Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge the communication sent by the Controller of Examinations, the 2nd respondent herein dated 09.12.2010. In that communication, the petitioner herein, a M.L. Student Non-Semester pattern wanting to write the examination during December 2010 was informed of the revised penal fees stipulated by the University. The petitioner was informed that the M.L. degree (Non-Semester) both regular and private study candidate who have not completed the degree examination within the stipulated time and were having arrear of papers are permitted to appear for December 2010 examination for all branches from I to VII after collecting the penal fee of Rs.30,000/-, besides collection of five times of prescribed examination fee for each paper. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to remit the penal fee of Rs.20,000/- and the examination fee of Rs.250/- each paper as well as the balance fee of Rs.10,000/- immediately by way of Demand Draft, failing which he was informed that he will not be permitted to write the University Examinations. 2. When the matter came up on 21.12.2010, this Court directed notice to be issued to the Standing Counsel for the University. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 22.12.2010, this Court permitted the petitioner to write the M.L.degree examinations after paying a sum of Rs.30,000/- and the payment to be made will be subject to the final orders in the writ petition. 3. It is now fairly stated by Mr.N.Umapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not avail the condition imposed by the interim order and also did not write the examinations. On this short ground itself, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 4. In any event, Mr.N.Umapathy, learned counsel contended that the University cannot make prohibitive charges and compel the students to write the examinations. This will prevent them from pursuing his higher studies. Therefore, this Court shall come to the rescue of the petitioner and give an appropriate direction. 5. In the present case, the petitioner is writing the examination privately, that too in the Non-Semester pattern which had ceased to exist in the University. Therefore, what was made is only a concession in favour of Non-Semester students for whom neither there are any instructions to be given nor any examinations need to be conducted in future. 6. 5. In the present case, the petitioner is writing the examination privately, that too in the Non-Semester pattern which had ceased to exist in the University. Therefore, what was made is only a concession in favour of Non-Semester students for whom neither there are any instructions to be given nor any examinations need to be conducted in future. 6. On the other hand, Mr.S.Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel of the University produced a copy of the minutes of the Syndicate held on 19th October 2009. The minutes of the Syndicate resolved to give a final chance for students who are writing 2009 November/December examination on payment of Rs.10,000/-. Subsequently in the next meeting held on 22.04.2010, the Syndicate increased the penal fee to Rs.20,000/- for availing one more chance for writing the examination during May/June 2010. It is only in the last meeting which was held on 26.11.2010, the University, in order to give one more chance for such old students, it was decided to collect Rs.30,000/- besides the penal fee for each paper. 7. It is not clear as to how the petitioner can challenge the said fixation of fee, which is clearly the matter, which the University Syndicate, which is a decision making body to decide ultimately. The cost benefit analysis has to be seen from the point of view of the University. The University is not expected to subsidize. The examination is being conducted only to the students who are writing the examination with the old pattern with the old syllabus which do not exist anymore in the University. It is only in the form of a concession that was extended for such students by the University. It is for the petitioner to avail such opportunities and he cannot come forward to challenge the said decision of the University hiking the fees. Certainly it cannot be considered as an issue which had prevented the students from completing the Course. On the other hand, the lesser number of examinees greater the expenses involved for the University in setting the paper, and conducting the examinations for handful of persons. Therefore, certainly, it is not open to this Court to interfere with such decision of academic bodies in the absence of any arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. 8. There is no case made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.