JUDGMENT S.C.PARIJA, J. This writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction of the Biju Patnaik University of Technology (BPUT for short) in not implementing the decision of the University Grant Commission (UGC for short), granting autonomous status to the petitioner College and not taking necessary action in that regard. The petitioner also assails the decision of the State Government not to accord autonomous status to the petitioner College. 2. The brief facts as detailed in the writ petition is that the UGC-opposite party no.3 under its XIth Plan Guidelines (Annexure-1), prepared a Scheme of Autonomous College to increase the number of autonomous colleges in the country, with a target to make 10% of eligible colleges autonomous by the end of XIth Plan period i.e., 20072012. In terms of the said guidelines of UGC, the petitioner College submitted its proposal for autonomous status from the academic session 2010-11, in the prescribed format, duly signed and recommended by the Registrar, BPUT, to the Secretary, UGC, vide its letter dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure-2). 3. On receipt of the proposal from the petitioner College for grant of autonomous status, the UGC vide its letters dated 23.4.2010 intimated BPUT and the State Government that the UGC has constituted an Expert Committee consisting of three members to evaluate the performance and academic attainments for conferment of autonomous status to the petitioner College. Accordingly, both BPUT and the State Government were requested to nominate their respective nominee to be members of the Expert Committee. In the said letters of the UGC addressed to BPUT and the State Government it was clearly mentioned that if the State Government fails to provide its nominee within 90 days after issued of letter, the Export Committee may go ahead with the process to evaluate the performance and academic attainments for conferment of autonomous status to the petitioner College. Copy of the said letters were marked to the petitioner College with the request to pursue the matter with the State Government, as per Annexure-3 and 4 to the writ petition. 4. As per the State Government did not nominate its nominee to the Expert Committee, the UGC vide its letter dated 25.8.2010 again requested the State Government to nominate its nominee for the Expert Committee and to instruct the nominee to attend and visit the petitioner College from 30.8.2010 to 01.9.2010, as per Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 4. As per the State Government did not nominate its nominee to the Expert Committee, the UGC vide its letter dated 25.8.2010 again requested the State Government to nominate its nominee for the Expert Committee and to instruct the nominee to attend and visit the petitioner College from 30.8.2010 to 01.9.2010, as per Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner College by letter dated 27.8.2010 (Annexure-6) also requested the State Government to nominate its representative for the Expert Committee constituted by the UGC for inspection of the petitioner College to be conducted on 30.8.2010. Ultimately by letter dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure-7), the State Government in the Industries Department intimated the UGC that Sri D.K. Mallick, Joint Director (Academic), Office of the DTE & T, Orissa , Cuttack is nominated as the State Government nominee to the Expert Committee constituted by the UGC, to evaluate the performance and academic attainments for conferment of fresh autonomous status to the petitioner College. 5. The State Government having failed to nominate its nominee in time, the Expert Committee of the UGC consisting of the nominee of BPUT and others inspected the petitioner College from 30.8.2010 to 01.9.2010 and submitted its detailed report, as per Annexure-8 to the writ petition, recommending that the petitioner College be made autonomous for a period of six years from 2011-12 to 2016-17, so that it grows better under the autonomous structure than the prevailing situation where the academic health is mainly constrained due to practical problems with the affiliating University, often resulting in delaying of all activities as well as results. Basing on the recommendation of the Expert Committee, the UGC vide its letter dated 15.10.2010 (Annexure-9) agreed to confer autonomy to the petitioner College, which was communicated to all concerned, including the petitioner College, BPUT and the State Government, with a request to the BPUT to go ahead and issue necessary orders in this regard. Subsequently, the UGC by its letter dated 13.1.2011 (Annexure-10) requested the BPUT to issue necessary orders for conferment of autonomy to petitioner College. The petitioner College also took up the matter with the BPUT for issuing necessary orders/notification regarding confirmation of autonomous status to the College, as per Annexure-11 series. 6. Subsequently, the UGC by its letter dated 13.1.2011 (Annexure-10) requested the BPUT to issue necessary orders for conferment of autonomy to petitioner College. The petitioner College also took up the matter with the BPUT for issuing necessary orders/notification regarding confirmation of autonomous status to the College, as per Annexure-11 series. 6. The BPUT, by its letter dated 17.3.2011 (Annexure-13), intimated the petitioner College that the matter regarding conferring of autonomous status has already been taken up by the University and the same shall be intimated to the petitioner College shortly. Pursuant to the conferment of autonomous status to the petitioner College, the UGC by its letter dated 15.4.2011 (Annexure-14), nominated Prof. (Dr.) D.S. Chauhan, Vice-Chancellor, Uttarakhand Technical University, as its nominee to the Governing Body of the petitioner College. As the BPUT and the State Government did not nominate their representative/nominee to the Governing Body of the petitioner College, the petitioner made several requests in that regard. Having failed to elicit any response either from the State Government or the BPUT and due to the inaction of the BPUT in not passing necessary orders notifying the autonomous status of the petitioner College, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner having come to know that subsequently the State Government by its letter dated 21.5.2011 (Annexure-19) has intimated the BPUT its decision not to accord autonomous status to the petitioner College, the same has been incorporated in the writ petition by way of amendment with a prayer to quash the same. