JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ.—This is a reference made to us by a Division Bench. I have had the advantage of discussing the matter with both my Hon’ble brothers and we are agreed substantially, as to the manner in which the referred question is to be answered, and also the basic reasons for answering it in that particular way. 2. In the briefest manner possible, I deliver my opinion with, however, this warning that if details of facts and further legal exposition are required, then those will be found in the other judgment. 3. The Akhtar Rizvi College seeks affiliation with the Purvanchal University. 4. Under the order of the Chancellor, passed under Section 37 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, it has been affiliated to the Kanpur University. 5. The College is dissatisfied. It says Purvanchal University is much nearer by way of distance from the College than Kanpur. Besides, it has been affiliated to Purvanchal University from 1.7.1999. Before that, the State Government had even granted a no objection to such affiliation on 23.6.1998. On 2.11.2000, the State Government published the First Statute of the Purvanchal University under Section 50 of the Act, which was its first State Charter. Even there, the Rizvi College is mentioned as item No. 201 in the list of affiliated Colleges. The College has made deposits of Rs. 28 lac on various accounts with the Purvanchal University already, though the sum is transferable to Kanpur, should the occasion so arise. 6. Purvanchal University has facilities for a five year law course, Kanpur has not; the College has the Bar Council of India’s approval for the course, dated 29.7.2004. 7. The main obstacle of the College is Section 5 of the Act. It says that the power of each University “shall be exercisable in respect of the area” mentioned in the Schedule of the Act, allotting different districts to the twelve Universities of U.P. 8. The area of the College was never in the scheduled area of the Purvanchal University. Thus the Division Bench sent us a question, which is, in effect, as follows : Question:—If a College is wrongly affiliated to a University not coming within its area, can the College hold on to such affiliation in law? 9. Clearly, no estoppel can be had against the Statute. 10. Thus the Division Bench sent us a question, which is, in effect, as follows : Question:—If a College is wrongly affiliated to a University not coming within its area, can the College hold on to such affiliation in law? 9. Clearly, no estoppel can be had against the Statute. 10. The Division Bench perhaps assumes that the College is within the scheduled area of the Kanpur University. Although we opine so, this is not manifestly apparent. 11. The College is now in district Kaushambi. So long as the Kaushambi area was in the district of Allahabad, the Kanpur University definitely had territorial jurisdiction, as the Allahabad district is allotted to the Kanpur University. But Kaushambi was carved out of Allahabad by a State notification dated 4.4.1997. Incidentally, the Allahabad University has jurisdiction only within 16 km. of its convocation hall, and this small area is outside the Kanpur University’s jurisdiction. 12. The Schedule to the 1973 Act was not amended after the creation of the Kaushambi district. It mentions the Kaushambi district nowhere; there have arisen several such legislative omissions, like Ghaziabad, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Mau, Sonbhadra and Chandauli, consequent upon the carving out of new districts from big old ones. 13. Under Section 37, his Excellency the Governor, who is the ex-officio Chancellor, can grant sanction for admission of “any College” to the rights of affiliation to a University. 14. The question arises, does ‘any’ mean any College anywhere in Uttar Pradesh? If so, the Rizvi College can go to Purvanchal University. 15. Again, Section 5 is only operative “Save as otherwise provided by, or under” the Act. Therefore, the Chancellor’s power to affiliate any College to any University seems to override Section 5. 16. In the Schedule, Kanpur University has the Allahabad district, but the Allahabad district is ordinarily to be read in the Schedule as meaning the new Allahabad area. This is the result of Sections 8(1) and 20 (2) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. New notifications are ordinarily to be read automatically into old Acts, without the necessity of amendment of every portion of every existing Act affected thereby. 17. So, Kaushambi being a district in no University’s land, surely the Chancellor has power to admit it to Purvanchal; if the Chancellor passed the order of disaffiliation without being aware of this legal situation, his Excellency should be asked to reconsider the matter. 18. 17. So, Kaushambi being a district in no University’s land, surely the Chancellor has power to admit it to Purvanchal; if the Chancellor passed the order of disaffiliation without being aware of this legal situation, his Excellency should be asked to reconsider the matter. 18. These arguments are specious, i.e., only superficially acceptable. 19. If the Chancellor can admit any College anywhere and Section 37 overrides Section 5, then the entire spatial distribution made as a basic scheme in the 1973 Act will lose all purpose and effect. No Act can be construed like this, and made wholly inoperative. 20. On the other hand, the opening words of Section 5, i.e., the Section operates ‘Save as otherwise provided...’, will not lose meaning even if the scheduled areas are strictly observed, since, say, under sub-sections 5 (4), (5) and (6), Ayurvedic, homeopathic, engineering or management colleges can be affiliated to Universities for other districts, and in such cases the concerned Universities can exercise power exceptionally. 21. Construing the Allahabad district as the new Allahabad area in the Schedule, would create this problem, that inter alia Kaushambi would be in no University’s land. Therefore, Allahabad should be construed as meaning the old district of Allahabad, so that certainty is introduced by construction and interpretation. 22. Section 8 of the U.P. General Clauses Act also states, that the new meaning (or area) will be applicable in the Act, “unless a different intention appears” there, i.e., in the 1973 Act. The intention of the 1973 Act was to give an all comprehensive schedule covering the whole of Uttar Pradesh; thus even where new districts have been carved out, for the 1973 Act schedule, such carving out will be inoperative. For this Schedule, Kaushambi will continue to belong to Allahabad, Mau to Azamgarh, Sonbhadra to Mirzapur and Chandauli to Varanasi, to give only a few examples. The references in the Schedule to areas now in Uttranchal, are references without any effect or operation. 23. The Schedule, however, does indeed need up-to-dating urgently. 24. As such, the answer to the referred question is in the negative, i.e., even if the College is not in the new district of Allahabad, but only in the old one, it can be affiliated as at present only to the Kanpur University. 25. 23. The Schedule, however, does indeed need up-to-dating urgently. 24. As such, the answer to the referred question is in the negative, i.e., even if the College is not in the new district of Allahabad, but only in the old one, it can be affiliated as at present only to the Kanpur University. 25. If tomorrow the State Government should include Kaushambi specifically in the Schedule, then such specific inclusion will naturally take first precedence. Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Advocate General, Sri Neeraj Tripathi for the Chancellor, Sri Neeraj Tiwari for the Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh for Veer Bahadur Singh, Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. 27. This Full Bench has been constituted on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court vide its Referring Order, dated 2nd September, 2005. Following question has been referred to this Full Bench : “Whether (a) erroneous issue of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the State Government, or (b) affiliation erroneously granted in violation of territorial limit fixed by Schedule to the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 can form, by estoppel or on any other principle of law a ground for issue of mandamus to the State Government or to the University which has granted erroneous affiliation or to the Chancellor to continue in future to violate the territorial limit fixed by Schedule in respect of that educational institution perpetually or even temporarily ?” 28. Before we proceed to consider various submissions raised by Counsel for the parties and answer the question, brief facts necessary for appreciating the question are to be noted. 29. The writ petition in which reference has been made, has been filed by Dr. Akhtar Rizvi Educational Trust challenging the three orders passed by the Chancellor. The orders challenged in the writ petition are the order dated 4th April, 2005 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) and the orders dated 6th December, 2004 (Annexures-15 and 16 to the writ petition). 30. The petitioner is a registered educational trust which established a degree college. Akhtar Rizvi Educational Trust challenging the three orders passed by the Chancellor. The orders challenged in the writ petition are the order dated 4th April, 2005 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) and the orders dated 6th December, 2004 (Annexures-15 and 16 to the writ petition). 