JUDGMENT : Arun Mishra, J. The writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners Vivekanand Vichardham Shiksha Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti and Aurovindo College of Nursing assailing the orders (P-32) and (P-33) in W. P. No. 8120/2009 and order (P-1) in W.P. No. 2634/2007. 2. In W.P. No. 2634/2007, the petitioner-society is running the said Aurovindo College of Nursing at Bhopal. Prayer has been made to quash the order (P-1) dated 31-1-2007 passed by respondent No. 1 transferring the students of first year of B.Sc. Nursing Course to the various colleges. Prayer has also been made to transfer back the students to the college in question. 3. In W.P. No. 8120/2009 prayer has been made to quash the orders (P-32) and (P-33) passed by respondent No. 2 transferring the students to another college and to transfer back the students to the college in question. 4. It is averred in W.P. No. 2634/2007 that approval was granted by the Department of Higher Education to run the B.Sc. Nursing Course vide letter (P-3) dated 9-11-2006. Petitioner society has also obtained the permission cum desirability/feasibility certificate from the Department of Medical Education vide letter (P-4) dated 31-1-2006. The University has affiliated it. As per the petitioner, Director Health Services, found that petitioner college was running smoothly on 9-11-2006. List (P-7) of the students was submitted on 9-11-2006. A notice (P-1) was issued on 31-1-2007 to the institution. Without any enquiry and opportunity, the Principal Secretary, Medical Education observed that Aurovindo College of Nursing is not having teaching staff, laboratory, faculty members, library and hostel facilities, 7 days' time was given to furnish the explanation failing which affiliation was to be cancelled. Petitioner submitted reply on 7-2-2007 and pointed out that it was having requisite facilities. The recognition of such Nursing Colleges is governed by Indian Nursing Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1947). Sections 12,13 and 14 deals with the power of Indian Nursing Council. Section 14 particularly deals with the procedure of withdrawal of permission. Respondent No. 1 has no authority to issue such a notice as per section 14 of the Act of 1947. It is submitted by the petitioner that in order to oblige other colleges the transfer of students was proposed. Writ petition has been amended so as to impugn the order which has been passed transferring the students to the various other colleges. It is submitted by the petitioner that in order to oblige other colleges the transfer of students was proposed. Writ petition has been amended so as to impugn the order which has been passed transferring the students to the various other colleges. Due to the illegal action, the college has come to virtual closer. Interim order dated 21-2-2007 passed by this Court has been violated by transferring the students. Other allegations of mala fide has also been levelled. It is submitted that action is without jurisdiction. State has no authority to pass such an order to transfer the students. 5. In the return filed by respondent No. 1 it is contended that State Nursing Council has not been added as respondent in the case. Under section 24 of M.P. Upcharika Prasavika Sahai Upcharika-Prasavika Tatha Swasthya Paridarshak Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1973) the power has been given to recognise the colleges. Power of withdrawal of recognition has also been given to the State Nursing Council. There were complaints (R-2) and (R-3) against the functioning of the institution, hence show cause was issued by the Secretary, Medical Education. The institution was not being run smoothly. 6. Respondent No. 2 has adopted the return filed by respondent No. 1. 7. In W.P. No. 8120/2009 the students of first year and second year of B.Sc. Nursing were transferred to another college, it is averred that undue pressure was applied to transfer the students to other colleges, the college did not succumb. As the session was almost complete and the students had not deposited the requisite fee, notice (P-20) was issued on 10-5-2009 to pay the dues at the earliest before submission of the examination form. Some of politically connected and motivated students in order to avoid the payment of legitimate dues started making false propaganda that college was demanding excess fee. Some of the students misguided the police of Aishbag, Police Station that students were kept as hostage in the college contrary to their wishes. Offence of their illegal confinement has been committed by the college. Outside gate is always closed during the college hours and a security guard is posted for the security of the students. There was no illegal confinement made. Smt. Anju Bhadoria, Dy. Director did not listen to the management. She took the one sided version of some of the students. Offence of their illegal confinement has been committed by the college. Outside gate is always closed during the college hours and a security guard is posted for the security of the students. There was no illegal confinement made. Smt. Anju Bhadoria, Dy. Director did not listen to the management. She took the one sided version of some of the students. First Information Report was lodged against the Principal and Shri Manoj Sahu. The entire episode was pre-planned. All of a sudden State Government took decision to transfer the students to other colleges. The students were illegally transferred to another college, hence petition has been preferred. 8. In the return filed by respondents No. 1, 2, 5 and 6, it is contended that tuition fee of 15 students was given by the State Government @ Rs. 50,000/- per annum as per the agreement between college and the State Government for the session 2000-09. The sponsored candidates were allotted to the colleges, students also came through open selection at institution level. There were total 45 students. Students were illegally confined by the management. Considering the future of the students as students were compelled to lodge the FIR against the management, they were not ready to undertake any course of instruction in the petitioner college, thus the transfer of the students was ordered. State Government has major role to play in view of the provision of the Central Act of 1947 and the State Act of 1973. There were serious allegations of demanding money from the State sponsored candidates and no receipt was given. Even the FIR had to be lodged by the students. The students gathered on Dharna on 20th May, 2009 asking the intervention of the State Government. Considering the infrastructure available with the institution, a letter (R-5) was written on 24-1-2009 that recognition was liable to be withdrawn. The Indian Nursing Council had been requested to approve the action as one time measure of transferring the students. 