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the UGC, which is a statutory body established under the UGC Act, 1956, has framed the XIth Plan Guidelines for grant of autonomy to eligible colleges in order to carry out the National Policy on Education 1986-1992 of the Central Government. Once the UGC has granted autonomous status to the petitioner College in terms of its XIth Plan Guidelines, neither the BPUT nor the State Government has any authority in law to take a different stand and thereby defy the decision of UGC. Once the UGC has granted autonomous status to the petitioner College in terms of its XIth Plan Guidelines, neither the BPUT nor the State Government has any authority in law to take a different stand and thereby defy the decision of UGC. It is further submitted that neither the State Government nor the BPUT having raised any objection before the UGC at any time regarding the eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner College for conferment of autonomous status and the BPUT having forwarded the application/proposal form of the petitioner College to the UGC for conferment of autonomous status and having participated through its nominee in the inspection conducted by the Expert Committee for evaluation of the performance and educational attainments of the petitioner College and recommended for grant of autonomous status, they are estopped from taking a contrary stand now, at this belated stage. It is submitted that the inaction of the BPUT in not passing necessary orders notifying the autonomous status of the petitioner College is only due to the belated decision of the State Government not to accord autonomous status to the petitioner College, as has been communicated to the BPUT by letter dated 21.5.2011. In this regard, it is submitted that under XIth Plan Guidelines of UGC, the State Government has absolutely no role in the matter, except to nominate its nominee to the Expert Committee and having nominated its nominee to the said Committee at a belated state and without any objection, the present action of the State Government in deciding not to accord autonomous status to the petitioner College on the ground that it does not fulfill the stipulation of permanent affiliation is wholly improper, illegal and without jurisdiction. It is accordingly submitted that the actions of both the State Government and BPUT are hit by the well established doctrine of promissory estoppel. 8. The State Government-opposite party no.1 in its counter affidavit has taken the plea that as the petitioner College has not been granted permanent affiliation by the parent university, i.e., BPUT and there is no concurrence of the State Government, it is not entitled to autonomous status as per the XIth Plan Guidelines of UGC. 8. The State Government-opposite party no.1 in its counter affidavit has taken the plea that as the petitioner College has not been granted permanent affiliation by the parent university, i.e., BPUT and there is no concurrence of the State Government, it is not entitled to autonomous status as per the XIth Plan Guidelines of UGC. In this regard, it is submitted that as the First Statutes-2006 of BPUT does not envisage grant of permanent affiliation, which is a requirement under the XIth Plan Guidelines of UGC, no autonomous status can be conferred on the petitioner College. It is further submitted that as the Industries Department is the Nodal Department in respect of technical institutions in the State, as notified by the State Government, the communication by the UGC for nominating the State Government nominee to the Expert Committee having been addressed to the Department of Higher Education, no action could be taken thereon within the stipulated time. It is submitted that as the communication of the UGC reached the Industries Department only on 26.8.2010, the nominee was nominated by letter dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure-7) and the UGC instead of waiting for nomination of the State Government nominee, proceeded with the inspection of the petitioner College from 30.8.2010 to 1.9.2010 and therefore the recommendations made by the Expert Committee of the UGC is not binding on the State Government. It is further submitted that as the decision of the UGC conferring autonomy to the petitioner College is in violation of its own norms prescribed under the XIth Plan Guidelines, the same cannot be enforced in law. Accordingly, it is submitted that the decision of the State Government not to accord autonomous status to the petitioner College cannot be faulted. 9. The BPUT-opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit reiterating the plea that as there is no provision for grant of permanent affiliation under the First Statutes2006 of BPUT, as required under the XIth Plan Guidelines of UGC, no autonomous status can be accorded to the petitioner College. In the second additional affidavit filed by the BPUT, a plea has been taken that the XIth Plan Guidelines published by the UGC does not have the statutory force inasmuch as, the same has not been notified as Regulation under the UGC Act, 1956 and therefore the enforcement of the same cannot be insisted upon in law. In the second additional affidavit filed by the BPUT, a plea has been taken that the XIth Plan Guidelines published by the UGC does not have the statutory force inasmuch as, the same has not been notified as Regulation under the UGC Act, 1956 and therefore the enforcement of the same cannot be insisted upon in law. In the regard, it is submitted that the said XIth Plan Guidelines of the UGC being only in the nature of a guidelines and/or instructions, the BPUT is not bound to comply with the same, especially when the State Government in the Industries Department has decided not to accord autonomous status to the petitioner College. As an after thought, the BPUT has taken a new plea at the time of hearing of the writ petition that as the petitioner College is a technical institution, it is governed by the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (‘AICTE Act’ for short) and therefore it is the AICTE, who alone can take a decision regarding grant of autonomy to the petitioner College under Section 10 (m) of the said Act. Accordingly, it is submitted that the UGC has no authority to grant autonomy to the petitioner College. 