconciliation meeting regarding the number of unfilled and unallotted seats shall be held between the CET Cell, the Directorate of Technical Education, Directorate of Medical Education and the Respective Colleges and after identifying the vacant seats, issue notification regarding such seats by the concerned Directors. Such seats shall be filled by the colleges. 16. A bare perusal of the aforesaid rule makes it clear that before the management could claim any right under the said sub-rule the seat in respect of which such a right is claimed should have been made available to the government for allotting a seat. In other words the said sub-rule applies only to a seat which is included in the seat matrix. After such a seat is being included in the seat matrix the same should be available to the government for being offered as a free seat or as a payment seat. It is thereafter, after the preliminary round, admission round and the casual vacancy round and the closure of date of admission a reconciliation meeting is held regarding the number of unfilled and unallotted seats and after identifying the vacant seats issue notification regarding such seats by the concerned Directors. Such seats shall be filled by the colleges. If the Petitioners were to claim any right under the aforesaid sub-rule the enhanced 32 seats should have been notified in the seat matrix, only after the aforesaid procedure and if those seats had remained vacant and after issue of such notification regarding such seats by the concerned Directors, the management would get their right to fill up those seats. If those seats were never included in the seat matrix, Sub-rule (xiv) of Rule 18 would not come into operation at all. Therefore, under the said sub-rule the management would not get any right to admit students under the management quota. 17. If those seats were never included in the seat matrix, Sub-rule (xiv) of Rule 18 would not come into operation at all. Therefore, under the said sub-rule the management would not get any right to admit students under the management quota. 17. In spite of a request by the college to include these enhanced seats in the seat matrix if the seats are not included in the seat matrix, the remedy open to the college is to compel the authorities to include the excess intake in the seat matrix and then compel them to allot the seats according to the rules and only if after following the said procedure if the seats are unfilled the management gets a right to fill up those seats. Merely by addressing a letter to the authorities requesting them to include it in the seat matrix and on their failure to do so would not confer any right on the college to admit the students directly under the management quota. Any admissions made de hors these procedures and Rules prescribed is an illegal and invalid admission. 18. In the instant case admittedly 32 seats which were enhanced were not included in the seat matrix. College did not take appropriate steps or compel the authorities to include those seats in the seat matrix. On the contrary they have admitted these 32 students directly de hors the aforesaid admission procedure which is totally illegal and impermissible. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the 32 students who are admitted by the second Petitioner-College representing the increased intake for the year 2001-02 is illegal, invalid and therefore the University was fully justified in not approving those illegal admissions. 19. Re. Point No. (iii): Though the management was wrong in admitting the 32 students after the enhancement of intake, without bringing the said seats within the ambit of seat matrix, the conduct of the Central Government has also contributed considerably to this unfortunate state of affairs. The Central Government which is empowered to fix the intake and enhance the intake should take a decision in this regard well before the process of allotment of seats begins. The Central Government is fully aware of the commencement of the academic year and the end of the said academic year. The Central Government which is empowered to fix the intake and enhance the intake should take a decision in this regard well before the process of allotment of seats begins. The Central Government is fully aware of the commencement of the academic year and the end of the said academic year. It is also fully aware of the procedures adopted by each State prescribing the mode of admission to these professional Colleges. In fact they inform the concerned Government and the authorities which are empowered to select the students for these professional courses the intake of each recognized institution to enable them to include it in the seat matrix. They are fully aware of the time table and the schedule prescribed by those authorities. They are bound to take a decision even regarding enhancement of intake for any academic year and communicate that decision to these authorities well in time so that those seats are included in the seat matrix. In the instant case after the last date fixed for admission to BDS course was 15.11.2001 it is on 21.11.2001 they have increased the intake from 60 to 100. This conduct of the Central Governments only shows lack of application of mind on their part and also the lethargy and callousness exhibited by them in taking decisions regarding increasing the intake of students. If only the decision regarding excess intake had been taken by them before the last date fixed for admission for the academic year and communicated it to the authorities, the authorities would have included the said intake in the seat matrix and allotted the seats accordingly. Therefore, at least hereafter it is made clear if the Central Government wants to enhance the intake of any institution for any academic year they shall do so before the notification of the seat matrix for the relevant year so that the College, the authorities and the students would not be put to any inconvenience or disadvantage. Therefore, at least hereafter it is made clear if the Central Government wants to enhance the intake of any institution for any academic year they shall do so before the notification of the seat matrix for the relevant year so that the College, the authorities and the students would not be put to any inconvenience or disadvantage. Though Sub-rule (b) of Rule 13 states that any increase in intake or introduction of any courses in any institution after the notification of the seat matrix for the relevant year shall not be taken into account for the purpose of admission under these Rules, the said Rule cannot have any overriding effect on the part of the Central Government exercising its power in increasing the intake but for the very same