JUDGMENT 1. The Anna University has come up with the above writ petition challenging a communication sent by the Council of Architecture, informing them of the decision of the Executive Committee of the Council, to reduce the permitted annual intake of students from 80 to 40 from the academic years 2012-2013 for a period of five years, on the ground that there were some deficiencies. 2. I have heard Mr. P.H. Aravindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N.Muralikumaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein. 3. The Department of Architecture, was originally started as a constituent of the Guindy Engineering College, affiliated to the Madras University way back in the year 1957. After the issue of the Anna University Act, 1978, it became a unit of the Anna University. It was a pioneer in the field of education in Architecture and Planning. 4. But, even before the Anna University was carved out of the Madras University, the Parliament enacted the Architects Act, 1972 and it came into force on 1.9.1972. The Act provided for the constitution of a council known as Council of Architecture. The Council of Architecture was entrusted by Section 21 of the Act to prescribe the minimum standards of architectural education required for granting recognised qualifications by colleges and institutions in India. 5. While Section 44 empowered the Central Government to make rules with respect to the matters enumerated in Sub-Section (2) thereof, Section 45 empowered the Council of Architecture itself to make regulations. The regulations so framed by the Council, may provide for (i) the courses and periods of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subject of examinations and standards of proficiency therein obtained in college or institution for grant of recognised qualifications; (ii) the standards of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for architectural education; and (iii) the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and conditions of admission to such examinations. 6. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 45, the Council of Architecture issued a set of regulations known as Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 1983. It appears from the web site of the Council of Architecture that there are 280 institutions, which impart architectural education in India leading to recognised qualifications. 6. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 45, the Council of Architecture issued a set of regulations known as Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 1983. It appears from the web site of the Council of Architecture that there are 280 institutions, which impart architectural education in India leading to recognised qualifications. The standards of education imparted in these institutions, whether they are constituent colleges or departments of universities or deemed universities or affiliated colleges/schools or IITs or NITs or autonomous institutions, are governed by these regulations issued in 1983. These regulations set forth the requirement of eligibility for admission, course duration, standards of staff and accommodation, course content, examination, etc. The Council of Architecture oversees maintenance of standards periodically by conducting inspections through committees of experts. 7. It appears that the annual permitted intake allowed by the Council of Architecture for the School of Architecture and Planning of the Anna University originally stood at 40 and the same was enhanced to 60 in the year 2009-10. The intake was further enhanced from 60 to 80 from the academic year 2010-11. It is needless to mention that such enhancement of the annual permitted intake was allowed on the basis of an inspection and a comprehensive evaluation conducted by a Committee of Experts. 8. But unfortunately, 14 students were admitted during the year 2010-2011 over and above the permitted intake of 80 and hence, the Council of Architecture sought clarifications from the petitioner university. The Vice Chancellor informed the respondent of the circumstances under which excess admission was made. In the light of the admission of students in excess of the permitted intake, the university also requested the respondent to conduct an inspection and evaluate the availability of adequate infrastructure for an intake of 100. 9. By proceedings dated 22.9.2011, the respondent appointed a Committee of two Experts to inspect the School of Architecture and Planning, on the basis of a complaint sent by one P.R. Prabu, an Architect by himself alleging certain deficiencies. The task assigned to the Committee was to report on the alleged violations. The Committee conducted an inspection on 29.11.2011 and submitted a report on 13.1.2012. The report of the Committee was brought to the notice of the university only by a letter dated 1.5.2012. The task assigned to the Committee was to report on the alleged violations. The Committee conducted an inspection on 29.11.2011 and submitted a report on 13.1.2012. The report of the Committee was brought to the notice of the university only by a letter dated 1.5.2012. By the said letter dated 1.5.2012, which is impugned in the writ petition, the petitioner university was informed that the Executive Committee of the Council of Architecture had resolved in its 116th meeting held on 19.4.2012 to reduce the intake from 80 to 40 from the academic year 2012-2013 for a period of five years, on the basis of the report of the Expert Committee that inspected the School on 29.11.2011. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Executive Committee as communicated by the letter of the Registrar dated 1.5.2012, the university has come up with the above writ petition. 