10. This plea of the BPUT has been objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the same is not supported by any pleading either in the counter affidavit or in the additional affidavits filed. It is further submitted that Section 10 (m) of the AICTE Act merely provides for laying down the norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions and admittedly no such norms having been laid down by the AICTE, the plea of the BPUT is misconceived. Accordingly, it is submitted that the UGC is not denuded of its authority to grant autonomy to the petitioner College. 11. The UGC-opposite party no.3 in its counter affidavit has stated that in view of the recommendations of the Education Commission (1964-65) regarding college autonomy, the UGC documents on the XIth Plan profile of higher education in India highlighted the importance of autonomous colleges as under : “The only safe and better way to improve the quality of under graduate education is to delink most of the colleges from the affiliating structure. Colleges with academic and operative freedom are doing better and have more credibility. Colleges with academic and operative freedom are doing better and have more credibility. The financial support to such colleges boosts the concept of autonomy. It is proposed to increase the number of autonomous colleges to spread the culture of autonomy, and the target is to make 10 per cent of eligible colleges autonomous by the end of the Plan.” 12. It is further stated in the said counter affidavit that in order to confer autonomous status to the colleges, the UGC framed the XIth Plan Guidelines providing for a Scheme of Autonomous Colleges during the period 2007-2012. clause-2 of the Guidelines dealt with the objectives of the XIth Plan in order to carry out the National Policy on Education (1986-1992), which formulated the objective for autonomous colleges. An autonomous college will have the freedom to : “determine and prescribe its own courses of study and syllabi, and restructure and redesign the courses to suit local needs; and • prescribe rules for admission in consonance with the reservation policy of the state government; • Evolve methods of assessment of students ? performance, the conduct of examinations and notification of results: • Use modern tools of educational technology to achieve higher standards and greater creativity: and • Promote healthy practices such as community service, extension activities, projects for the benefit of the society at large, neighbourhood programmes, etc. 13. It is further stated that Clause-2 (b) of the XIth Plan Guidelines provided for the relationship with the parent University, the State Government and other educational institutions. Clause-3 of the said XIth Plan Guidelines dealt with the eligibility target groups specifying that all colleges under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act, 1956, are eligible to apply for autonomous status and this includes Engineering Colleges also. So far as the criteria for identification of institutions for grant of autonomy is concerned, the said Clause-3 provided as under : “CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONS FOR GRANT OF AUTONOMY (a) Academic reputation and previous performance in university examinations and its academic/co-curricular/extension activities in the past. (b) Academic / extension achievements of the faculty. (c) Quality and merit in the selection of students and teachers, subject to statutory requirements in this regard. (d) Adequacy of infrastructure, for example, library, equipment, accommodation for academic activities, etc. (e) Quality of institutional management. (f) Financial resources provided by the management / state government for the development of the institution. (b) Academic / extension achievements of the faculty. (c) Quality and merit in the selection of students and teachers, subject to statutory requirements in this regard. (d) Adequacy of infrastructure, for example, library, equipment, accommodation for academic activities, etc. (e) Quality of institutional management. (f) Financial resources provided by the management / state government for the development of the institution. (g) Responsiveness of administrative structure. (h) Motivation and involvement of faculty in the promotion of innovative reforms. (i) Self-Financing college can also apply for autonomy after they have completed minimum 10 years of existence. However, conferment of autonomy will not entitle them to receive autonomy grant. They will have to follow the same procedure as applicable to other colleges. (j) Colleges that provide professional courses in Education, Engineering Technology Management and Physical Education, etc. will also be eligible to receive grants from the Commission. The sanction of such grants will depend on the size and stage of development of these colleges after attaining autonomous status.” 14. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in view of the provisions contained in Clause-3 of the XIth Plan Guidelines dealing with target group and eligibility target group, it is clear that a college whether having temporary or permanent affiliation comes within the target group and is eligible to be considered for autonomous status within the meaning of Clause-3 of the said Guidelines. It is stated that the UGC has considered both categories of colleges which are having temporary affiliation and/or permanent affiliation from the parent University, for grant of autonomous status. 