9. A separate return has been filed by respondent No. 3 pointing out that respondent No. 2 has conducted the enquiry on receiving the complaint and thereafter orders (P-32) and (P-33) have been issued. 10. Respondent No. 7 in it's return has submitted that approval was granted by the Director, Medical Education and also by Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi for intake of 50 students in B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. 10. Respondent No. 7 in it's return has submitted that approval was granted by the Director, Medical Education and also by Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi for intake of 50 students in B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. It was approved by Mahakaushal Nurses Registration Council also. Petitioner was given affiliation by the respondents for the session 2007-08. All the seats in the other colleges as per sanctioned strength were fitted as such additional transfer of students was not permissible. Without the permission of the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi, the students cannot be transferred from one college to another college. In midsession, students cannot be transferred from one college to another. 11. The interveners 20 in numbers have filed their intervention applications contending that harassment and transfer of them was made by the college. They are studying in the college where they have been transferred. Even FIR had to be lodged. It would not be appropriate to interfere in the matter considering the irregularities done by the college. Affidavits of interveners have also been filed in support of intervention application. 12. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for petitioners has submitted that action is illegal. In the year 2007 under the guise of lack of infrastructural facilities the students were transferred in spite of interim stay having been granted by this Court, which has not been complied with. Later on in 2008-09 when the management had asked the students to deposit the fee before commencement of the examination and before their forms were forwarded. The political vendetta was created by some of the students. They were not illegally confined. False FIR was lodged and without any authority the State Government again repeated the action of transferring the students to a particular college. There is no power with the State to order the transfer of students under any provision of law, rules or guidelines. 13. On specifically required by the Court, Nursing Council of India has filed an affidavit pointing out that there is no power under the Act neither any rules have been framed by the State Government enabling the State Government nor State Nursing Council has power to order the transfer of the students to another institution. However, on prayer being made by the State Government, the transfer of the students for the session 2008-09 has been sanctioned as one time measure. 14. However, on prayer being made by the State Government, the transfer of the students for the session 2008-09 has been sanctioned as one time measure. 14. Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate appearing for State was unable to point out any provision under the Act of 1947 or under the Act of 1972 or any instructions issued by the State Government at any point of time, enabling it to transfer the students from one institution to another, however, action was sought to be justified on the ground that it was in the interest of the students that action was taken as they stayed Dharna and intervention of State was asked for in the year 2008-09. Previously, infrastructure facilities were not available with the college as such transfer had been rightly ordered in the year 2007-08. State has sponsored certain candidates as such it was open to the State Government to transfer the students as it was making the payment of fee with respect to 33 students of the session 2007-08 and 15 students for the session 2008-09. 15. Shri R.N. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of interveners has submitted that in such an academic matters no case for interference is made out particularly in view of the irregularities committed by the institution. The State was making payment of fees of large number of students. The students were illegally confined including the girl students. College was demanding illegal fee from the students of which it had not right. The decision has been taken in the interest of students. Now the students do not want to study in the petitioner college as such though action may not be permissible, however, in the interest of students they be permitted to carry out their complete course in the institution where they have been transferred. 16. Shri Amod Gupta with Shri P.K. Shrivastava for Indian Nursing Council and Shri Pankaj Dixit appearing for State Nursing Council have clearly submitted that the recognition of the college in question has not been withdrawn either by the Indian Nursing Council or by the State Nursing Council. They have further submitted that there is no provision for transfer of the students. In exceptional circumstances, the Indian Nursing Council has permitted transfer on prayer made by the State Government to ratify the transfers of students made by it for session 2008-09. 17. They have further submitted that there is no provision for transfer of the students. In exceptional circumstances, the Indian Nursing Council has permitted transfer on prayer made by the State Government to ratify the transfers of students made by it for session 2008-09. 17. Shri Mahendra Pateria, learned counsel appearing for Barkatullah University has submitted that action of transfer of the students is impermissible. There is no such provision to transfer the students from one college to another college. The action is illegal. The students could not have been transferred by the State Government. 18. Before dilating upon the rival submissions, we place on record some undisputed facts; that college enjoys the recognition by Indian Nursing Council and State Nursing Council, its affiliation has not been withdrawn by the University. Shri Mahendra Pateria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Barkatullah University has clearly submitted that institution continues to enjoy the affiliation granted by the University. There is no provision of transfer of the students under the Central Act of 1947 or the State Act of 1973 nor there is any rule or circular enabling the State to transfer the students from one institution to another. 