30. The petitioner is a registered educational trust which established a degree college. The petitioner’s trust had applied for affiliation of the above college with respect to B,.A. course in the year 1998 to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and on the recommendation of the University no objection certificate was granted by the State Government on 27th June, 1998 and the Chancellor granted affiliation for a period of three years from 1st July, 1999 to 30th June, 2002. With regard to certain other courses the affiliation was also granted by the Chancellor. The petitioner had applied for affiliation at graduation level in the Art Faculty with regard to certain other subjects and for LL.B. five year course. A writ petition was also filed by the petitioner in this Court which was disposed of by this Court on 15th March, 2005 with the observation that representation of the petitioner be considered and decided by the Chancellor. The Chancellor passed an order on 4th April, 2005 taking the view that under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) every University has a fixed area of jurisdiction in which it can affiliate the institutions; district Kaushambi, where at present the petitioner’s institution is situate, was earlier the part of district Allahabad and the said area being beyond sixteen kilometres from the Convocation Hall of the Allahabad University is within the territorial area of Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Kanpur University). The Chancellor further took the view that the affiliation for running five years course cannot be granted with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the Jaunpur University). With regard to the subjects, namely, ancient history and sociology at graduation level; The Chancellor ordered that the affiliation is allowed with the condition that the college in the next academic session, i.e., 2005-06 shall complete the formalities for affiliation with the University having jurisdiction. Again another order was passed by the Chancellor on 6th December, 2004 with regard to B.Ed. course. Again another order was passed by the Chancellor on 6th December, 2004 with regard to B.Ed. course. The Chancellor took the view that affiliation for the course had earlier been granted from a University which had no territorial jurisdiction in accordance with Section 5 of the Act, which is an error, and the affiliation is required from the University having territorial jurisdiction. A Government order dated 30th November, 2004 was referred to in the order. The Chancellor further took the view that affiliation already granted shall continue in the current academic session and for the next academic session the College shall complete all necessary formalities for affiliation from the University in whose territorial jurisdiction the college is situate. Another order of the same date, i.e., 6th December, 2004 was passed with regard to science subjects, namely, physics, chemistry, zoology, botany and mathematics, same view was taken by the Chancellor and similar order was passed. In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the aforesaid three orders and a writ of mandamus was also sought commanding the respondents not to compel the petitioner’s college to take affiliation for the session 2005-06 from Kanpur University. A further prayer is made seeking mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner’s college to remain attached with the Jaunpur University and to accord affiliation for five years LL.B. course from Jaunpur University. 31. Before the Division Bench reliance was placed by the petitioner on a Division Bench judgment dated 2nd September, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 37663 of 2004 (Rajendra Education Society and others v. Vice Chancellor, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University). The Division Bench in its judgment dated 2nd September, 2005 in Rajendra’s case (supra) set-aside the order of Chancellor dated 19th August, 2004 and requested the Chancellor to consider the case of petitioner’s institution for affiliation with Jaunpur University. The Rajendra Education Society situate at Jhunsi, Allahabad had applied for affiliation from Jaunpur University. The Rajendra Education Society in the said writ petition contended that several institutions situate in District Allahabad/Kaushambi has been granted affiliation from Jaunpur University, hence Rajendra Education Society ought to have been given similar treatment. Considering the above submission the Division Bench had set-aside the order of Chancellor and directed consideration of question of affiliation. The Rajendra Education Society in the said writ petition contended that several institutions situate in District Allahabad/Kaushambi has been granted affiliation from Jaunpur University, hence Rajendra Education Society ought to have been given similar treatment. Considering the above submission the Division Bench had set-aside the order of Chancellor and directed consideration of question of affiliation. The Division Bench hearing the present writ petition found itself unable to agree with the view taken by Division Bench in Rajendra’s case (supra) and referred the abovenoted question for consideration before this Full Bench. 32. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that college has been affiliated with Jaunpur University since the year 1999 and said affiliation being continuing for the last several years and the University having also granted affiliation in new subjects there was no occasion for refusing to grant affiliation in LL.B. five year course and in the subjects which have been prayed for. He further contended that the Chancellor on principle of estoppel cannot say at this stage that petitioner should obtain affiliation from Kanpur University. He contended that Chancellor has ample jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act to grant affiliation. According to sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act Chancellor can admit any College. He submitted that there was no infirmity in the affiliation granted by the Jaunpur University, which was granted after no objection certificate by the State Government. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that district Kaushambi was created as a new district by notification dated 4th April, 1997 and the District Kaushambi being not included in the schedule to the Act, it cannot be said that affiliation was required to be taken by the petitioner’s college from Kanpur University. Learned Counsel further submitted that schedule has become unworkable and Kaushambi being not included in the schedule, there was no error in its affiliation with Jaunpur University. He further submitted that District Kaushambi being not included in the jurisdiction of Kanpur University, the petitioner cannot be asked to obtain affiliation from Kanpur University. Learned Counsel further submitted that Section 5 of the Act, which contemplates respective area of each University read with schedule, is not mandatory and Chancellor is empowered to affiliate any college situate at anywhere with any University. Learned Counsel further submitted that Section 5 of the Act, which contemplates respective area of each University read with schedule, is not mandatory and Chancellor is empowered to affiliate any college situate at anywhere with any University. He further contended that college situate in Kaushambi is nearer to the Jaunpur University as compared to Kanpur University and it is both convenient and expedient that the affiliation be allowed to continue with Jaunpur University and in new subjects affiliation should have also been granted by the Chancellor. Learned Counsel also contended that by grant of affiliation to the petitioner college there is no violation of any provision of the Schedule or Section 5. 33. Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State, submitted that grant of affiliation to the petitioner’s institution with Jaunpur University was contrary to the scheme of the Act as contained in Section 5 read with the schedule. He referred to Section 2(2) of the Act which defines affiliated college and Section 2(3) which defines area of the University. He submitted that area of Jaunpur University read with Section 2(3) and schedule provides for only districts Azamgarh, Ballia, Ghazipur, Jaunpur, Mirzapur and Varanasi. He submitted that Kaushambi being not included in the said area, it was not in the jurisdiction of Jaunpur University to grant affiliation. The said affiliation having been granted after creation of new District Kaushambi, the same was contrary to the provisions of the Act. He contended that there being apparent error in the affiliation of petitioner’s college with Jaunpur University, no error has been committed by the Chancellor in asking the petitioner to get affiliation from Kanpur University. He further submitted that Chancellor has rightly refused to grant affiliation with regard to new courses. Elaborating his submission Sri Kazmi contended that University can grant affiliation to colleges in accordance with the territorial area as specified in Section 5 read with schedule. He submitted that petitioner cannot claim continuance of affiliation with Jaunpur University. He submitted that there cannot be any estoppel against Statute and the Chancellor was perfectly justified in asking the petitioner to obtain affiliation from Kanpur University. Sri Kazmi further submitted that district Kaushambi having been carved out from district Allahabad, the colleges situate in the territorial area of Kaushambi have to seek affiliation with Kanpur University which had jurisdiction to grant affiliation. Sri Kazmi further submitted that district Kaushambi having been carved out from district Allahabad, the colleges situate in the territorial area of Kaushambi have to seek affiliation with Kanpur University which had jurisdiction to grant affiliation. He further submitted that district Kaushambi was part of district Allahabad prior to its creation by notification dated 4.4.1997 under Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 34. Sri Neeraj Tripathi appearing for the Chancellor has adopted the arguments of Sri Kazmi and has submitted that there is no estoppel against Chancellor in directing the petitioner to obtain affiliation from the next academic session with Kanpur University. Learned Counsel appearing for the Universities have also adopted the same arguments. 