15. The UGC in its counter affidavit have categorically stated that they received the proposal of the petitioner College duly forwarded by the parent University, i.e., BPUT in January, 2010. Thereafter, the Chairman of UGC constituted an Expert Committee for on the spot inspection of the College for consideration of autonomous status. After the University nominees name was received and State Government did not nominate its nominee within the stipulated period of 90 days, in spite of repeated requests and reminders, the Expert Committee went ahead with the spot inspection of the petitioner College from 30.8.2010 to 1.9.2010 and the State Government was also informed in this regard. The Expert Committee visited the petitioner College from 30.8.2010 to 1.9.2010 and thereafter the report of the Expert Committee was placed before the Commission in its meeting held on 27th September, 2010. The Expert Committee visited the petitioner College from 30.8.2010 to 1.9.2010 and thereafter the report of the Expert Committee was placed before the Commission in its meeting held on 27th September, 2010. 16. It is further stated in the said counter affidavit that the UGC informed the Registrar, BPUT, vide letter dated 13.10.2010, that based on the recommendations of the Expert Committee, the Commission has agreed to confer autonomy to the petitioner College from the year 2011-12 to 2016-17 and the University may now go to ahead and issue necessary orders in this regard by endorsing a copy of the same to UGC. Further, as per the XIth Plan Guidelines, the UGC nominated Prof. (Dr.) D.S.Chauhan, Vice-Chancellor, Uttarakhand Technical University, Uttarakhand, to be a member of the Governing Body of the petitioner College on 15.4.2011 and it is for the BPUT and the State Government to nominate their respective nominees. 17. The UGC Act, 1956, is enacted under the provisions of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It entitles Parliament to legislate in respect of “coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.” 18. The short title of the UGC Act repeats the words of Entry 66 thus: “ An Act to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission.” Section 2 of the UGC Act is the definition section and clause (f) thereof defines a University to mean- “a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act.” Section 12 sets out the functions of UGC. It says, so far as is relevant for our purposes: “ It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities, and for the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Commission may- x x x (d) recommend to any University the measures necessary for the improvement of University education and advise the University upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation ; x x x (j) perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conductive to the discharge of the above functions.” Section 12-A enables the UGC to regulate fees and it prohibits donations in certain cases. Sub-section (i) of Section 12-A sets out certain definitions expressly for the purpose of Section 12-A. Clause (d) thereof defines qualification to mean “a degree or any other qualification awarded by a University”. Section 14 lays down the consequences of failure of universities to comply with the recommendations of the Commission. Section 20 of the UGC Act reads as under ; “(1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes as may be given to it by the Central Government. (2) If any dispute arises between the Central Government and the Commission as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy relating to national purposes, the decision of the Central Government shall be final.” Section 25 empowers the Central Government to make rules for the carrying out of the purposes of the UGC Act. Section 26 entitles the UGC, by notification in the Official Gazette, to make regulations consistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder. 19. From the above, it is seen that the Central Government enacted the UGC Act, 1956, to coordinate the standards of higher education, which include the power to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any project of national importance. 19. From the above, it is seen that the Central Government enacted the UGC Act, 1956, to coordinate the standards of higher education, which include the power to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any project of national importance. Such coordinate action in higher education with proper standards was of paramount importance to national progress. The power of the UGC to coordinate and of necessity, implied therein is the power to prevent what would make such coordination impossible or difficult. This power of UGC is wide and absolute and in absence of any compelling reasons, it has to be given full effect according to its plain and expressed intention. The State has no power at all with regard to such matters. 20. With the passage of time there was a growing need for College autonomy as an instrument for promoting academic excellence. The affiliating system of colleges was originally designed when their number in a University was small. The University could then effectively oversee the working of the colleges, act as an examining body and award degrees on their behalf. The system has now become unwieldy and it is becoming increasingly difficult for a University to attend to the varied needs of individual colleges. The colleges do not have the freedom to modernize their curricula or make them locally relevant. The regulations of the University and its common system, governing all colleges alike, irrespective of their characteristic strengths, weaknesses and locations, have affected the academic development of individual colleges. Colleges that have the potential for offering programmes of a higher standard do not have the freedom to offer them. The 1964-66 Education Commission pointed out that the exercise of academic freedom by teachers is a crucial requirement for development of the intellectual climate of our country. Unless such a climate prevails, it is difficult to achieve excellence in our higher education system. With students, teachers and management being co-partners in raising the quality of higher education, it is imperative that they share a major responsibility. Hence, the Education Commission (1964-66) recommended college autonomy, which, in essence, is the instrument for promoting academic excellence. 