10. The writ petition came up for admission along with a miscellaneous petition for an interim stay, on 22.6.2012. The learned Judge, before whom the writ petition came up, admitted the writ petition and ordered notice in the miscellaneous petition. Thereafter, the miscellaneous petition came up before me for hearing on 13.7.2012. By then, the respondent had entered appearance. Therefore, after hearing the counsel for the respondent, I passed an order on the same day, permitting the petitioner university to continue to admit 80 students for the academic session 2012-13, subject to certain conditions. The conditions imposed by me were as follows : (i) that the petitioner university should not admit even a single student in excess of the permitted intake, in view of the allegations of admission of students in the previous academic session over and above the permitted intake; (ii) that the Secretary to Higher Education Department of the Government of Tamilnadu, should conduct an investigation into the circumstances under which excess admissions were made in the past; (iii) that the petitioner university should also rectify the two major deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report namely that of lack of adequate teaching faculty and the lack of adequate built up area. 11. On the basis of the above interim order, the petitioner admitted 80 students and they have also submitted that they complied with the conditions imposed. Thereafter, the writ petition was taken up for hearing. 12. 11. On the basis of the above interim order, the petitioner admitted 80 students and they have also submitted that they complied with the conditions imposed. Thereafter, the writ petition was taken up for hearing. 12. As I have pointed out in my interim order dated 13.7.2012, the respondent had alleged certain deficiencies, which can be grouped under the following three categories : (a) illegal admission of students in excess of the actual permitted intake right from the academic session 2007-2008 onwards; (b) the total number of teaching faculty being less than the minimum; and (c) the built up area being less than the required extent or required standard. 13. Today, it is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that all the three deficiencies stand rectified. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, (i) the admission for the current academic session 2012-2013 was strictly confined to only 80 and there was no excess admission; (ii) the vacancies in the post of teaching faculty have been filled up; and (iii) the deficiencies with regard to the built up area are rectified. 14. In response to the above submission of the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. N.Muralikumaran, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the it is for the Committee of Experts to verify physically the rectification of the deficiencies and that the Council can make an inspection and arrive at a conclusion, on the basis of the ground realities. In other words, the rectification of deficiencies falling under the second and third categories, has to be verified physically by the Committee of Experts and it can be left to the Council of Architecture to conduct an inspection and take a decision in accordance with law. 15. But in so far as the allegation relating to admission of students in excess of the permitted intake is concerned, both the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there are grey areas, created by Court orders and regulations. Therefore, on the question as to how the School of Architecture and Planning of the petitioner university has to fill up the seats within the actual permitted intake, the counsel appearing on both sides submitted that there must be some clear indication, so that no violations of statutory prescriptions take place in future under any score. 16. Therefore, on the question as to how the School of Architecture and Planning of the petitioner university has to fill up the seats within the actual permitted intake, the counsel appearing on both sides submitted that there must be some clear indication, so that no violations of statutory prescriptions take place in future under any score. 16. Therefore, let me now take up for consideration the question of excess admission that had admittedly happened in the past. As stated earlier, even the petitioner university admits that they had admitted students in excess of the permitted intake in the past. The excess admissions had happened in the following manner:- S.No. Academic Year Sanctioned Intake Number of Students Admitted 1. 2007-2008 40 46 2. 2008-2009 40 53 3. 2009-20010 60 60 4. 20010-20011 80 94 5. 20011-20012 80 83 17. According to the petitioner, excess admissions had happened on account of the following : (i) admission to 15% of the seats in excess of the permitted intake was made under the quota for Non Resident Indians and Consortium of Industries, as per the Gazette Notification bearing No.21-2/2003-TSIII, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development dated 1st June 2004 and the Gazette Notification issued by the All India Council for Technical Education on 21.1.2004; (ii) admission under the donors' quota; and (iii) admission of students under the category of Children of Indian Origin Working in Gulf Countries/Foreign Nationals. 