19. When we consider the action of transfer of the students, we find that not only in the year 2007-08 the action was taken by the State Government of transferring the students from the petitioner college on the ground of lack of infrastructural facilities but the action has been followed in the year 2008-09 also under the guise of the incident which allegedly took place in the institution. The stand of the college is that they had demanded the fee by way of publication of notice, which was to be deposited by the students. The examination forms were to be forwarded, the students usually do not take interest in depositing the fee once the examinations are conducted. The payment of fee was overdue as such it was required to be deposited before forwarding the forms. Thus, in our opinion, college was within it's rights to demand the fee which had become overdue. On the next day the FIR was lodged by some of the students alleging illegal confinement of the students by the college. Smt. Anju Bhadoria, Dy. Director Nursing was appointed to conduct fact finding enquiry and on the basis of that State Government transferred the students of B.Sc. On the next day the FIR was lodged by some of the students alleging illegal confinement of the students by the college. Smt. Anju Bhadoria, Dy. Director Nursing was appointed to conduct fact finding enquiry and on the basis of that State Government transferred the students of B.Sc. (Nursing) first year and second year to another college. We cannot ignore the fact that for the session 2007-08 action of transfer of students was taken under the guise of lack of infrastructure facilities and next year also the action has been repeated under the cover of the aforesaid incident of illegal confinement by locking the outside gate of institution. There is link in the action of transferring the students for consecutive two years. We do not go to the question of mala fide which has been alleged in the petition as we are intending to decide the writ petition on the question whether State Government had any power to transfer the students, there exists none. State Government has granted the permission to establish the college and said permission has not been withdrawn. The recognition and affiliation of the college has also not been withdrawn. Once the permission has been granted to establish the college, thereafter, State Government has no role to play. Then comes the function of Indian Nursing Council, State Nursing Council and the University, admittedly they have not taken any adverse action against the petitioner college of withdrawal of recognition or affiliation as conceded at Bar by the learned counsel. The action of the State cannot be defended only on the ground that State was making the payment of fee of certain students. State has framed a scheme so as to sponsor certain candidates in case seats are given to it for the purpose of filling them by virtue of councilling and rest of the admissions are given by the colleges in question. Merely by making the payment of fee, the State cannot be said to have acquired a right to transfer of students from one college to another and that too in the mid session. In case there was any illegality or any illegal confinement of students committed by the management of the college in question, it could have been taken care of in accordance with law and that recourse is permissible to be adopted. In case there was any illegality or any illegal confinement of students committed by the management of the college in question, it could have been taken care of in accordance with law and that recourse is permissible to be adopted. The State Government could have written to the Nursing Council of India, Nursing Council of State and to the University, pointing out the irregularities, if any found in the colleges, but it could not have taken the action to transfer the students of first year B.Sc. Nursing in the year 2007-08 under the guise of lack of infrastructure and of transferring students of first years and second year B.Sc. Nursing in the year 2008-09 on the basis of so-called incident of illegal confinement of students. The students were transferred to other colleges ignoring the material aspect that whether other colleges were having the permission of Indian Nursing Council to give the admission in excess of the sanctioned strength, thus the action of the State was not only per se illegal and arbitrary but it has resulted in violation of the norms fixed by Indian Nursing Council of sanctioned strength. The University has pointed out in its return that transfer to other colleges violated the sanctioned strength of other college as number of students exceeded the sanctioned strength. It was not open to the State Government to perpetrate such illegality as a consequence of its action of transferring the students. In case State Government is given the such power of making transfer of students of a particular institution to another institution, there will be no end to such an act and now a days no college can be sure of continuing with the sanctioned strength of the students. The action of the State is not only impermissible but also highly prejudicial to the interest of the college in question for the purpose of which it was established. Until and unless the permission, recognition/affiliation were withdrawn in accordance with law, it was not open to the State Government to bring the college to the virtual closer by its impermissible action of transfer of students. 20. As we are quashing the action of the State Government of transferring the students of the petitioner institution, the students have to return back to the college in question for the purpose of obtaining the instructions which they were obtaining. 20. As we are quashing the action of the State Government of transferring the students of the petitioner institution, the students have to return back to the college in question for the purpose of obtaining the instructions which they were obtaining. We do not find any force in the submission of learned Sr. Counsel appearing for interveners that the students be permitted to continue their course of instructions in the college where they have been transferred. It is not the choice of the students which can prevail. Once they have opted the college, they have to complete the course of instruction in the same institution as there is no provision for the transfer of the students. Consequently, as the current academic session has almost come to an end, from the next academic session the students shall be transferred back to the college in question at the stage they are to obtain further instructions and complete the course. 21. Consequently, writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders are hereby quashed. We direct the students who were illegally transferred by the State Government, to be re-transferred to the petitioner institution w.e.f. the next academic session. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs as incurred of these petitions. Petitions allowed.