21. The National Policy on Education (1986-1992) of the Central Government formulated the objective for autonomous colleges, as has already been detailed above. Hence, the Education Commission (1964-66) recommended college autonomy, which, in essence, is the instrument for promoting academic excellence. 21. The National Policy on Education (1986-1992) of the Central Government formulated the objective for autonomous colleges, as has already been detailed above. Highlighting the importance of autonomous colleges and in order to carry out the said objectives of the National Policy of Education, the UGC framed the XIth Plan Guidelines, providing for a Scheme of Autonomous Colleges during the plan period, i.e. 2007-2012. 22. The XIth Plan Guidelines, under Clause-2(b) provides for the relationship with the parent University, the State Government and other educational institutions, which reads as under : “ Autonomous colleges are free to made use of the expertise of university departments and other institutions to frame their curricula, devise methods of teaching, examination and evaluation. They can recruit their teachers according to the existing procedures (for private and government colleges). The parent university will accept the methodologies of teaching, examination, evaluation and the course curriculum of its autonomous colleges. It will also help the colleges to develop their academic programmes, improve the faculty and to provide necessary guidance by participating in the deliberations of the different bodies of the colleges. The role of the parent university will be : To bring more autonomous colleges under its fold ; To promote academic freedom in autonomous colleges by encouraging introduction of innovative academic programmes ; To facilitate new course of study, subject to the requirement minimum number of hours of instruction, content and standards ; To permit them to issue their own provisional, migration and other certificates ; To do everything possible to foster the spirit of To ensure that degrees/diplomas/certificates issued indicate the name of the college ; To depute various nominees of the university to serve in various committees of the autonomous colleges and get the feedback on their functioning ; and To create separate wings wherever necessary to facilitate the smooth working of the autonomous colleges. The state government will assist the autonomous colleges by ; Avoiding, as far as possible, transfer of teachers, especially in colleges where academic innovation and reforms are in progress, except for need-based transfer ; Conveying its concurrence for the extension of autonomy of any college to the Commission within the stipulated time of 90 days after receipt of the review committee report, failing which it will be construed that the state government has no objection to the college continuing to be autonomous, and Deputing nominees on time to the governing body of government colleges and other bodies wherever their nominees are to be included ; All three stake holders, the parent University, the State Govt. and UGC have to play a very harmonious and pro active role as facilitators in letter and spirits.” 23. Clause-2 © of the said Guidelines provides that the parent university will confer the status of autonomy upon a college that is permanently affiliated, with the concurrence of the State Government and the UGC. Once the autonomy is granted, the parent university shall accept the students of autonomous college for award of such degrees as are recommended by the autonomous college. 24. Clause-3 dealt with target group and the criteria for identification of institutions for grant of autonomy. All colleges under Section 2(f), aided, unaided, partially aided and self-financing which are not covered under Section 12(b) of the UGC Act are eligible to apply for autonomous stains and this includes Engineering Colleges. 25. Clause-5 lays down the procedure for applying for autonomous status. Clause6 prescribed the procedure for approval of autonomous status by the UGC, which reads as under; “The Commission further reviewed the present procedure for fresh proposal and resolved that an Expert Committee may be constituted for all fresh cases with representation of university and State Government nominees. The existing procedure of Screening Committee may be scraped and the Chairman may constitute Expert Committee for on the spot inspection for consideration of each proposal.” The parent University will notify the colleges concerned and that the autonomy will be conferred initially for a period of six years. 26. Clause-8 of the Guidelines dealt with governance of an autonomous college and the constitution of its Governing Body as per the structure given in Annexure-III. 27. 26. Clause-8 of the Guidelines dealt with governance of an autonomous college and the constitution of its Governing Body as per the structure given in Annexure-III. 27. The Biju Patnaik University of Technology Act, 2002 (“BPUT Act’ for short) was enacted to provide for the establishment and incorporation of a technological university in the State of Orissa and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 28. Section 5 of the BPUT Act provides for the powers and functions of the University and sub section (iii) thereof deals with grant of autonomy to affiliated colleges, which reads as under; “5. Powers and functions of University-Subject to such orders, rules, regulations, guidelines and directions, as may be issued from time to time, by the Central Government or the Council under the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. The University shall have the following powers and functions, namely, : xx xx xx xx xxxx (iii) to grant autonomy to any affiliated. College or institution imparting education in engineering and technology, including information technology and its application, architecture, pharmacy, applied arts and crafts, management and applied sciences.” 