18. In order to understand the reasons as to why admissions were made by the petitioner university in excess of the permitted intake, it is necessary to undertake a small tour, back in point of time. 19. In P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 2005 SC 3226 ], a Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court purportedly attempted to settle some of the questions that were either left unsettled or created by a Eleven Judge Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka ( AIR 2003 SC 355 ) and next by a Five Judge Bench in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka ( AIR 2003 SC 3724 ). State of Karnataka ( AIR 2003 SC 355 ) and next by a Five Judge Bench in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka ( AIR 2003 SC 3724 ). Though neither the Courts nor The Constitution had so far recognised any quota on any basis other than sociological conditions of the past, the Supreme Court recognised for the first time in P.A. Inamdar that the self financing institutions had invented a new category of people allegedly entitled to a quota. This quota named as "NRI seats" found the approval of the Supreme Court in paragraph 128 of the decision in P.A. Inamdar. Paragraph 128 is extracted as follows:- "Here itself we are inclined to deal with the question as to seats allocated for Non-Resident Indians ('NRI', for short) or NRI seats. It is common knowledge that some of the institutions grant admissions to certain number of students under such quota by charging a higher amount of fee. In fact, the term 'NRI' in relation to admissions is a misnomer. By and large, we have noticed in cases after cases coming to this Court, neither the students who get admissions under this category nor their parents are NRIs. In effect and reality, under this category, less meritorious students, but who can afford to bring more money, get admission. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that a limited number of such seats should be made available as the money brought by such students admitted against NRI quota enables the educational institutions to strengthen its level of education and also to enlarge its educational activities. It was also pointed out that people of Indian origin, who have migrated to other countries, have a desire to bring back their children to their own country as they not only get education but also get reunited with Indian cultural ethos by virtue of being here. They also wish the money which they would be spending elsewhere on education of their children should rather reach their own motherland. A limited reservation of such seats, not exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made available to NRIs depending on the discretion of the management subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilized bona fide by the NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, the merit should not be given a complete go-by. A limited reservation of such seats, not exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made available to NRIs depending on the discretion of the management subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilized bona fide by the NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, the merit should not be given a complete go-by. The amount of money, in whatever form collected from such NRIs, should be utilized for benefiting students such as from economically weaker sections of the society, whom, on well defined criteria, the educational institution may admit on subsidized payment of their fee. To prevent misutilisation of such quota or any malpractice referable to NRI quota seats, suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed. So long as the State does not do it, it will be for the Committees constituted pursuant to Islamic Academy's direction to regulate." 20. But, it appears that even when P.A. Inamdar was under consideration before the Seven Judge Bench, the All Indian Council for Technical Education, which is the Regulatory Body for technical education in the State, recognised such a quota, by issuing a set of regulations. These regulations were known as All India Council for Technical Education (Admission under Supernumerary Quota for Foreign Nationals/Persons of Indian Origin/Children of Indian Workers in the Gulf Countries in AICTE Approved Institutions) Regulations, 2004. These regulations were issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10(o) and (j) read with Section 23(1) of the AICTE Act, 1987. These regulations defined the expressions "Persons of Indian Origin", "Foreign Nationals" and "Foreign Students". These regulations did not define the other expression "Children of Indian Workers in the Gulf Countries". 21. Regulation 4(a) stipulated that 15% of the seats in all institutions and university departments approved by AICTE offering technical courses leading to Diploma, Degree and Post Graduate Degrees in Engineering and Technology, Architecture and Town Planning, Pharmacy, Applied Arts, MBA and MCA, Hotel Management and Catering Technology, etc., shall be allowed on supernumerary basis from amongst foreign nationals/persons of Indian origin/children of Indian workers in Gulf countries, over and above the approved intake. By using two sets of expressions namely (i) supernumerary; and (ii) over and above the approved intake, the regulations made it very clear that these admissions are allowed in excess of the permitted intake. 22. By using two sets of expressions namely (i) supernumerary; and (ii) over and above the approved intake, the regulations made it very clear that these admissions are allowed in excess of the permitted intake. 22. Though Regulation 4(b) laid down the guidelines for filling up these seats, subject to the approval of the AICTE, the second part of Regulation 4(a) indicated that the admission of students under this quota should be subject to availability of adequate infrastructural facilities. 23. Following the aforesaid regulations issued by the AICTE and notified on 21.1.2004, the Council of Architecture also passed a resolution on 1.4.2005 in its 80th meeting, approving the admission of persons of Indian origin, NRIs, foreign nationals and other category of students at 15% over and above the sanctioned intake from the academic year 2005-2006. 24. However, after the decision of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar, the Council of Architecture reconsidered its earlier decision taken on 1.4.2005 in two meetings one convened on June 28, 2007 (91st meeting) and another convened on 10.9.2007 (92nd meeting). It was decided by the Council of Architecture in those two meetings that all architectural institutions in the country, approved by the Council of Architecture, should admit students of all categories such as supernumerary, NRIs, foreign nationals, persons of Indian origins, etc., in the five year B.Arch/two year M.Arch courses within the total intake sanctioned to the institution. Interestingly, the decision of the Council of Architecture to keep this quota only within the permitted intake and not as over and above the intake was purportedly taken on the basis of the decision in P.A. Inamdar, though there was no indication in P.A. Inamdar to the said effect. 