reasons the Central Government should exercise the said power to increase the intake before the notification of the seat matrix for the relevant year. It shall not enhance the intake after the notification of seat matrix for the relevant year is issued. In the instant case it is because of the exercise of this power by the Central Government without any responsibility the management could take advantage of such enhancement and even before the authorities could act on the communication sent, the College has filled up the seats. Absolutely this conduct of the College lacks bona fides. But nonetheless the students who are admitted by the College in the management quota cannot be penalised. By this process the management was able to collect capitation fee from such students. Though this Court could consider the case of these students sympathetically, the benefit given to such students cannot be allowed to be capitalised by the College and make fortune out of it. In the process meritorious students were deprived of seats in the free seat category nearly to the extent of 20 students for the academic year 2001-02. However, it cannot be lost sight of that in the aforesaid academic year out of the 30 seats earmarked for free seats the CET Cell was able to fill up only 29 seats and one seat thus fell to the share of the management. The statement of objections filed by the Respondents also make it clear in all 79 seats remained unfilled through CET and the same had to be transferred to the non-Karnataka category. The statement of objections filed by the Respondents also make it clear in all 79 seats remained unfilled through CET and the same had to be transferred to the non-Karnataka category. Even for the academic year 2002-03 again the Central Government has not been prompt in increasing the intake well in time. Whatever may be the reasons for such delay in increasing the intake the same cannot be countenanced. Virtually it has been the practice of the Central Government to increase the intake after the notification of the seat matrix is announced and sometimes even after the last date fixed for admission. This year the Petitioner-College has been given an additional intake of 40 seats by the Government Order dated 30.10.2002. However, this year though the notification of the seat matrix has been already announced, admissions are not yet complete. 20. Under these circumstances, as one time settlement and in order to avoid any inconvenience and hardship or injustice to the Petitioners 3 to 44, I direct that 9 seats out of 60 seats which are included in the seat matrix as management seats for the academic year 2002-03 shall be filled up for the academic year 2002-03 as free seats. Out of the six seats out of the enhanced intake of 40 seats which again belongs to the management also shall be filled up for the academic year 2002-03 as free seats. 8 seats out of the enhanced intake of 40 seats to be filled under the Karnataka payment seats shall also be filled up under free seats for the academic year 2002-03. Thus, out of the 32 seats which are admitted contrary to the Rules for the academic year 2001-02 these 23 seats get adjusted leaving a balance of another 9 seats. The 9 seats belonging to the management for the academic year 2003-04 shall be surrendered to the Government to the allotted as free seats and to that effect the College shall file an affidavit. If the College is agreeable for the aforesaid proposal then the University shall approve the admissions of 32 students who are admitted by the College in contravention of the Rules. 21. However, the University has not approved the admissions of 42 students. The University is wrong in this regard. If the College is agreeable for the aforesaid proposal then the University shall approve the admissions of 32 students who are admitted by the College in contravention of the Rules. 21. However, the University has not approved the admissions of 42 students. The University is wrong in this regard. Though the College has admitted 8 students in excess of the management seats for the academic year 1999-2000 the Central Government while enhancing the seats from 60 to 100 they gave only 32 seats to the management for the academic year 2001-02 adjusting 8 seats out of 40 seats towards such an excess intake. Therefore, again the University cannot contend because of such excess intake the admission of 8 students for the academic year 2001-02 cannot be approved. Similarly, the University has not taken note of the fact that one out of 30 free seats was not filled up by the CET and as per the reconciliation statement as the said one seat was not filled up, the said seat fell to the share of the management and when the management admits one seat against that seat it cannot be said to be excessive admission. Similarly, one student after getting admitted abandoned the course and in that place the management has admitted one student which they are legally entitled to, therefore 8 + 2 10 admission made in this regard cannot be said to be excessive. It is 32 admissions which are illegal. Hence, I pass the following Order: 22. The Writ Petitions are allowed. The communication sent by the R.G.U.H.S as per Annexure-G dated 4.2.2002 and Annexure-J dated 13.2.2002 are hereby quashed subject to the following conditions: (a) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall surrender nine management seats out of sixty seats which are included in the seat matrix for the academic year 2002-03 for being filled up as free seats. (b) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall surrender six management seats out of the forty seats which are enhanced for the academic year 2002-03 for being allotted as free seats by the Government for the academic year 2002-03. (c) Eight seats out of the enhanced intake of forty seats to be filled by Karnataka Payment seats shall be filled as free seats for the academic year 2002-03. (c) Eight seats out of the enhanced intake of forty seats to be filled by Karnataka Payment seats shall be filled as free seats for the academic year 2002-03. (d) The first Petitioner shall file an affidavit undertaking to surrender the remaining nine seats out of the management seats for the academic year 2003-04 to the filled by the CET Cell as free seats for the academic year 2003-04. 23. If the aforesaid conditions (a), (b), (c) and (d) are fulfilled, then the University shall approve the admissions of Petitioners 3 to 44 for the academic year 2001-02 and thereafter announce the results. In the event of the Petitioners 1 and 2 not complying with the aforesaid conditions, the excess admissions made in management quota shall stand cancelled and they shall be discharged from their respective co.