Judgment :- The petitioner College has sought for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent University of Madras dated 20.12.2004, to quash the same and to direct the University to approve M.Sc. (Mathematics) and M.Com. (Evening College). 2. The petitioner College had obtained affiliation from the respondent University to conduct Post Graduate courses in the aforesaid two subjects. It is admitted by the petitioner College that the courses were being run only upto the beginning of the Academic Year 1998-1999 and the said courses were not conducted from 1998-1999 to 2003-2004. However, for the Academic Year 2004-2005, students were admitted for the said two Post Graduate courses. It is also not in dispute that when the courses were suspended from the Academic Year 1998-1999, the University was not informed about the suspension of the courses, nor was the University informed about the admission of the students for the Academic Year 2004-2005. 3. The above-stated facts are not in dispute. It is only on 24.8.2004, after admitting the students, the college sought permission to revive the courses from the Academic Year 2004-2005. The University sought for certain particulars including as to when the courses were suspended. By their letter dated 26.10.2004, the college informed that the courses were not conducted from the Academic Year 1998-1999. The University, by their impugned communication dated 20.10.2004, had informed the college that the Syndicate, in its meeting held on 8.12.2004, had resolved to reject the request of the College for revival of the lapsed degree courses without prior approval and for having admitted students for 2004-2005 without approval. Hence, the above writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the College contended that the University was adopting a hypertechnical and mechanical approach without appreciating the circumstances under which the courses came to be discontinued earlier and that for the year 2004-2005, they had intimated the University the fact of admitting the students and had requested for approval. They had also intimated the details of the number of students admitted and had also remitted the requisite fees vide receipts dated 30.8.2004 and 9.2.2005. 5. They had also intimated the details of the number of students admitted and had also remitted the requisite fees vide receipts dated 30.8.2004 and 9.2.2005. 5. Learned counsel also took me through the relevant provisions under the laws of the University and contended that even if there was any technical deficiency of not obtaining prior permission/approval, the same could be regularised by imposition of penalty which they were agreeing to comply with, as indicated by them in their letter dated 26.10.2004. There was no justification for the University not to grant permission at least by imposition of penalty. Reference was also made to the proviso to Rule 20 of Chapter XXVI of the laws of the University, granting power to the Syndicate to grant approval of courses, which had been suspended and lapsed. The College had been catering to the needs of the students belonging to the poor sections of the society at very low fees unlike other colleges and the University ought to have considered the said facts and the plight of the students. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the University very vehemently contended that the claims of the College were totally untenable and do not satisfy the requirements under Rule 20 and also not entitled to be regularised by paying any penalty. Approval on payment of penalty was permissible only in cases of admission of excess number of students and the suspension of the course being within the prescribed period of three academic years. The action of the petitioner college was also not bona fide, having regard to the fact that the College had attempted to deliberately mislead the University regarding the fact of the closure of the courses and regarding the actual period from when the courses were suspended. The University had to repeatedly call upon the college to state the actual facts and it is only in the end, the University, on its own, came to know that the period of suspension of the courses was beyond the period of three years and the college cannot invoke either Rule 20 or the provision for penalty. Learned counsel for the students who had also been impleaded as respondents, also made his submissions and raised the same contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/College. 7. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 8. Learned counsel for the students who had also been impleaded as respondents, also made his submissions and raised the same contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/College. 7. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 8. Though while hearing the arguments I had expressed that the University was adopting a mechanical approach unmindful of the fate of the students and not granting approval by applying the penalty clause, on a detailed consideration of the provisions and the communications between the parties, it appears that not only the penalty clause is not applicable, but also the conduct of the college is also not acceptable. To appreciate the said conclusion, it is relevant to peruse Rule 20 of Chapter XXV which deals with affiliation and approval of colleges. Rule 20, in particular, deals with the issue of temporary suspension of instruction in the courses or subjects and the revival of such courses: "20. Statute. Temporary suspension of Instruction in courses or subjects. It shall be open to a college to suspend after previous intimation to the Syndicate, for a total period not exceeding three academic years, instruction in any subject or course of study in which the college is affiliated or approved. At the end of the period of suspension, work any may be resumed with the previous approval of the Syndicate. If the work is not resumed at the end of the period of suspension, the affiliation or approval previously granted shall be regarded as having lapsed, provided that when in any year a college being prepared to make the usual arrangement, to give instruction in the subjects in which it has been affiliated or approved does not, for want of students, open classes in one of those subjects and it reports to the Syndicate before the 1st of August, it shall not be deemed that the college has suspended instruction in that subject; provided also that notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing proviso, it shall be competent for the Syndicate to consider the need for the continuance of affiliation or approval of the college in a subject which has not been taught for three consecutive years. Instruction in any subject shall not preclude the Syndicate from granting affiliation or approval in the same subject to any other college in the same locality. " 9. Instruction in any subject shall not preclude the Syndicate from granting affiliation or approval in the same subject to any other college in the same locality. " 9. The said Rule contemplates firstly, suspension of courses after previous intimation to the Syndicate. Secondly, revival of such suspended course is made possible if revival is sought for within a total period not exceeding three academic years from the date of closure. Thirdly, beyond the said period, the course shall be regarded as lapsed. Fourthly, within the said period of three years, the course can be revived with the prior approval of the Syndicate. 10. The stand of the University that there was no intimation of the closure of the courses is not controverted by the College. It is admitted by the College that the courses were discontinued even from the Academic Year 1998-1999. Hence, it follows that the revival sought for from 2004-2005 was beyond the period of three academic years. 