25. At about the same time, yet another development was taking place on the file of this Court. It was in the form of public interest litigation. The prayer made in the said writ petition was for a Mandamus to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate into the irregularities committed by the then Vice Chancellor of the Anna University Dr. D.Viswanathan including the irregularity of admitting ineligible students. The said writ petition W.P.No.28680 of 2006 in Goodluck Rajendran vs. Dr. D.Viswanathan was partly allowed by this Court. D.Viswanathan including the irregularity of admitting ineligible students. The said writ petition W.P.No.28680 of 2006 in Goodluck Rajendran vs. Dr. D.Viswanathan was partly allowed by this Court. As seen from paragraph 6 of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in that case on 11.9.2007, the question that was taken up for consideration by the Division Bench was whether quotas like (i) Government quota; (ii) donors' quota; and (iii) industrial consortium quota are valid or not. Finding that 2% of the total intake of seats was filled up as a State quota and that the same was opposed to the principles laid down Thappar Institute of Engineering and Technology Vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1997 SC 793 ), the Division Bench of this Court held that such a quota was unavailable. Similarly, the Division Bench held that there cannot be a quota for the donors and the founders in view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs. M.P. Shah Charitable Trust [ 1994 (3) SCC 552 ]. However, in so far as the quota for consortium of industries is concerned, the Division Bench held that the same was allowable. The opinion rendered by the Division Bench in this regard could be found at paragraph 15 of the decision and hence, it is extracted as follows:- "In our opinion, this scheme providing for reservation of seats for Consortium of Industries contains sufficient guidelines whereby both the University and Industries are benefited by mutual collaboration. We may also mention that the Supreme Court has specifically permitted the Educational Institutions to have their NRI quota upto 15%. We are informed that the Anna University has provided only 10% quota for NRI, which comes to 340 seats, whereas only 85 students have been admitted under the said quota. Against the Consortium of Industries, the University has admitted 2.97% of the total intake in the year 2007-08. The University has agreed to restrict the reservation of seats for Consortium of Industries only to 5% and not to exceed 15% of the total intake for NRI quota and Consortium of Industries combined together. We, therefore, do not see any ground to interfere with the procedure for admission of the students under category of Industrial Consortium quota." 26. The University has agreed to restrict the reservation of seats for Consortium of Industries only to 5% and not to exceed 15% of the total intake for NRI quota and Consortium of Industries combined together. We, therefore, do not see any ground to interfere with the procedure for admission of the students under category of Industrial Consortium quota." 26. It appears that 4 Special Leave Petitions were filed against the aforesaid decision of this Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.2748, 5335, 5341 and 14890 of 2008. One Special Leave Petition was by Alagappa Chettiar Educational Trust, which was the founder of the erstwhile Alagappa Chettiar College of Technology, which eventually became the School of Architecture and Planning. Another was filed by one Prema Srinivasan claiming to be a donor. It appears that the other two Special Leave Petitions were filed by the Government and University itself. The Supreme Court appears to have granted leave to the Donors and the founder Trust to file the Special Leave Petitions, ordered notices in the Special Leave petitions and also granted an interim stay of the order of the Division Bench in the first instance. 27. But the learned counsel on both sides agree today that all Special Leave Petitions were eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 13.2.2013. It appears that two of those Special Leave Petitions (filed by Government and University) were dismissed for non-prosecution and the two were simply dismissed. The result is that today the order of the Division Bench dated 11.9.2007, quashing (i) the Government quota and (ii) the founder/Donor's quota has attained finality. Similarly, the quota for Consortium of Industries to be made within the 15% intake permitted for NRIs, which received the approval of the Division Bench, has also attained finality. However, I was also informed in the course of hearing of the writ petition that recently a petition for review has been filed on the file of this Court along with a petition to condone the delay and that notice has been ordered in the condone delay petition. I was also informed that the said petition for review has been filed, only after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions. Therefore, as on date, I must proceed on the basis that the decision of the Division Bench in Goodluck Rajendran dated 11.9.2007, is binding on me as of now. 28. However, Mr. I was also informed that the said petition for review has been filed, only after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions. Therefore, as on date, I must proceed on the basis that the decision of the Division Bench in Goodluck Rajendran dated 11.9.2007, is binding on me as of now. 28. However, Mr. N.Muralikumaran, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the University cannot today make any admission (i) in violation of the provisions of Anna University Act (ii) in violation of the mandate issued by the Government and (iii) in violation of the mandate issued by the Syndicate, even if something is permitted by a judicial order. Since these contentions seek to make inroads even into the decision rendered by the Division Bench, they merit consideration in greater detail. 29. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner was established under a State enactment known as "The Anna University Act, 1978". Under Section 6(3) of the Act, the Government is empowered to direct the University to reserve such percentage of seats for the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and that wherever such directions are given, it is binding on the University. Under Section 18(1) of the Act, the Academic Council of the University is named as the principal academic body of the University, vested with the power to Control and to generally regulate the teaching and examination in the University. The Academic Council is made responsible for the maintenance of standards thereon. The Academic Council is also vested with the duty to propose the draft of Statutes to be passed by the Syndicate, in terms of Section 30(3) of the Act. On the basis of those drafts, the Syndicate can issue Statutes of the University. Under Section 31(1)(i), the Ordinances of the University themselves may provide for the admission of students to the University. 30. It appears that way back in 2002, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.109, Higher Education Department, dated 10.4.2002, fixing a cap on admission of students under the NRI quota to 10% of the total sanctioned intake. This Government Order appears to have been issued in terms of a Circular issued by AICTE dated 3.10.2001. It must be remembered that at that time, the seal of approval on the admission of NRI quota had not yet been received from the Apex Court. This Government Order appears to have been issued in terms of a Circular issued by AICTE dated 3.10.2001. It must be remembered that at that time, the seal of approval on the admission of NRI quota had not yet been received from the Apex Court. In the light of the said Government Order and in view of Section 6(3) of the Act, the learned counsel submitted that in the first instance, there cannot be a quota for anyone other than the students belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. Even this quota should be as fixed by the Government in terms of Section 6(3). Therefore, it is contended by Mr. N.Muralikumaran, learned counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner-University cannot reserve any quota for NRIs, in the absence of any provision in the Act or in the absence of any provision in the Statutes or in the absence of any Ordinance to the said effect. 31. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that even the Approval Process Hand Book issued by AICTE for 2012-2013, makes it clear that the quota for NRIs can be filled up (i) only with the prior approval of AICTE and (ii) only after achieving zero deficiency. 32. It is further contended by Mr. N.Muralikumaran, learned counsel for the respondent that in any case, a University established by an Act of the State, cannot really have quota for NRIs. The purpose of allowing Self-Financing Institutions to admit students under this quota, as indicated in para 128 of P.A. Inamdar, is to achieve two objectives viz., (i) to enable migration of children of non-resident Indians to their home country and (ii) to enable the institutions to get some money for developing the infrastructure. But, in the case of an Institution established by the State Government, there is no requirement for bringing any money for the development of infrastructure, as it is the obligation of the State to provide funds for the development of infrastructure. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that an Institution like the petitioner, cannot admit students under this quota. 33. Though the above contention of Mr. N.Muralikumaran, learned counsel for the respondent appears to be logically correct at the first blush, I do not think that it can be accepted, if it is carefully scrutinised. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that an Institution like the petitioner, cannot admit students under this quota. 33. Though the above contention of Mr. N.Muralikumaran, learned counsel for the respondent appears to be logically correct at the first blush, I do not think that it can be accepted, if it is carefully scrutinised. It is true that a quota for NRIs is not founded upon any Constitutional Scheme. It was created by a judicial dicta. It is also true that the professed object of the quota is (i) to bring money for the promoters and (ii) to bring back the children of Non-Resident Indians. It is common knowledge that the first objective alone is achieved and nobody cares if the second objective is ever achieved. The State has not come up with any law to regulate such admissions. Therefore, the admissions that take place under this quota, by and large, prove to be nothing but a legalised collection of capitation fee. 34. But, as I have pointed out earlier, the AICTE itself had affixed its seal of approval for such quotas, more than 12 years ago and it was done much before P.A. Inamdar, was pronounced. The State Government had also accorded its concurrence, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.109. The Council of Architecture, as seen from the Minutes of the 80th Meeting dated 1.4.2005 and the 91st and 92nd Meetings dated 28.6.2007 and 10.9.2007, had also toed the line of AICTE by approving the provision for such a quota. The only deviation made by the Council of Architecture is that after 2007, they have restricted this 15% quota to be made within the permitted intake. Before 2007, this 15% was over and above the permitted intake, by way of supernumerary seats. 