JUDGEMENT 1. Parties having appeared, counter affidavit and rejoinder having been exchanged, the matter has been heard at length and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. The dispute essentially, in the present case, relates to the continuance of private participation in running vocational course of Computer Science in a Constituent College of Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University at Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as "the University"). 3. The brief facts relevant are noted hereunder: Lok Jagriti Sansthan and International Institute of Computer Sciences, Muzaffarpur are sister concern. The petitioner Lalan Kumar is associated with both these Non-Governmental Organisations. The said Non-Governmental Organization has been set up for promoting computer education in masses. Having come to know of intention of the University to initiate vocational courses relating to Computers, the said Organization entered into negotiation with authorities of the College and the University which resulted in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) being signed on 26.7.2002 between the petitioner as Director of International Institute of Computer Sciences and the respondent-Principal of the L.S. College, Muzaffarpur which is a Constituent College of the said University for starting Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA) Course at the said College from the academic session 2002-2003. The said MoU, which is being referred to as the first MoU is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Clause-12 of the said first MoU would be relevant and is quoted hereunder: "12. The period of agreement will be five years duration subject to review annually on the basis of performance of the IICS. In five years time frame the L.S. College will enhance and build up its own infrastructure progressively and finally the participation level of the IICS will be reduced to zero." 4. Also relevant would be Clause-10. A reference to the first MoU would show that there was an understanding with regard to review annually of the performance. Initially petitioners institution had to make investment and to provide the necessary infrastructure. 5. It appears that pursuant to efforts of the petitioner and his Organisation, the Computer Course and similar other courses were well received by the students. From time to time, the working was reviewed by the Advisory Committee of the College. Initially petitioners institution had to make investment and to provide the necessary infrastructure. 5. It appears that pursuant to efforts of the petitioner and his Organisation, the Computer Course and similar other courses were well received by the students. From time to time, the working was reviewed by the Advisory Committee of the College. In one of its review report dated about 25th of January, 2005, it was suggested that as the College did not have the academic stall to support the courses, till such posts were sanctioned by the State Government and such posts were filled up, the institution of the petitioner could be allowed to continue, Here, it may be important to note that as per the first MoU, the MoU was to operate for a period of five years and was to expire in the year 2007. It is also not in dispute that the first MoU was duly sanctified by the University. It seems that the said review report was then placed before the Vice-Chancellor and the Principal was informed that the Vice-Chancellor had approved the meeting of the Advisory Committee which had reviewed the working and given the performance report. Immediately, thereafter, it seems another MoU was entered into between the College and the petitioners Organization which was dated 16.8.2005. This is Annexure-5 to the writ petition and is being referred to as the second MoU. Clause-8 and Clause-13 of the second MoU, as entered between the petitioner and the Principal of the L.S. College, is relevant and are quoted hereunder: "8. The academic and technical collaboration between the two parties will continue uninterrupted until permanent arrangement (i.e. sanction of posts, requirement of teachers and technicians, establishment of computer lab. etc.) will be made by the University/State Government in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee constituted to review and assess the performance of the IICS (mentioned in para 2 page 3 of the recommendations dated the 25th January, 2005 Annex.-IV approved by the University vide Ref. No. B/1746, dated the 8th August, 2005. 13. Neither of the two parties shall be disassociating itself unilaterally from the terms and conditions of this agreement." 6. It appears that seeing the success of the courses, as initiated by the petitioners Organization, the College took steps for introducing more vocational courses and upgrading the course to MCA level. No. B/1746, dated the 8th August, 2005. 13. Neither of the two parties shall be disassociating itself unilaterally from the terms and conditions of this agreement." 6. It appears that seeing the success of the courses, as initiated by the petitioners Organization, the College took steps for introducing more vocational courses and upgrading the course to MCA level. It is not in dispute that petitioner was authorised by the College/University to pursue the matter about getting requisite permission from the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) in that regard which Council, in due time, issued letter of intent to the said College for starting MCA Course in February, 2008. The College, accordingly, approached the State Government. It appears thereafter State Government granted no objection and, accordingly, the University sanctioned the BCA, B. Sc. IT, MCA and MBA Courses to be started in the aforesaid College vide their notification dated 13th May, 2008 (Annexure-17). Consequently, a new MoU referred to as the third MoU was entered into between the Principal of the said College and the petitioner on 26.5.2008, Clause-11 whereof is relevant and quoted hereunder: "11. In case of any unforeseen circumstances (i) The L.S. College compels Lok Jagriti Sansthan to stop its operation, the college authority must give in writing along undertaking of AICTE, New Delhi to meet the expenses incurred and also allow one year time to collect all the equipments including, Computers, UPS, Electricals, Furnitures etc. and any other assets developed during that period, (ii) If Lok Jagriti Sansthan decides to stop their academic and technical programme at L.S College, Muzaffarpur unilaterally then a compensation of Rs. 140 lakhs (one crore forty lakhs) will be paid by Lok Jagriti Sansthan to L.S. College, Muzaffarpur." 