35. Before we proceed to examine respective submissions made by Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to note relevant provisions of the Act and the scheme with regard to affiliation of the colleges as is contained in the Act. 36. Section 2(2) of the Act defines ‘affiliated college’. Section 2(3) of the Act provides for area of the University. Sections 2(2) and 2(3) are quoted below : “2(2) ‘affiliated college’ means an institution affiliated to the University in accordance with the provisions of this Act and Statutes of that University; 2(3) Area of the University’ means the area specified in respect of the University by or under Section 5 or Section 4, as the case may be.” 37. Section 4 provides for establishment of new Universities and alteration of the areas or names of Universities. Section 5 provides for territorial exercise of powers. Section 5(1) states that save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, the powers conferred on each University shall be exercisable in respect of the area for the time being specified against it in the Schedule. Section 5(2) provides that Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya may affiliate institutions situated in any part of the territory of India and recognize teachers of and admit to its examinations candidates from such territory or abroad. Sub-section (4) of Section 5 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the powers conferred on the Kanpur University in respect of instruction and research in the Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine and advancement and dissemination of knowledge thereof shall be exercisable throughout Uttar Pradesh. Section 5 of the Act is extracted below : “5. Sub-section (4) of Section 5 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the powers conferred on the Kanpur University in respect of instruction and research in the Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine and advancement and dissemination of knowledge thereof shall be exercisable throughout Uttar Pradesh. Section 5 of the Act is extracted below : “5. Territorial exercise of powers.—(1) Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, the powers conferred on each University (other than the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya and the Kashi Vidyapith) shall be exercisable in respect of the area for the time being specified against it in the Schedule. (2) The Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya may affiliate institutions situated in any part of the territory of India and recognize teachers of, and admit to its examinations candidates from such territory or abroad : Provided that the Vishvavidyalaya shall not— (a) affiliate an institution outside the Uttar Pradesh; or (b) recognize any teacher employed in an institution situated outside Uttar Pradesh and maintained by any government; except upon the recommendation of the Government concerned. (3) Nothing in this Act relating to affiliation or recognition of colleges shall apply to the Kashi Vidyapith; (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the powers conferred on the [ [Chhatrapati] Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur] in respect of institution and research in the Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine and advancement and dissemination of knowledge thereof shall be exercisable throughout Uttar Pradesh. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the homeopathic educational or instructional institutions throughout Uttar Pradesh may be affiliated to the [Doctor Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra or [Chhatrapati] Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur].] (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1) of Section 37, the institutions established or proposed to be established for imparting education or institution in Western Medical Science as defined in the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916, engineering technology or management anywhere in Uttar Pradesh may, subject to such directions as may be issued by the State Government in this behalf, be affiliated to any University”. 38. The Schedule to the Act referred in Section 5 specify the area in which powers shall be exercised by each University. For the area of each University, the Schedule expressly mentions “Areas within which the University shall exercise jurisdiction”. 38. The Schedule to the Act referred in Section 5 specify the area in which powers shall be exercised by each University. For the area of each University, the Schedule expressly mentions “Areas within which the University shall exercise jurisdiction”. The extract of Schedule as relevant for present case is as follows : The SCHEDULE (See Section 5) Serial Name of the University Areas within which the University No. shall exercise jurisdiction 1. 2. The University of Allahabad Area within a radius of sixteen kilometres from the Convocation Hall of the University. 3. 4. 5. [Chhatrapati] Shahu Ji Districts of Allahabad, Banda, Bara Banki, Maharaj University, Kanpur] Etawah, Farrukhabad, Fatehpur, Hamirpur, (i) until the establishment of Hardoi, Jalaun, Jhansi, Kanpur, Lakhimpur the Universities of Bundelkhand Kheri, Lalitpur, Lucknow, Rae Bareli, Sitapur and Avadh and Unnao, excepting the area which lies within the limits of the Universities of Allahabad and Lucknow. (ii) upon the establishment of Districts of Allahabad, Banda, Etawah, the University of Avadh, but Farrukhabad, Fatehpur, Hamirpur, Hardoi, until the establishment of the Jalaun, Jhansi, Kanpur, Lakhimpur-Kheri, University of Bundelkhand. Lalitpur, Lucknow, Rae Bareli, Sitapur, and Unnao, excepting the area which lies within the limits of the Universities of Allahabad and Lucknow. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Vir Bahadur Singh Purvanchal Districts of Azamgarh, Ballia, Ghazipur, University, Jaunpur. Jaunpur, Mirzapur and Varanasi. 39. Section 37 of the Act contained in Chapter VII deals with affiliation and recognition. Section 37(2) provides that Executive Council may, with the previous sanction of the Chancellor, admit any college which fulfils such conditions of affiliation, as may be prescribed to the privileges of affiliation or enlarge the privileges of any college already affiliated or subject to the provisions of sub-section (8), withdraw or curtail any such privilege. Section 37(1) and 37(2), which are relevant, are quoted as below : “37. Affiliated Colleges.—(1) This section shall apply to the Universities of Agra, Gorakhpur, Kanpur and Meerut and such other Universities (not being the Universities of Lucknow and Allahabad) as the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, specify. (2) The Executive Council may, with the previous sanction of the Chancellor, admit any college which fulfils such conditions of affiliation, as may be prescribed, to the privileges of affiliation or enlarge the privileges of any college already affiliated or subject to the provisions of sub-section (8), withdraw or curtail any such privilege:” 40. (2) The Executive Council may, with the previous sanction of the Chancellor, admit any college which fulfils such conditions of affiliation, as may be prescribed, to the privileges of affiliation or enlarge the privileges of any college already affiliated or subject to the provisions of sub-section (8), withdraw or curtail any such privilege:” 40. One of the questions which has arisen in the present case is as to whether the respective Universities can affiliate colleges situate within that territorial area as specified in the schedule only or Chancellor is empowered to grant affiliation to any college to any University though not situated in the territorial area of the said University as defined in the schedule. 41. The submission which has been pressed by Counsel for the petitioner is that provisions as contained in Section 5 requiring that University shall exercise its power in respect of area for the time being specified in the schedule cannot be said to be mandatory and if the Chancellor after no objection of the State Government has granted affiliation to the college it was within his power. He submitted that the power of the Chancellor as given in Section 37 shall have overriding effect and affiliation granted by the Chancellor cannot be said to be void or without jurisdiction. 42. Providing for territorial area for each University under Section 5 and the schedule has purpose. After affiliation of the College to a University several consequences follow including conduct of examination, inspection of the college, supervision and control with regard to various matters as provided for in the Act and the Statute. The whole scheme of Section 5 read with Schedule indicates that whole of the territory of the Uttar Pradesh has been divided and allocated in the territorial area of various Universities. The arrangement of area in the schedule has been made so as to make it convenient to the University to supervise and oversee the functioning of the college. One of the guidelines which is apparent from the schedule for allocating the area is proximity and distance from the University. Generally the areas have been allocated in the jurisdiction of particular University, which are adjoining or near to the University. Section 37 of the Act is for affiliation and recognition and contains various provisions pertaining to grant of affiliation. 