35. Once it is found that the Council of Architecture had allowed the Private Self-Financing Institutions to fill up 15% of the seats under NRI quota, I do not think that the Council can oppose such a privilege for the Government institutions alone. Any reduction in the number of seats filled up in a Government Institution, will naturally accrue to the benefit of the Private Institutions. To the extent of reduction in the intake in a Government Institution, the number of students who benefit by quality education at affordable costs get reduced. Any reduction in the number of seats filled up in a Government Institution, will naturally accrue to the benefit of the Private Institutions. To the extent of reduction in the intake in a Government Institution, the number of students who benefit by quality education at affordable costs get reduced. Every student admitted to a Government Institution is actually a beneficiary, in view of the fact that there is no dilution of standards and the fee structure is always kept controlled. Therefore, so long as the Council of Architecture toes the line of AICTE and the license given in P.A. Inamdar, to permit the Private Institutions to fill up 15% of seats under the quota for NRIs, I do not think that they could treat Anna University and the School of Architecture and Planning, on a different footing. As I have pointed out earlier, NRI quota was intended to achieve two objectives. In the Private Institutions, only one objective is achieved as on date. In the Government Institutions, it is the other objective which may be achieved. Therefore, I do not think that I should interfere with the existing Scheme of things, that places Anna University on par with other Private Institutions which run Degree Courses and Post Graduate Courses in Architecture. 36. Once it is concluded that the petitioner-University cannot be deprived of the benefit of having 15% quota for NRIs, on par with other Private Institutions, the next question that should be considered is as to how this 15% quota is to be filled up. 37. As I had pointed out earlier, by my order dated 13.7.2012, I directed the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, to conduct investigation into the number of admissions made in the past, in excess of the permitted intake and the circumstances under which such admissions were made. After investigation, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, sent a report of the enquiry, in a sealed envelope. The report discloses the following:- (i) Ever since 2011-2012, no admissions were made under the Government quota. This is in the light of a letter of the Higher Education Department bearing No.720/11/2011 dated 1.3.2011. After investigation, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, sent a report of the enquiry, in a sealed envelope. The report discloses the following:- (i) Ever since 2011-2012, no admissions were made under the Government quota. This is in the light of a letter of the Higher Education Department bearing No.720/11/2011 dated 1.3.2011. (ii) By two Resolutions of the Syndicate, one bearing No.180.5.2007 dated 21.2.2007 and another bearing No.209.12.16 dated 8.7.2011, it was decided to fill up 10% of the seats from among those recommended by the Consortium of Industries and 5% of the seats from among NRIs. (iii) NRI admissions were made by calling for applications through website and newspaper advertisements. (iv) In so far as quota for Consortium of Industries is concerned, applications are to be filed by Industries. Thereafter, a Committee appointed by the University will visit the Industry and sign a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the infrastructural facilities and capabilities and those recommended by Industries will be admitted. 38. But what is stated in the Report filed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, does not convince me that there is a fool proof and satisfactory system in place, for filling up the 15% quota intended for NRIs and Consortium of Industries. As pointed out earlier, I cannot, today, hold that the petitioner-University is not entitled to this 15% quota, since the judgment of the division Bench in Goodluck Rajendran, is holding the field today. All that I can do is only to ensure that there is some system in place for a very free, fair and transparent method of admission under this quota. 39. It appears from the Report of the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, that the quota for NRIs is filled up by issuing advertisements in the website and the newspapers. Eventually admissions are made through counselling. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Report filed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, can be usefully extracted to throw light upon the same:- "11. 15% seats have been set aside both for Industrial Consortium quota and NRI put together i.e., 10% for Industrial Consortium quota and 5% for NRI quota vide Syndicate Resolution No.180.5.2007 dated 21.2.2007 and Syndicate Resolution No.209.12.16 dated 8.7.2011. NRI admissions have been made by calling for Applications through Website and newspaper advertisement and admissions made through counselling drawing merit list.” 12. NRI admissions have been made by calling for Applications through Website and newspaper advertisement and admissions made through counselling drawing merit list.” 12. In respect of Industrial Consortium quota 1. Industry will file application. 2. Committee appointed by University will visit the Industry and recommend for signing MoU based on the Industries infrastructural facilities and capabilities. 3. Admissions will be given to the candidates sponsored by the Industry that has been recommended by the Committee." 