11. In the background of the above facts, it follows that not only Rule 20 cannot apply, but also there are violations of the said Rule, namely, the college not intimating the closure and the starting of the courses and admitting of students for 2004-2005 without the previous approval of the Syndicate. The fact of intimating the University of the admission of the students without prior approval cannot cure the inherent defect in the actions of the college. Likewise, the fact of payment of fees to the University after improper admission cannot also clothe the college with any justification for its conduct. The University have several Wings/Departments of administration and any payment made before the Revenue Wing of the University is automatically accepted without going into the issue as to whether such payment was warranted or not. Receiving such payment cannot therefore regularise any illegality, much less result in any estoppel against the University. 12. The series of facts disclose that the college itself was fully aware of the defects in their attempt to revive the courses after the prescribed period of three years. Apart from the fact that there has been no prior intimation of the closure of the courses in 1997-1998, even in their first letter dated 24.8.2004 seeking permission for the revival of the courses, the college does not state the date from which the courses were suspended. Apart from the fact that there has been no prior intimation of the closure of the courses in 1997-1998, even in their first letter dated 24.8.2004 seeking permission for the revival of the courses, the college does not state the date from which the courses were suspended. Then, even after the University sought for certain details in their letter dated 15.9.2004, the college, by their letter, have merely stated that no student had been admitted in the courses for the Academic Years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. Even then, the college does not state the actual date from which the courses were suspended. Thereafter, the University, on its own source of information, finding that the courses were not conducted from the Academic Year 1998-1999, informs the college by their letter dated 19.9.2004 that the college is not entitled to revive the courses. It is only after receiving the said communication, the college condescends to admit the position that the courses were discontinued from 1998-1999 and would request for approval by the payment of penal fee of Rs.15,000/- for each student. Therefore, I am unable to find any error in the stand of the University, that Rule 20 cannot be applied to this case, which is a case of courses which had lapsed. 13. The provision for approval of the courses by requiring payment of penal fee is also not applicable to the facts of this case. Clause IV of the procedure relating to affiliation, as reflected in the University's letter dated 7.6.2004, is as follows: "[iv] Penal fee to be paid for excess admissions, if done (a) Penal fee for UG course – Rs.5000/- per candidate Penal fee for PG course – Rs.15,000/- per candidate (b) Penal fee of Rs.15,000/- will also be collected from the college which are starting the course[s] without getting the prior approval from the University before the revival of the course[s] for which they have permitted to suspended the particular course[s] in the previous year. The penal fee should be borne only by the Management of the College and not to be collected from the students under any circumstance. " 14. It is very clear from the above extract that penal fee is contemplated only for "excess admissions". Clause (b) relates only to admissions having been made without prior approval for which the College had been permitted to suspend the courses during the previous year. " 14. It is very clear from the above extract that penal fee is contemplated only for "excess admissions". Clause (b) relates only to admissions having been made without prior approval for which the College had been permitted to suspend the courses during the previous year. Clause (b) cannot also apply to the case of the petitioner, as it relates only to cases where the suspension was during the previous academic year and also where the suspension had been permitted by the University. Both conditions are not satisfied in this case. It is therefore very clear that the penalty clause cannot be invoked in the case of lapsed courses (beyond three years) and also where the suspension had not been specifically sought for and not permitted by the University. 15. Therefore, viewed from any angle, I am unable to find any error in the approach adopted by the University. However, there appears to be one particular aspect which the University does not appear to have taken into account. The last proviso to Rule 20 gives power to the Syndicate to consider the request for affiliation/approval of the course which has not been taught for three consecutive years, notwithstanding the other requirements under the said Rule. The non-obstante clause incorporated under the said proviso vests power in the Syndicate to ignore the defects in the request of the College and non-compliance of the requirements under the Rule and it is held that the Syndicate was competent to consider the need for the continuance of the affiliation. The impugned order, apart from merely stating that the request of the College was not acceptable, does not indicate the Syndicate having applied its mind with reference to the contentions raised by the petitioner College in the light of the discretion vested in the Syndicate under the last proviso. The request of the petitioner college that they had admitted students only from poor and down-trodden sections of the society for a low tuition fee does not appear to have been specifically considered by the Syndicate. It is true that the fact that the college had admitted such students cannot be a justification for the college not having complied with the statutory requirements under Rule 20. It is true that the fact that the college had admitted such students cannot be a justification for the college not having complied with the statutory requirements under Rule 20. But Syndicate may also bear in mind that the future of the students may not be jeopardised as a result of the indiscreet action of the college, which is beyond the knowledge of the students. The Syndicate may consider imposition of penal conditions against the College or even more stringent penal payments than as contemplated under Clause IV as extracted above. This, however, is purely a matter of discretion of the Syndicate to take appropriate decision, but it has to apply its mind to the facts of the case in the light of the last proviso to the rule. 16. In the background of the above discussion, I am inclined to pass the following order: Though on the interpretation of Rule 20 I do not find any error or irregularity in the impugned order, the University appears to have passed the impugned order without being aware of the discretion vested in the Syndicate in the last proviso to Rule 20 of Chapter XXVI of the laws of the University. The Syndicate is, therefore, directed to bear in mind the entire facts as pleaded by the college, the plight of the students and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It would be open to the petitioner institution as well as the students to produce any further material available with them for sympathetic consideration. The writ petition is disposed of subject to the above observations. W.P.M.P.No.4269 of 2005 is closed.