43. Generally the areas have been allocated in the jurisdiction of particular University, which are adjoining or near to the University. Section 37 of the Act is for affiliation and recognition and contains various provisions pertaining to grant of affiliation. 43. The submission pressed by Sri Khare is that the words “Executive Council may, with the previous sanction of the Chancellor, admit any college” contained in Section 37(2) of the Act have overriding effect over the territorial area of respective University specified in Section 5 of the Act. It is submitted that Section 5 itself contemplates overriding of territorial area in several cases and Section 37(2) is also a situation contemplated for overriding the territorial area. Section 5 begins with the words “save as otherwise provided by or under this Act” and Section 37(2) being contrary to the scheme of territorial area as specified in Section 5(2) has to be given effect to. He submits that Chancellor has granted affiliation to the petitioner’s college with Jaunpur University which power he possesses under Section 37(2) irrespective of territorial area of a University. The affiliation of the petitioner’s college was in accordance with the Act and the Chancellor is estopped from asking the petitioner’s college to get its affiliation from Kanpur University. 44. As noted above, Section 5 read with Schedule of the Act provides for specific territorial areas with regard to each University established under the Act. The words “the power conferred on each University (other than the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya and the Kashi Vidyapith) shall be exercisable in respect of the area for the time being specified against it in the schedule” indicate that each University shall exercise powers in respect of the area allocated to it. The use of word “shall” indicates that it has been mandatorily contemplated that each University should exercise its power in respect of the areas specified for it in the Schedule. The exercise of power by each University in its specified territorial area has been purposely made for achieving various objects which are not difficult to comprehend. The various Universities established under the Act are situate at particular places and have their campus. Most of the Universities are teaching Universities having various faculties. The exercise of power by each University in its specified territorial area has been purposely made for achieving various objects which are not difficult to comprehend. The various Universities established under the Act are situate at particular places and have their campus. Most of the Universities are teaching Universities having various faculties. The powers and duties of the University includes holding of the examinations, to institute and maintain halls and hostels and to recognise places of residence for students of the University, the institutes or the constituent or associated colleges affiliated and also to supervise and control the residence and to regulate the discipline of students of the University, the Institute and the constituent or affiliated or associated colleges and to make arrangements for promoting their health and to do all such acts and things incidental to the powers mentioned. Section 7 of the Act enumerate the powers and duties of the University. The State of U.P. has a very large area and the territory of the State has been divided and allocated within the territorial areas of various Universities for convenient and effective discharge of the functions of the Universities. It is always convenient for University located at one particular place to supervise and control the examinations, discipline and other allied matters in adjoining and nearby area. Section 37 of the Act deals on different subject, i.e., affiliation and recognition. Both Section 5 and Section 37 have different purpose and operate in different field. The territorial area as provided in Section 5 can be overridden in manner as indicated in Section 5 itself, i.e., “save as otherwise provided by or under this Act”. The instances when the territorial area of one University shall not be adhered to have been provided in Section 5 itself. Section 5(4) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the powers conferred on the Kanpur University in respect of institution and research in the Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine and advancement and dissemination of knowledge thereof shall be exercisable throughout Uttar Pradesh. Similar is the provision of sub-section (5) of Section 5 with regard to homoeopathic educational or instructional institutions under which Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra or Kanpur University can affiliate homoeopathic educational institutions throughout the Uttar Pradesh. Similarly sub-section (6) of Section 5 also expresses overriding effect. Similar is the provision of sub-section (5) of Section 5 with regard to homoeopathic educational or instructional institutions under which Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra or Kanpur University can affiliate homoeopathic educational institutions throughout the Uttar Pradesh. Similarly sub-section (6) of Section 5 also expresses overriding effect. Thus unless otherwise provided under the Act Section 5 has to be interpreted limiting the exercise of powers by each University in the territorial area specified in the schedule. There is nothing contrary in Section 37(2) to the exercise of powers in respect of territorial area by the University as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act. The use of words “any college” under Section 37 sub-section (2) have to mean any college in the territorial area of a particular University. Section 37(2) provides that Executive Council may with the previous sanction of the Chancellor admit any college which can only mean grant of affiliation to any college situate in the territorial area of the University. Section 7 of the Act provides for powers and duties of the University. Section 7(2) provides that University shall have power to admit any college to the privileges of affiliation. Section 7(2) of the Act is quoted below : “7. Powers and duties of the University.—The University shall have the following powers and duties, namely— (i)....... (ii) to admit any college to the privileges of affiliation or recognition or to enlarge the privileges of any college already affiliated or recognised, as the case may be, or to withdraw or curtail any such privilege and to guide and control the work of affiliated and associated colleges;” 45. Section 7(2) of the Act also uses the words “admit any college to the privileges of affiliation or recognition”. Section 7 deals with the power of University. Each University shall exercise power as given in Section 7. Under the scheme of the Act Section 7 is just immediately after Section 5. The scheme of Sections 5 and 7 of the Act has to be read together and the power of the University to affiliate any college has to be necessarily power of the University to affiliate any college situate in its territorial area as specified in Section 5, the same interpretation has to be put to the words “admit any college” occurring in Section 37(2). Sub-section (2) of Section 37 gives the power to the Executive Council to affiliate any college with the previous sanction of the Chancellor. 46. One of the firmly established rule of interpretation of the Statutes is that a Statute has to be read as a whole. Inconsistency and repugnancy in various sections of same Statute has to be avoided and all the provisions of an Act had to be harmoniously construed. Both Section 5 and Section 37 of the Act have been included for different purpose and relates to different subject matter. Neither there is any inconsistency in the said two provisions nor any such inconsistency can be read into. There is nothing in Section 37(2) which can be said to be falling within the words “save as otherwise provided” to the scheme of the territorial area under Section 5 of the Act. The rule of harmonious construction has been resorted to give effect to different provisions of an Act and to save the provisions from inconsistency and repugnancy. 47. The Apex Court considered the provisions of Section 33(2) and Section 123(8) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 in AIR 1954 SC 202 , Raj Krushna Bose v. Binod Kanungo and others. Section 33(2) of the 1951 Act provided that any person whose name is registered in the electoral roll of the constituency and who is not subject to any disqualification mentioned in Section 16 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 may subscribe as proposer or seconder whereas Section 123(8) provided that obtaining or procuring or abetting by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person with the connivance of a candidate or his agent, any assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of the candidate’s election from any person serving under the Government of India or the Government of any State other than the giving of vote by such person shall be deemed to be a corrupt practice. In the case before the Apex Court few nominations of the appellants for assembly election were proposed and seconded by Government servant. The issue was as to whether proposing and seconding of nomination by Government servant is permissible or it is a corrupt practice as defined in Section 123(8). The Apex Court interpreted both the provisions by applying the rule of harmonious construction to give effect to both the provisions. The issue was as to whether proposing and seconding of nomination by Government servant is permissible or it is a corrupt practice as defined in Section 123(8). The Apex Court interpreted both the provisions by applying the rule of harmonious construction to give effect to both the provisions. Following was laid down in Paragraph-11 : “11. Now, does Section 123(8) contain express provision to the contrary or can such provision be inferred by necessary implication? It is usual, when one section of an Act takes away what another confers, to use a ‘non obstante’ clause and say that “notwithstanding anything contained in section so and so, this or that will happen”, otherwise, if both sections are clear, there is a head on clash. It is the duty of Courts to avoid that and, whenever it is possible to do so, to construe provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonise.” 