40. But the above procedure does not appear to be very transparent, since the advertisements allegedly issued, do not form part of the main prospectus. Therefore, in order to ensure transparency, the invitation to apply under the quota for NRIs which will also include a quota for the Consortium of Industries, should form part of the very same notification/prospectus that is issued for admission of other candidates. By prescribing criteria that could make the race thrown open equally for everyone, the petitioner-University can make the process more fair and transparent. 41. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, to the following effect:- (i) Within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner shall inform the Council of Architecture, as to whether the deficiencies pointed out by the Council of Architecture, relating to the construction of buildings and the appointment of faculty members have been rectified or not. (ii) Within 2 weeks of the receipt of the said communication from the University, the respondent shall send a Committee of Experts to conduct an inspection and find out whether the deficiencies are rectified or not. If the Committee finds anything more to be done by the petitioner-University, they shall inform the University of those requirements and the petitioner shall comply with the same. (iii) Within 2 weeks of the receipt of the Report of the Committee, the Council shall pass orders about the annual permitted intake. While passing orders, the Council of Architecture shall keep in mind public interest and the interest of students, that would be best sub-served by keeping age-old institutions like the petitioner intact. The Universities run by the State which have established institutions of repute, cannot be painted with the same brush as Private Self-Financing Institutions and deemed Universities of recent origin. The Council shall keep this in mind while passing orders. The Universities run by the State which have established institutions of repute, cannot be painted with the same brush as Private Self-Financing Institutions and deemed Universities of recent origin. The Council shall keep this in mind while passing orders. (iv) In so far as the admission of students under various quotas are concerned, the order of the Division Bench in Goodluck Rajendran, has attained finality at least as of now and hence there cannot be a quota for the Government or for the donors/founders. The Division Bench in its decision in Goodluck Rajendran, has permitted 15% of the seats to be filled up, partly by children of NRIs and partly by those sponsored by Consortium of Industries. Since the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, this quota approved by the Division Bench has come to stay. (v) On the question whether this 15% is to be within the permitted intake or to be supernumerary seats over and above the annual permitted intake, the Council of Architecture shall take a decision and inform the petitioner-University. But if any institution or University or School of Architecture anywhere in India, has been permitted by the Council of Architecture to admit students under the quota for NRIs over and above the permitted intake, the petitioner cannot be denied the same benefit. If the Council of Architecture has uniformly applied the rule that this 15% quota for NRIs should be within the permitted intake, the petitioner-University shall also follow the same. But the Council of Architecture shall make a commitment in writing communicated to the petitioner that this rule is not only followed in letter, but also followed in spirit throughout India in all institutions controlled by the Council of Architecture. (vi) In so far as the procedure for admission of students under this quota is concerned, the University shall ensure that the main prospectus and notification for admission themselves contain a stipulation about the availability of this quota. The notification inviting applications and the prospectus, shall also contain guidelines as to the eligibility of candidates to apply under this quota and about the procedure that would be followed for filling up the seats under this quota. The notification inviting applications and the prospectus, shall also contain guidelines as to the eligibility of candidates to apply under this quota and about the procedure that would be followed for filling up the seats under this quota. (vii) The admission of students under the quota for NRIs, shall also be on the basis of a separate merit list maintained by the University and shall be admissible only to those students both of whose parents are NRIs or at least either one of them is a Non-Resident Indian. (viii) In so far as the admission of students under the quota for Consortium of Industries is concerned, the University shall first determine the nature of the assistance required for the development of infrastructure and determine the cost of development of such infrastructure. The University may then invite offers from Industrial Houses (a) for providing in-house training for the students and (b) for underwriting the cost of provision of such infrastructure. Based upon the offers so received, the University may select one or two Industrial Houses for sponsoring candidates to be filled up under this quota. In order to ensure transparency, the University shall host in their website, all the information such as the names of the Industrial Houses and the nature of the offers made by them and those selected by the University. The University shall also indicate the parameters on which the sponsoring industry was selected. If there is no substantial benefit for the petitioner-University, in filling up this quota, it would be open to the University not to allot any seats for the Consortium of Industries. Though this quota is approved by the Division Bench, nothing prevents the University from taking a decision not to fill up seats under this quota, but to fill up the entire 15% quota by NRIs. 42. The writ petition is disposed of on the above lines. There will be no order as to costs.