7. It appears soon thereafter the Implementation and Monitoring Committee for Vocational Courses of the University met and decided to lay down guidelines for vocational courses to be conducted in the Constituent Colleges of the University. As a matter of policy, it was resolved by the University that there would be no private participation in running vocational courses and any agreement arrived at between the petitioners institution and the Principals of the Constituent Colleges of the University would stand terminated immediately. This decision was taken on 5.8.2008 and was communicated to the petitioner by the University which are Annexures-21 and 21/A and is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. This decision was taken on 5.8.2008 and was communicated to the petitioner by the University which are Annexures-21 and 21/A and is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 8. On behalf of petitioner, it is submitted that the unilateral decision taken by the University is de hors the agreements and arbitrary. Petitioner had made substantial investments and could not be ousted in such a summary manner much less without hearing. To the contrary, the counter affidavits of the Principal concerned and the University state that though the first MoU had the sanction of University, the second and the third were not sanctioned or sanctified by the University. They could not bind the University or for that matter the College concerned. The further stand of the respondents is that right from the beginning, as evident from the clauses of the first Moll quoted above, it would be seen that petitioner was put to notice that the arrangement would continue for a period of five years only in which time the private participation would progressively be reduced too by the end of five years. Thus, petitioner cannot be said to have been taken unaware. It is further stated on behalf of respondents that it is a policy decision which the University took to do away with private participation in running vocational courses as by then the University and the College had its own infrastructure ready and could run the courses on their own strength. The policy decision, not being contrary to law and not being arbitrary, cannot be interfered with and if that be the position then the decision taken pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereto cannot be challenged. This is the core issue. 9. In my view, the stand of the respondents must prevail. Firstly, from the clauses of the first MoU, as quoted above, it would be seen that petitioner was fully aware that the public participation for starting and running vocational courses was for a limited period and had to be reduced to 0 in five years period. Thus, they were fully aware that if was not an arrangement which had to continue uninterrupted. Thus, they were fully aware that if was not an arrangement which had to continue uninterrupted. It is no doubt true that the expertise of the petitioner was used by the University to introduce new courses but at the same time it is true that nowhere did the University, or for that matter College, undertook that those courses would be conducted exclusively by the petitioner ad infinitum. Petitioners help was taken so long as it was necessary and petitioner was aware of this all along. In my view, he cannot make a grievance of its termination and pray for its continuance. 10. So far as the second and the third MoUs are concerned, prima facie, these MoUs never received conscious approval from the University like the first MoU. At best, they could be an MoU as between the Principal and the petitioner but cannot bind the University in any view of the matter. They are mere MoUs which by themselves, being short of contract, cannot be sought to be made enforceable as a contract. It could only be used to establish a course conduct and the intended obligation of parties. Petitioner was fully aware that his involvement was only for five years which was to end in the year, 2007. The University never sanctioned and/or approved subsequent MoUs. Thus, University cannot at all be bound by those MoUs. 11. Looking at it in a different manner if it was open to the University to permit private participation in running vocational courses in its Constituent Colleges, it was open to the University to take a policy decision changing the policy. So far as University is concerned, it had made its intention clear in the first MoU itself that the private participation had to be reduced. Having found that the College concerned could support those courses on its own, it took a policy decision to terminate private participation in vocational courses which policy decision cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary in any manner much less being contrary to any statutory provision. The policy decision cannot, thus, be challenged. If the policy decision cannot be challenged then the action taken in pursuance thereto cannot be challenged because if that is permitted, it would effectively be permitting a thing to be done indirectly which cannot be done directly. Such a situation cannot be countenanced by the Writ Court. 12. The policy decision cannot, thus, be challenged. If the policy decision cannot be challenged then the action taken in pursuance thereto cannot be challenged because if that is permitted, it would effectively be permitting a thing to be done indirectly which cannot be done directly. Such a situation cannot be countenanced by the Writ Court. 12. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This would, however, not come in way of+ the petitioner in claiming any lawful compensation which it can claim in an appropriate civil proceeeding upon establishment of breach of understanding and/or damages as consequence thereof for which petitioner has liberty to move. The question decided is for the purposes of the exercise of writ jurisdiction and not for the purposes of settling civil dispute as between the parties. Further, the petitioner would be fully entitled to forthwith remove all its equipments, furniture, fixtures, records to which neither the College nor the University can have any objection as these are the investments and assets of the two NGOs petitioner. It is also at a liberty to sue the College for recovery of any remuneration due under the third MoU upon facts being established. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.