29. Statute No.43 in Part-VI of the First Statuite-2006 of BPUT framed under Section 2(q) of the BPUT Act provides for grant of affiliation to institutions/colleges imparting technical education in the State and clause (4) thereof provides for grant of affiliation on annual basis, which reads as under “ 43. The University shall grant affiliation from time to time to different institutions/colleges imparting technical education in the State as per the provisions under sub-section (ii) of Section 18 of the Act. x x x x x x (4) Affiliation of new courses/continuation of affiliation of existing courses in an existing institution/college in subsequent years or in a new college shall be subject to scrutiny by the University. This affiliation shall be ordinarily accorded on a yearly basis. Each year application for affiliation shall be submitted in the prescribed proforma along with affiliation fee and inspection fee, within a specified date to the Office of the Registrar, Biju Patnaik University of Technology for due processing before the respective academic session starts.” 30. The XIth Plan Guidelines having been framed by the UGC to implement the objectives of the National Policy on Education of the Central Government regarding grant of autonomy to colleges, the same is binding on the BPUT. The XIth Plan Guidelines having been framed by the UGC to implement the objectives of the National Policy on Education of the Central Government regarding grant of autonomy to colleges, the same is binding on the BPUT. Moreover, the BPUT is required to exercise the powers and functions as enumerated in Section 5 of the BPUT Act, including the power to grant autonomy to any affiliated college or institution, which is subject to such orders, guidelines and directions, as may be issued by the Central Government from time to time. Hence, it is not open for the BPUT to question the authority of the UGC in framing the XIth Plan Guidelines and refuse to carry out the order/decision of the UGC granting autonomous status to the petitioner college. 31. There is no conflict between the XIth Plan Guidelines of the UGC and the provisions of BPUT Act and the First Statute-2006 framed thereunder, regarding grant of autonomous status to eligible colleges. The stand taken by the UGC in its counter affidavit clarifies the position that both colleges having permanent or temporary affiliation comes within the target group and are eligible to be considered for grant of autonomous status, as per Clause-3 of its Guidelines. 32. The State Government by its letter dated 8.9.2011 having nominated its nominee to the Expert Committee constituted by the UGC for inspection of the petitioner College for conferment of autonomous status pursuant to the communications of the UGC dated 23.4.2010 and 9.8.2010, as would be evident from the said letter itself, the plea now raised that the said communications were not addressed to the nodal department cannot be sustained. 33. As regard the contention of the BPUT that it is only the AICTE who can grant autonomous status to the petitioner College under the provisions of the AICTE Act, the same appears to be a belated ploy on the part of the BPUT to avoid its obligations under the XIth Plan Guidelines of the UGC. This is more so when seen in the light of the fact that no such objection has been raised by the BPUT at any stage of the matter. Moreover, no norms having been laid down as required under Section 10(m) of the AICTE Act, there is no bar for the UGC to prescribe the guidelines and confer autonomy to eligible colleges. 34. Moreover, no norms having been laid down as required under Section 10(m) of the AICTE Act, there is no bar for the UGC to prescribe the guidelines and confer autonomy to eligible colleges. 34. Coming to the plea of the petitioner regarding application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the said doctrine is a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. In the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India –vrs-Anglo Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968 SC 718 , the doctrine of promissory estoppel found its most eloquent exposition. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Court that the Government cannot claim to be immune from the applicability of the rule of promissory estoppel and repudiate a promise made by it on the ground that such promise may fetter its future executive action. If the Government does not want its freedom of executive action to be hampered or restricted, the Government need not make a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promise and promise would after his position relying upon it. But if the Government makes such a promise and the promise acts in reliance upon it and alters his position, there is no reason why the Government should not be compelled to make good such promise like any other private individual. The Hon’ble Court after referring to various earlier decisions summed up the position as follows : “Under our jurisprudence the Government is not exempt from liability to carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct and it cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the promise solemnly made by it, nor claim to be the judge of its own obligation to the citizen on an ex parte appraisement of the circumstances in which the obligation has arisen.” 35. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. –vrs.