48. In another case reported in AIR 1958 SC 255 , Sri Venkataramana Devaru and others v. State of Mysore and others, while interpreting Articles 25(2)(b) and 26(b) of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court applied the rule of harmonious construction to give effect to both the provisions of the Constitution. Following was laid down in paragraph-29 : “29. The result then is that there are two provisions of equal authority, neither of them being subject to the other. The question is how the apparent conflict between them is to be resolved. The rule of construction is well settled that when there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect could be given to both. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction. Applying this rule, if the contention of the appellants is to be accepted, then Art. 25(2)(b) will become wholly nugatory in its application to denominational temples, though, as stated above, the language of that Article includes them. On the other hand, if the contention of the respondents is accepted, then full effect can be given to Art. 26(b) in all matters of religion, subject only to this that as regards one aspect of them, entry into a temple for worship, the rights declared under Art. 25(2)(b) will prevail. On the other hand, if the contention of the respondents is accepted, then full effect can be given to Art. 26(b) in all matters of religion, subject only to this that as regards one aspect of them, entry into a temple for worship, the rights declared under Art. 25(2)(b) will prevail. While, in the former case, Art. 25(2)(b) will be put wholly out of operation, in the latter, effect can be given to both that provision and Art. 26(b). We must accordingly hold that Art. 26(b) must be read subject to Art. 25(2)(b).” 49. Again the Apex Court in AIR 1987 SC 57 , University of Allahabad and others v. Amrit Chand Tripathi and others, reiterated the rule of harmonious construction to eliminate any conflict in different provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. In the aforesaid case the admission committee of the Allahabad University provided for a entrance test for admission in the degree courses. Challenge was made to the resolution of the admission committee which was accepted by the High Court. The University of Allahabad filed an appeal in the Apex Court. One of the arguments raised before the Apex Court by the respondents to the appeal was that the power of admission committee under Section 28(3) is in conflict with Sections 45, 51 and 52 of the Act. It was contended that proposal for entrance test should originate from the academic council and thereafter take form of an ordinance by executive council by providing an entrance test as provided by Sections 45, 51 and 52, hence the admission committee’s resolution was bad. It will be relevant to refer to Section 28(3) and Section 45 of the Act which were considered by the Apex Court. Both the sections are quoted below : "28. Admissions Committee—(1)............................ (2) ................................... (3) Subject to the superintendence of the Academic Council and to the provisions of sub-section (5), the Admissions Committee shall lay down the principles or norms governing the policy of admission not various courses of studies in the University and may also nominate a person or a sub-committee as the admitting authority in respect of any course of study in an Institute or a constituent college maintained by the University. 45. 45. Admissions of Students.—(1) No student shall be eligible for admission to the course of study for a degree unless— (a) he has passed, (i) the Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, or of any University or Board incorporated by any law for the time being in force; or (ii) any examination, or any degree conferred by any other University, being an examination or degree recognized by the University as equivalent to the Intermediate examination or to a degree of the University; and (b) he possesses such further qualifications, if any, as may be specified in the Ordinances: Provided that the University may prescribe by Ordinances any lower qualifications for admission to a degree in Fine Arts. (2) The conditions under which students may be admitted to the diploma courses of the University shall be prescribed by the Ordinances. (3) The University shall have the power to recognize (for the purpose of admission to a course of study for a degree), as equivalent to its own degree, any degree conferred by any other University or, as equivalent to the Intermediate Examination of any Indian University, any examination conducted by any other authority. (4) Any student whose work or conduct is unsatisfactory may be removed from the University or an Institute or a constituent college or an affiliated or associated college in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinances.” 50. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case held that the provisions have to be construed harmoniously so as to eliminate any conflict, without rendering any provision of the Act or any authority created by the Act, superfluous. Following was laid down in paragraph 8 of the judgment : “8........We are of the view that Section 28(3) empowers the Admissions Committee to provide for an entrance test for admission to the University degree courses. It was suggested that such an interpretation would bring it in conflict with Sections 45, 51 and 52 of the Act and that there will be duality of authority in the matter of regulating admission to University degree courses. As we shall presently point out there is no conflict between Section 28 and the other sections nor are there dual authorities under the Act. As we shall presently point out there is no conflict between Section 28 and the other sections nor are there dual authorities under the Act. These provisions have to be construed harmoniously so as to eliminate any conflict, without rendering any provision of the Act or any authority created by the Act, superfluous....” 51. Sri Khare has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1972)2 SCC. 454 , State of Rajasthan and others v. Sri Noor Mohammad. Relying on the dictum of the Apex Court in the said case that expression “save as otherwise provided by or under the Act” in the context would mean “save as otherwise expressly barred by or under the Act”, he submits that there is no bar in the exercise of power of the Chancellor with regard to territorial area nor there is anything in Section 37(2) which may restrict the power of the Chancellor, the Chancellor could have very well exercise the power of affiliation with regard to petitioner’s college with Jaunpur University. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case considered the provisions of Section 44 sub-sections (3) and (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 44 are quoted below : “(3). A State Transport Authority (shall give effect to any directions issued under Section 43, and subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act) shall exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely : (a) to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities, if any, of the State; (b) to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such Authority and, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions; (c) to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities; and (d) to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed. (4) For the purpose of exercising and discharging the powers and functions specified in sub-section (3), a State Transport Authority may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, issue directions to any Regional Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority shall (in the discharge of its functions under this Act, give effect to and) be guided by such direction.” 52. In the aforesaid case before the Apex Court one Noor Mohammad had applied for State carriage permit before the Regional Transport Authority. The application was not considered by the Regional Transport Authority in view of the resolution of the State Transport Authority providing that State Transport Authority shall grant all type of permits on inter-regional and inter-State routes. The issue considered by the Apex Court was as to whether the State Transport Authority could have exercised the power to grant permit or the Regional Transport Authority was required to consider the application. Section 44(3), as quoted above, provides that State Transport Authority, save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall exercise and discharge throughout the State the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such Authority or if so required by the Regional Transport Authority to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions. The Apex Court while interpreting Section 44 has construed the provisions harmoniously to save sub-clause (b) of Section 44(3) from being reduced to a nullity. Following was laid down in paragraph-8 : ‘8.......................... It was contended that the Regional Transport Authority is a separate authority on which the duties referred to in sub-clause (b) have been imposed by other provisions in Chapter IV, and since the State Transport Authority is required to act ‘save as otherwise provided by or under the Act’ it would be disentitled to take over the functions under sub-clause (b). Such an interpretation would obviously lead to grave incongruity. Sub-clause (b), as we have already seen, provides for the exercise of the powers of the Regional Transport Authority by the State Transport Authority in certain contingencies. If the expression “save as otherwise provided by or under the Act” is construed in a manner to negative the functions permitted to be performed under sub-clause (b), the very object with which sub-clause (b) has been enacted will be frustrated. If the expression “save as otherwise provided by or under the Act” is construed in a manner to negative the functions permitted to be performed under sub-clause (b), the very object with which sub-clause (b) has been enacted will be frustrated. We have, therefore, to construe the expression “save as otherwise provided by or under the Act” in a harmonious manner so that sub-clause (b) is not reduced to a nullity. In our opinion the expression “save as otherwise provided by or under the Act” would in the context mean, “save as otherwise expressly barred by or under the Act”. If there is a provision which expressly debars the exercise of the power under sub-clause (b) in any case then only the State Transport Authority will not be able to exercise the powers and discharge the functions given in sub-clause (b). Otherwise there would be no such bar. It is not shown to us that there is any express provision which bars the performance by the State Transport Authority of the duties referred to in sub-clause (b) and, therefore, we are of the view that the State Transport Authority in this particular case would not be barred from performing the duties under sub-clause (b).” 53. The Apex Court in the said judgment upheld the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority as provided in Section 44(3) sub-clause (b). The rule of harmonious construction was adopted to give meaning to sub-clause (b). The words “save as otherwise provided or under the Act” in the above context was held to mean “save as otherwise expressly barred by or under the Act”. The Apex Court held that if there is a provision which expressly debars the exercise of power under sub-clause (b) in any case then only the State Transport Authority will not be able to exercise the powers and discharge the functions given in sub-clause (b). This judgment in no manner supports the case of the petitioner, rather the decision lays down that provisions of a Statute has to be harmoniously construed to give meaning and effect to every provisions of the Act. 54. This judgment in no manner supports the case of the petitioner, rather the decision lays down that provisions of a Statute has to be harmoniously construed to give meaning and effect to every provisions of the Act. 54. The words “save as otherwise provided by under the Act” as used in Section 5 of the Act, thus, are also to be interpreted as each University shall exercise powers in the specified territorial area unless exercise in such territorial area is expressly barred, i.e., there is any other express contrary provisions contained in the Act. As noted above, there is nothing contrary in Section 37(2) to the scheme as contained in Section 5, hence the Chancellor cannot exercise his jurisdiction to give sanction to the Executive Council to affiliate a college situate beyond the territorial area of the concerned University. 55. If the other construction were to be adopted, the whole spatial basic structure of the Act, separating the areas of the several Universities, would be robbed and denuded of all its effect and purpose. 56. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the Chancellor cannot give sanction to any University to affiliate a college not situate within the territorial area of the University. In the present case the affiliation was granted to petitioner’s college in the year 1999 by which time new district Kaushambi was already created and its area as it stood prior to its creation was not within the territorial area of Jaunpur University. The territorial area of Jaunpur University as per schedule confined only to Districts of Azamgarh, Ballia, Ghazipur, Jaunpur, Mirzapur and Varanasi. Thus affiliation given to the petitioner’s college from Jaunpur University was contrary to the provisions of the Act. 57. The next submission of Sri Khare is that there being no amendments made in the Schedule although large number of new districts including District Kaushambi have been created in the year 1995 and 1997, the Schedule is completely unworkable. He submits that district Kaushambi does not find place against any University in the Schedule. Sri Khare submits that Kaushambi not being included in the schedule against any University, the Chancellor did not commit any error in granting affiliation with Jaunpur University. He submits that district Kaushambi does not find place against any University in the Schedule. Sri Khare submits that Kaushambi not being included in the schedule against any University, the Chancellor did not commit any error in granting affiliation with Jaunpur University. Sri Khare submits that in the Schedule at Item No.7 and 8 the University of Kumaun and Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University has been mentioned which now fall in the territory of State of Uttranchal whereas various districts of State of Uttranchal still find place in the Schedule. The submission of Sri Khare is that Schedule having become unworkable the Chancellor cannot direct the petitioner’s college to get its affiliation from Kanpur University. The submission of Sri Khare in so far as not amending the Schedule to keep in pace with the creations of new districts and to delete the Districts which have been gone out of State of Uttar Pradesh is correct. 58. Several new districts were created in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1995, 1996 and 1997 including district Kaushambi which was created by notification dated 4th April, 1997. There is no mention of district Kaushambi in the Schedule. On reading of Schedule one is at loss to know as to which University shall exercise jurisdiction with regard to the college situate in district Kaushambi. 59. The U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 is an Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to certain Universities. The Act deals with various existing Universities as mentioned in Section 2(8) and provides for establishment of new Universities under Section 4. The Universities impart and supervise the higher education in the State. The question is as to what will happen with regard to college falling in the territorial area of newly created districts which does not find place in the Schedule. At this juncture, it is necessary to note some principles of statutory interpretation. The Apex Court in AIR 1959 SC 352 , Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. S. Teja Singh, quoted with approval the principle of statutory interpretation mentioned by Craies and Maxwell. Following was observed in paragraph-9 : “Vide also Craies on Statute Law, page 90 and Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, Tenth Edition, pages 236-237. The Apex Court in AIR 1959 SC 352 , Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. S. Teja Singh, quoted with approval the principle of statutory interpretation mentioned by Craies and Maxwell. Following was observed in paragraph-9 : “Vide also Craies on Statute Law, page 90 and Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, Tenth Edition, pages 236-237. “A statute is designed,” observed Lord Dunedin in Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 1925-10 Tax Cas 88 at p. 110, “to be workable, and the interpretation thereof by a Court should be to secure that object, unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable.” 60. A situation has arisen when several newly created districts including Kaushambi do not find place in the Schedule in the territorial area. Which University will exercise power with regard to already affiliated colleges in such area is a big question, whether the Act is to be treated as unworkable qua the said colleges? From which University a new affiliation or enlargement of already existing affiliation shall be taken is another question of importance. What will happen to the students studying in already affiliated colleges situate in the above area. The above question do point out various difficulties and uncertainties regarding working of the Act which needs consideration to clear the uncertainty. 61. Lord Denning more than half century ago made very weighty observations for guiding the Courts when they are faced with such ruckuss. Following was said by Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estates v. Asher, 1949(2) All ER 155 : “Whenever a statute comes up for consideration it must be remembered that it is not within human powers to foresee the manifold sets of facts which may arise, and, even if it were, it is not possible to provide for them in terms free from all ambiguity. The English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision. Our literature would be much the poorer if it were. This is where the draftsmen of Acts of Parliament have often been unfairly criticised. A Judge, believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule that he must look to the language and nothing else, laments that the draftsmen have not provided for this or that, or have been guilty of some or other ambiguity. It would certainly save the judges trouble if Acts of Parliament were drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity. A Judge, believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule that he must look to the language and nothing else, laments that the draftsmen have not provided for this or that, or have been guilty of some or other ambiguity. It would certainly save the judges trouble if Acts of Parliament were drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity. In the absence of it, when a defect appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament, and he must do this not only from the language of the statute, but also from a consideration of the social conditions which gave rise to it and of the mischief which it was passed to remedy, and then he must supplement the written word so as to give “force and life” to the intention of the legislature. That was clearly laid down (3 Co. Rep. 7b) by the resolution of the judges [Sir Roger Nanwood, C.B., and the other barons of the Exchequer] in Heydon’s case (4), and it is the safest guide to-day. Good practical advice on the subject was given about the same time by Plowden in his note (2 Plowd. 