Judgment :- B.S. Patil, J. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent-University in not approving the Master’s degree and Ph.D course of the petitioner foundation as arbitrary and illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is also seeking a direction to the University to reconsider and approve Master’s degree and Ph.D course in the petitioner’s Art Foundation. Challenge is also made to the communication dated 11.08.2008 produced at Annexure-N by which while sanctioning Bachelor of Fine Arts course in the petitioner institution, the request made for sanctioning Master in Fine Arts and Master in Music course is deferred to be considered only after three years when Bachelor in Fine Arts first batch of students pass out from the petitioner Art Foundation. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion seeking a direction to the respondent University to consider its request for permission to conduct Master’s degree course. This request was made on 13.06.2007 vide Annexure-J. Petitioner stated that they had put up construction of the building by spending Rs.9,00,000/-and possess a library having books worth Rs.2,00,000/-apart from having all other requisite infrastructure to enable them to impart education for Master’s degree course by following the distance education scheme. As the representation submitted by the petitioner institution was not considered, it approached this Court in W.P.No.18546/07. This Court by order dated 5th June,2008 issued a direction to the respondent-University to consider Annexure-J representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with regard to the commencement of the Course namely, Master degree. 3. By the impugned order, the request made by the petitioner-institution for sanction of permission to start Master in Fine Arts and Master in Music is deferred. The reasons assigned, as can be seen from Annexure-N decision is that when the subject was placed before the academic council, the council agreed in principle to sanction the Bachelor in Fine Arts and Master in Fine Arts programme to the petitioner institution. However, before signing the Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner institution had advertised and enrolled students not only for Bachelor in Fine Arts and Master in Fine Arts but also for Ph.D course and therefore the respondent University took serious note of the same and took a decision to cancel all the programmes given to the said foundation for flouting the University Regulations. However, since the petitioner had approached the High Court, as per the direction issued by the High Court the subject was placed before the Academic council for discussion but since the institution had written certain uncalled for and intemperate letters to tarnish the image of the University in the eyes of the students, parents and public, the University found that it should not associate with such institutions. It also felt that the University must array with another organisation by name, DMSLA which was giving programmes in Bachelor in Fine Arts for the last four years and was not yet given Master in Fine Arts. On these grounds, the request made by the petitioner has been rejected for the current year. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner inviting the attention of the Court to the inspection report dated 22.11.2006 produced at Annexure-A5 contends that as per the findings recorded by the inspection committee which consisted of the registrar of the respondent-University, the petitioner Institution had the required infrastructure to start the post-graduate course and that a recommendation was made by the committee to start such course in collaboration with the university. He further points out that based on the assurance given by the authorities, steps were taken by the petitioner institution inviting application by publishing advertisement in this regard in the local newspapers as per Annexure-C. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of the Court to the correspondences exchanged between the petitioner institution and the respondent-University which are produced at Annexures-H1 and H2. He therefore contends that the University has failed to consider the request made by the petitioner in accordance with the rules and regulations keeping in mind the interest of the student community which intends to avail such opportunities for further studies. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University Sri Narayanaswamy, bringing to the notice of the Court the provisions contained under the Karnataka State Open University Act, particularly, Section 5 and submits that the arrangement to be entered into with the petitioner for the purpose of conducting such courses, is a matter of pure contract and it is the discretion of the respondent University to enter into, carry out, vary or cancel contracts. In this regard, he brings to the notice of the Court sub-clause(xviii) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. In this regard, he brings to the notice of the Court sub-clause(xviii) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. He also contends that it is the discretion of the University to recommend any institution of higher learning or studies for such purpose as the University may determine and therefore as per the scheme of the Act the petitioner cannot claim, as of right, any direction from this Court in this regard. 6. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, I find that the respondent University is established by a statute known as the Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992. The object for which the respondent University is established is mentioned in Section 4. It is established to advance and disseminate learning and knowledge by a diversity of means, including the use of any communication technology so as to provide opportunities for higher education to a large segment of the population and to promote the educational wellbeing of the community. Its object is to encourage open Universities, distance education system in the educational pattern of the State. In Section 5 of the Act, powers of the University are enumerated. In sub-clause (xviii) of sub-section (1) of Section 5, it is enumerated as under: “(xviii) to enter into, carry out, vary or cancel contracts;” In sub-section (21) it is stated as under: “(xxi) to recognize any institution of higher learning or studies for such purposes as the University may determine and to withdraw such recognition;” Keeping in mind the objects and purposes for which the university is established, it can be safely said that one of the main objects of the University is to encourage learning in higher studies so as to advance and disseminate knowledge by diversity of means, by providing opportunities through open university, distance education system to the cross sections of students eligible in this regard. The petitioner institution has made a representation vide Annexure-J as back as on 13.06.2007. Reference is made in the said representation to the previous representation made on 16.04.2007. It claims that it has all the required infrastructure to start the Master’s degree and sought for the required permission. The petitioner institution has made a representation vide Annexure-J as back as on 13.06.2007. Reference is made in the said representation to the previous representation made on 16.04.2007. It claims that it has all the required infrastructure to start the Master’s degree and sought for the required permission. When the representation was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court issued a direction directing the University to consider the representation with regard to the request made for commencement of the course as requested in Annexure-J herein which was produced as Annexure-Z in the previous writ petition. As already stated, the request made as per Annexure-J representation is to start the post-graduate course but the University, while considering the request in terms of the directions issued by this Court, has deferred the request made by the petitioner for a period of three years so far as post-graduate courses are concerned. The reason assigned is that the institution had proceeded with giving advertisement calling for application without waiting for clearance from the authorities. In addition, the university has also opined that the management had indulged in exchange of letters which were intemperate in their language. 7. The factors that have gone into the consideration of the representation by the University are not relevant for the purpose of grant of permission as sought. No doubt, the petitioner ought to have waited till a formal order is passed, giving permission to start the course before issuing any advertisement in the newspaper. But that by itself cannot be taken as a circumstance which warrants rejection of the application without applying the mind by the university to the relevant factors. The university seems to be carried away by the repeated letters addressed by the institution making a demand to permit them to start the course. The University has taken exception to the language contained in such correspondence. 8. In my considered view, the object and purpose for which the University is established is to encourage learning and education in higher studies by opening the avenues to the larger sections of the societies. Only because the petitioner institution has issued a legal notice, and has made certain demands, asserting as of right, the University which is an apex body, should not have taken it personally and persuaded itself to take such a decision uninformed by other relevant criteria. Only because the petitioner institution has issued a legal notice, and has made certain demands, asserting as of right, the University which is an apex body, should not have taken it personally and persuaded itself to take such a decision uninformed by other relevant criteria. The University ought to have taken a dispassionate decision keeping in mind, the facts and circumstances, particularly, the report submitted by the inspection committee and the infrastructure facilities that the petitioner institution claims to possess for imparting the training required. The same having not been done, the impugned decision cannot be sustained in law. 9. It is difficult to accept the contention of the Counsel for the respondent that the whole exercise is governed by the contract to be entered into by the university and the University can choose to enter into a contract or refuse to enter into a contract with any institution or person of its choice. The respondent university is established by the statute. Its purpose and objects are enumerated in the Act. Being a creature of the statute it cannot act according to its own discretion. Its actions have to be informed by consideration germane to the object and purpose for which the university is established. It cannot act dehors the legal framework for which it is established. In that view of the matter, the action of the university has to be reasonable. In the result and for the foregoing reason this writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned communication to Annexure-N refusing and deferring the request made by the petitioner institution for sanctioning the post graduate course is set aside. The university is directed to consider the request made by the petitioner institution vide Annexure-J in its true spirit in accordance with the Rules and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Parties to bear their respective costs.