-State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1979 SC 621 , the Supreme Court observed as under: “The true principle of promissory estoppel seems to be that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact to acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties, and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre-existing relationship between the parties or not.” 36. The Hon’ble Court referring to the decision in Anglo Afghan Agencies case (supra), proceeded to observe as follows : “The law may, therefore, now be taken to be settled as a result of this decision, that where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and in fact the promise, acting in reliance on it, alters his position the Govt. would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Govt. at the instance of the promise, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Art,299 of the Constitution.” xx xxxx xx “It is indeed the pride of constitutional democracy and rule of law that the Government stands on the same footing as a private individual so far as the obligation of the law is concerned the former is equally bound at the later. It is indeed difficult to see on what principle can a Government committed to the rule of law, claim immunity from the doctrine of promissory estoppel? xx xx xx” 37. Relying upon a large number of decisions, the Hon’ble Court held that it is not necessary that by altering the position by the promises, he must have some detriment to his position. xx xx xx” 37. Relying upon a large number of decisions, the Hon’ble Court held that it is not necessary that by altering the position by the promises, he must have some detriment to his position. Thus, a person raising the plea of promissory estoppel does not have to establish that he suffers from any detriment. What is necessary is only that the promise should have altered his position by relying on the promise, meaning thereby that the promise must have lead to act differently from what he would otherwise have done. It is not a detriment but a benefit to him which he could have received on acting upon the promise made by the other side. 38. The ambit, scope and amplitude of the doctrine of promissory estoppel again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Kasinka Trading and another –vrs-Union of India and another, AIR 1995 SC 874 , wherein the Hon’ble Court observed as follows : “The doctrine of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel is well established in the administrative law of the country. To put it simply, the doctrine represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. The basis of the doctrine is that where any party has by his word or conduct made to the other party an unequivocal promise or representation by word or conduct which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing as well as intending that the representation, assurance of the promise would be acted upon by the other party to whom it has been made and has in fact been so acted upon by the other party, the promise, assurance or representation should be binding on the party making it and that party should not be permitted to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings, which have taken place or are intended to take place between the parties.” 39. In Pawan alloys and Casting Pvt. Ltd., Meerut etc. etc. In Pawan alloys and Casting Pvt. Ltd., Meerut etc. etc. –vrs.-U.P. State Electricity Board and others, AIR 1997 SC 3910 , the Supreme Court held that it is sufficient to say that if a statutory authority or an executive authority of the State in exercise of its legally permissible powers has held out any promise to a party and relying on the same, the party has changed its position not necessarily to its detriment and if this promise does not offend any provision of law or does not fetter any legislative or quasi-legislative power inhering in the promissory, then on the principle of promissory estoppel, the promissor can be pinned down to the promise made by its by way of representation containing such promise, for the benefit of the promise. 40. In State of Orissa and others –vrs-Mangalam Timber Products Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 297 , the Hon’ble Court held as under : “xxx xxx To attract the applicability of the principle of estoppel it is not necessary that there must be a contract in writing entered into between the parties. We are not satisfied even prima facie that it was a case of an error committed by the State Government of which it was not aware. The State of Orissa should have, while holding out the representation, taken into consideration the fact who will have to do the replantation and that the permission of the Government of India would be needed for the purpose. The State cannot take advantage of its own omission. xxx xxx” 41. In State of Punjab –vrs.-Nestle India Ltd. And another, AIR 2004 SC 4550, the Supreme Court while recapitulating the law on the subject of promissory estoppel, referred to a large number of its earlier judgments and came to the conclusion that promissory estoppel long recognized as a legitimate defence in equity was held to found a cause of action against the Government, even when, and this needs to be emphasized, the representation ought to be enforced was legally invalid in the sense that it was made in a manner which was not in conformity with the procedure prescribed by statute. In the said case the Hon’ble Court came to find that the State of Punjab has not been able to establish any overriding public interest which would make it inequitable to enforce the estoppel against the State Government and accordingly proceeded to upheld the plea of promissory estoppel raised by the respondents therein. 42. The well established doctrine of promissory estoppel and its applicability has been discussed, affirmed and reiterated in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others –vrs-. Kalayanpur Cement Ltd., (2010) 3 SCC 274 . 43. However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel has certain limitations regarding its applicability. There can be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of legislative function nor can the Government or public authority be debarred by promissory estoppel from enforcing a statutory prohibition. It is equally true that promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make. The doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires, if it can be shown by the Government or public authority that having regard to the facts as they have transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government or public authority to the promise or representation made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the person to whom the promise or representation is made and enforce the promise or representation against the Government or public authority. The doctrine of promissory estoppel would be displaced in such a case, because on the facts, equity would not require that the Government or public authority should be held bound by the promise or representation made by it. (See. Union of India and others –vrs.-Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806 ). 44. It is trite law that every action of the State executive authority or a statutory authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reasons. So, whatever be the activity of the public authority, it should meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. 44. It is trite law that every action of the State executive authority or a statutory authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reasons. So, whatever be the activity of the public authority, it should meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. Rule of reason and rule against arbitrariness and discrimination, rules of fair play and natural justice are part of the rule of law applicable in situation or action by State instrumentality in dealing with citizens. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for discernible reasons, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness. 45. In the present case, from the pleadings of the parties it is abundantly clear that pursuant to the XIth Plan Guidelines of the UGC, the petitioner College submitted its application/proposal in the prescribed format, duly signed and recommended by the Registrar, BPUT, for grant of autonomous status. The UGC vide its letter dated 23.4.2010 intimated the BPUT and the State Government to nominate their respective nominees to be members of the Expert Committee constituted by the UGC, to evaluate the performance and academic attainments of the petitioner College, for conferment of autonomous status. In the said letter of the UGC it was made clear that if the State Government fails to provide its nominee within 90 days, the Expert Committee may go ahead with the process to evaluate the performance and academic attainments of the petitioner College, for conferment of autonomous status. In the said letter of the UGC it was made clear that if the State Government fails to provide its nominee within 90 days, the Expert Committee may go ahead with the process to evaluate the performance and academic attainments of the petitioner College, for conferment of autonomous status. In spite of repeated requests and reminders, the State Government failed to nominate its nominee to the Expert Committee in time. The BPUT nominated its nominee to the said Expert Committee constituted by the UGC, which visited the petitioner College from 30.8.2010 to 01.9.2010 and submitted its detailed report, with the following recommendations : “Based on 5 years results and strength of teachers and feedback of students, teachers and other staff and NAAC, 2(f) of UGC, NBA recommendations the Committee is of the view that the college be made autonomous for a period of 6 years from 2011-12 to 2016-17 so that it grows better under the autonomous structure than the prevailing situation where the academic health is mainly constrained due to practical problems with the affiliating University often resulting in delaying of all activities as well as results.” 46. After inspection of the petitioner College by the Expert Committee, the State Government vide its letter dated 8.9.2010 intimated the UGC regarding nomination of its nominee to the Expert Committee constituted by the UGC to evaluate the performance and academic attainments for conferment of autonomous status to the petitioner College. 47. The UGC considered the report of the Expert Committee and basing on the recommendations made by it, agreed to confer autonomous status to the petitioner College from the academic session 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 and accordingly intimated the Registrar, BPUT of the same vide its letter dated 15.10.2010 and subsequent reminder dated 13.01.2011, with the request to issue necessary orders in this regard. The BPUT vide its letter dated 17.3.2011 intimated the petitioner College that the matter regarding conferment of autonomous status has already been taken up by the University and that the same will be intimated to the petitioner shortly. 48. The above narration of facts situation clearly reveals that at no stage either the State Government or the BPUT had expressed any reservations or raised any objection regarding conferment of autonomous status to the petitioner College by the UGC under its XIth Plan Guidelines. 48. The above narration of facts situation clearly reveals that at no stage either the State Government or the BPUT had expressed any reservations or raised any objection regarding conferment of autonomous status to the petitioner College by the UGC under its XIth Plan Guidelines. Admittedly, the State Government has no authority in law to take any decision regarding grant of autonomy to colleges. No explanation is forthcoming from the State or the BPUT for the sudden volte face at such a belated stated, after the UGC agreed to confer autonomous status to the petitioner College based on the report and recommendations of its Expert Committee. The recalcitrant attitude of the State Government and the BPUT in refusing to comply with the order/decision of the UGC conferring autonomous status to the petitioner College is not reasonable and justified and therefore the plea of promissory estoppel raised by the petitioner is liable to be upheld. Moreover, the said opposite parties have not been able to establish any statutory bar or any overriding public interest which would made it inequitable to enforce the estoppel against them. 49. For the reasons as aforesaid, the action of the State Government and the BPUT in defying the decision/order of the UGC conferring autonomous status to the petitioner College cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the decision of the State Government not to accord autonomous status to the petitioner College, as communicated to the BPUT vide its letter dated 21.5.2011 is hereby quashed. Both the State Government and the BPUT are directed to take immediate steps to carry out their respective obligations under the XIth Plan Guidelines of the UGC for grant of autonomous status to the petitioner College. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to consts. Writ petition allowed.