465) to Eyston v. Studd (5). Put into homely metaphor it is this: A judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out ? He must then do as they would have done. A judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases. 62. The above observations of Lord Denning has been quoted with approval by Apex Court in AIR 1961 SC 1107 , M. Pantiah v. Verramaliappa. 63. The Court has to lean in favour of an interpretation which may give life to a Statute and which may not make the Statute a dead letter. Merely because a newly created district, for example Kaushambi in the present case, is not mentioned in the Schedule, does the Act becomes inapplicable on the colleges situate in the territorial area or whether the such area of a newly created district becomes a free area capable of being affiliated to any University of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Merely because a newly created district, for example Kaushambi in the present case, is not mentioned in the Schedule, does the Act becomes inapplicable on the colleges situate in the territorial area or whether the such area of a newly created district becomes a free area capable of being affiliated to any University of the State of Uttar Pradesh. As noted above, Kaushambi had been part of District Allahabad prior to 4th April, 1997. The area of Kaushambi which was earlier part of Allahabad, prior to creation of new district Kaushambi was included in the territorial area of Kanpur University, district Allahabad being included in area of Kanpur University. The area of new district Kaushambi being situate beyond 16 kilometers from Convocation Hall of the Allahabad University it was never within the territorial area of University of Allahabad. The University of Allahabad has become a Central University since July, 2005 and has gone out of the purview of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The issue in the case is as to whether after creation of District Kaushambi the colleges in the area of Kaushambi have to get affiliation from Kanpur University or they can be affiliated to any University including the Jaunpur University. 64. Learned Advocate General has submitted that the area of Kaushambi being part of Allahabad, the same shall still continue with Kanpur University in which area the entire area of Kaushambi was specified prior to creation of new district. 65. Before creation of new district Kaushambi large number of colleges were existing in the said area which were affiliated earlier to Kanpur University being under territorial area of Kanpur University. After creation of district Kaushambi the colleges which were affiliated to Kanpur University has to continue their teaching, hold examination, grant certificate and degree. The creation of new district cannot take such effect as to take out an existing college from the benefit of privilege of affiliation and from the benefit of an institution as continuing tool of education. Present is the case of an affiliation obtained after creation of new district. What will happen with regard to new affiliation after creation of a district is a question which is to be answered. Present is the case of an affiliation obtained after creation of new district. What will happen with regard to new affiliation after creation of a district is a question which is to be answered. In the event already affiliated colleges running since before creation of new district wants affiliation in new course or new subjects from which University it shall apply new district not being mentioned in the Schedule anywhere. No one has submitted nor any such submission can be accepted that after creation of new district the colleges already affiliated in the said area shall cease to continue to impart education, to hold examination or to perform all its function. The affiliating University has to continue to exercise powers with regard to existing affiliated colleges since no other contrary intention can be gathered from any provisions of the Act or any amendment made therein. As noted above, the interpretation has to be adopted which may not make a Statute unworkable or dead letter. The Court has to adopt interpretation which may keep the Statute workable. By mere creation of new District no impossibility has been created so as to make the operation of the Act impossible. 66. Sri Khare has also placed reliance on Sections 8 and 20 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904. Sri Khare submits that when by a notification dated 4th April, 1997 new district Kaushambi has been created from district Allahabad, the reference of district Allahabad in U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and its Schedule has to be treated as reference to Allahabad district as it exists after creation of new district. Section 8 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 is extracted below : “8. Construction of references to repealed enactments.—(1) Where any [Uttar Pradesh] Act repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted. (2) Where the short title of any enactment is amended by an Uttar Pradesh Act, then, references to that enactment by its old short title in any other enactment shall be construed as references to that enactment by its new short title.” 67. Section 8 of the U.P. General Clauses Act deals with construction of references to repealed enactments. (2) Where the short title of any enactment is amended by an Uttar Pradesh Act, then, references to that enactment by its old short title in any other enactment shall be construed as references to that enactment by its new short title.” 67. Section 8 of the U.P. General Clauses Act deals with construction of references to repealed enactments. The notification dated 4th April, 1997 has been issued creating new district Kaushambi under Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 which deals with creation of districts, alteration of their boundaries and the Districts as created or altered are revenue districts, which is contemplated in the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. It is true that by virtue of Section 20 of the U.P. General Clauses Act the same interpretation as provided in Section 8 of the U.P. General Clauses Act shall be applicable to notification also. The question is thus whether creation of new District by issuing notification under Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act shall automatically change the district Allahabad as specified in the Schedule to U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. Section 8 of the U.P. General Clauses Act provides consequence of such repeal of enactment “unless a different intention appears”. From the Scheme of the Act and the Schedule, it is clear that whole State of Uttar Pradesh is divided and different areas which have been allocated to the different Universities. Unless suitable amendment is made in the Act changing the districts, we are fully justified to adopt the interpretation that the area carved out from an existing district, as referred to in the Schedule, will continue to operate under the Act in accordance with the situation as existing prior to carving of new district which does not yet find place in the Schedule. As noted above, this concept is not unknown to the scheme of 1973 Act as is apparent from situation as contemplated under Section 74 of the Act when the Act was enacted in the year 1973. 68. Section 74 of the Act throws considerable light on the intention of the framers of the Act for situation when a college is included in a territorial area of a newly created University. At the time of enactment of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 Kanpur University was already in existence by virtue of Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965. 68. Section 74 of the Act throws considerable light on the intention of the framers of the Act for situation when a college is included in a territorial area of a newly created University. At the time of enactment of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 Kanpur University was already in existence by virtue of Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965. Section 74(3) do contemplate a situation where a college had applied for affiliation from University of Agra which affiliation was pending and the college goes out of territorial area of Agra University by virtue of Schedule. Section 74(3)(c) provides that such application shall be disposed by the Agra University itself. Similar is the intention which is enumerated in sub-clause (g), (i) and (j) of sub-section (3) of Section 74. Section 74(3)(c), (g), (i) and (j) are quoted below : “74. Repeal of certain enactments.—(1) ......................... (2) ............................. (3) Notwitstanding anything in sub-section (1) and (2), or in any other provisions of this Act— (a) ........................................ (b) ........................................ (c) where any institution has applied for affiliation to the University of Agra in accordance with the provisions of the Agra University Act, 1926, before June 18, 1973 and such application was pending on the said date, and the place where the institution is situated lies under this Act outside area of the University of Agra, such application may be disposed of by the competent authorities of the University of Agra as if the institution would be affiliated to that University, and upon the grant of such application by the Chancellor, the institution would stand affiliated to the University within whose territorial jurisdiction as specified in Section 5, the institution would lie; (d) to (f) ........................................ (g) every student of the Kashi Naresh Government Degree College, Gyanpur, or the Government Degree College, Jakhni, situate in District Varanasi, or the Government Degree College, Rishikesh, situate in district Dehra Dun, who— (1) immediately before the commencement of Uttar Pradesh State Universities Ordinance, 1973, was studying for a degree of the University of Agra; or (2) was admitted as a student of any of the said colleges during the academic year 1973-74 for a degree of the said University; or (3) is eligible to appear at any degree examination of the said University in the year 1974 or in the year 1975 [or in the year 1976] as Allahabad Bank ex-student; shall be permitted to complete his course in accordance with the syllabus of the University of Agra, and necessary arrangements for the instruction and examination of such students shall be made by the University of Agra and on the results of such examination, the degree may be conferred by that very University; (h) ........................................ (i) every person residing within the area of the University of Gorakhpur who was permitted by the Agra University to appear in B.A. Part I or M.A. Part I Examination of 1974 from the Kashi Naresh Government Degree College, Gyanpur, Varanasi Centre and who, on the result of the examination, has been declared successful, shall be permitted by the University of Agra to appear in the B.A. Part II or M.A. Part II Examination, as the case may be, of the said University from the Kashi Naresh Government Degree College, Gyanpur, Varanasi Centre, during the academic years 1974-75 and 1975-76 and on that results of such examination the degree may be conferred by that very University, and such examination shall be deemed to be valid; (j) any person residing within the area of the University of Allahabad or the University of Lucknow may be permitted by the University of Kanpur (hereinafter in this clause referred to as the said University) to appear in an examination referred to in clause (5) of Section 7, and on the result of such examination a degree may be conferred by the said University notwithstanding that such person was not residing within the area of the said University.” 69. The indication in the above provision is that when a particular University had been exercising its power with regard to an area which has gone out of its territorial area as per Schedule, the said University may continue to exercise power for the contingency as mentioned in the aforesaid section. Thus the idea of University still exercising same power when an area goes out of its territorial area finds place in the scheme of Section 74 of the Act. The above quoted provisions further indicate that after the contingency mentioned therein the new University within whose territorial area a college is situate shall exercise power thereafter. In the present case newly created districts have not been mentioned in the Schedule nor have been included in the territorial area of any existing University, the University which had earlier jurisdiction to exercise power can be held to continue to exercise such power since nothing contrary to it is contained in any provisions of the Act or amendment of the Act or Statute. The interpretation which we adopt in the present case finds support from the scheme as provided in Section 74 of the Act after enforcement of the Act. 70. Although we are of the view that University which was exercising jurisdiction in a particular area which falls in a new District not specified in Schedule shall continue to exercise jurisdiction but this is no reason as to why appropriate notification be not issued making necessary amendments in the Schedule so that newly created districts are properly reflected in the Schedule to end uncertainty. 71. Learned Advocate General has fairly submitted that necessary amendments are required to be made and will be made to keep pace with newly created districts and other subsequent events. He stated before us that appropriate steps in that regard will be taken soon. 72. From the aforesaid discussions, it is amply clear that affiliation granted to the petitioner’s college by Jaunpur University was in violation of territorial limit fixed by the Schedule and No-objection certificate by the State Government was erroneously issued. Whether the aforesaid can form by estoppel or on any other principle of law a ground for issuing mandamus to the State Government or to the University or to the Chancellor to continue in future to violate the territorial limit is a question to be answered. 73. Whether the aforesaid can form by estoppel or on any other principle of law a ground for issuing mandamus to the State Government or to the University or to the Chancellor to continue in future to violate the territorial limit is a question to be answered. 73. It is well settled that there is no estoppel against Statute. The Apex Court in (1998)2 SCC 502 , Dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari v. State of U.P. and another, has held following in paragraph 20 : “20. The basic principle is that the plea of estoppel cannot be raised to defeat the provisions of a statute. (See. G.H.C. Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur; Mathra Prashad & Sons v. State of Punjab; Rishabh Kumar and Sons. v. State of U.P.” 74. No principle of estoppel can be put against express statutory provision of Section 5 of the Act. The Chancellor has every jurisdiction to direct for rectification of erroneous affiliation which was earlier granted in violation of provisions of Section 5. The Chancellor cannot be estopped from directing petitioner’s college to obtain affiliation from the University having territorial area. 75. The claim of the petitioner is that petitioner is entitled to continue affiliation with Jaunpur University since large number of colleges in district Kaushambi as well as in district Allahabad have been affiliated with Jaunpur University and it will be discriminatory in asking the petitioner to get his affiliation from Kanpur University. 76. The mere fact that at earlier point of time an erroneous order was passed by an authority cannot be foundation to pray for issuing a mandamus by the Court to the said authority to continue the illegality or to commit such infraction of provision again. The Apex Court in 1995(1) SCC 745 , Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jagjit Singh and another, has laid down the law in this regard in paragraph 8 which is quoted below : “We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be correct, if it can be done according to law-indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law-but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis of its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law....” 77. In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another; (1986)2 SCC 667 , the Apex Court held that no direction can be issued to the University to disobey the Statute. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law....” 77. In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another; (1986)2 SCC 667 , the Apex Court held that no direction can be issued to the University to disobey the Statute. As held above, the petitioner’s college is not situate in the territorial area of Jaunpur University, issuing a mandamus to Jaunpur University to grant affiliation in new subjects or LL.B. five years course is nothing but issuing a direction to University to violate provisions of Section 5 of the Act. Following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 10 of the said judgment : “Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the students who have been admitted into the MBBS course of this institution, pleaded that the interests of the students should not be sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the institution. He invited our attention to the circumstance that students of the medical college established by the Daru-Salam Educational Trust were permitted to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that affiliation had not by then been granted by the University. Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the interest of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made by Sri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Sri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws.....” 78. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws.....” 78. In view of the aforesaid we are of the view that erroneous issue of no objection certificate by the State Government or erroneous affiliation granted in violation of Section 5 of the Act to the petitioner’s college cannot form any basis for issuing of mandamus to the State Government or to the University or to the Chancellor on basis of principle of estoppel or any other principle of law to continue to act in violation of Section 5 of the Act. 79. Thus our answer to the question referred to is in negative. 80. Let our opinion be placed before the Division Bench which has referred the above question for deciding the case. Ref. WP No. 31175 of 2005 Honble Yatindra Singh, J.—I agree with the detailed judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, as well as the brief summary delivered by Hon’ble the Chief Justice for the reasons stated therein. I also answer the reference in negative. Question Answered Accordingly. ———