Judgment 1. The petitioner is an Engineering College. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order of the third respondent dated 15.07.2013 and consequently, seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to grant temporary affiliation to the petitioner college for the academic year 2013-2014 by permitting the petitioner college to participate in the counselling for admission of students for the Engineering Courses for the academic year 2013-14 as per the recognition given by the AICTE in its letter dated 30/04/2013. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- (i) The petitioner college is run by a Trust, namely, M.K. Alagiri Charitable Trust. The petitioner college was started with five programmes. It is situated in an undeveloped village, where, there is no higher educational institutions in and around the said village. The petitioner approached the All India Council for Technical Education (herein after called as AICTE) for its approval. The AICTE conducted several rounds of inspection in the petitioner college and finally granted approval for the academic year 2011-2012 by proceedings dated 18.08.2011. Such approval is being granted for the subsequent academic years also. The petitioner made a request for affiliation before the third respondent University. An inspection was also made by the inspection committee of the third respondent university on 20.07.2011. Three defects were pointed out by the inspection committee, namely, (i) Non-availability of 175 books, (ii) cafeteria to be shifted from inside the building to outside the premises; and (iii) to provide transport facilities to the students. All the three defects were appropriately rectified forthwith and the same was communicated to the third respondent on 25.07.2011. Even thereafter, the third respondent has not granted affiliation. (ii) On the other hand, there was a direction to have subsequent inspection by the committee appointed by the third respondent. The petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.8354 of 2011 and sought for affiliation and permission to participate in the counselling process in the year 2011-2012. On 01.08.2011, the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the third respondent University to consider the compliance report of the petitioner dated 25.07.2011. Against the said order, the third respondent preferred writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.740 of 2011. On 09.08.2011, the said writ appeal was disposed of by directing the third respondent University to comply with and consider the request of the petitioner dated 25.07.2011. Against the said order, the third respondent preferred writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.740 of 2011. On 09.08.2011, the said writ appeal was disposed of by directing the third respondent University to comply with and consider the request of the petitioner dated 25.07.2011. The third respondent instead of complying with the order passed by the Hon'able Division Bench, issued a communication stating that they want to conduct inspection afresh for all the items of inspection. The petitioner questioned the said action of the University in W.P(MD)No.9667 of 2011. On 21.10.2011, the said writ petition was disposed of by passing a detailed order. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the impugned order therein and consequently directed the University to strictly act in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench made in W.A(MD)No.740 of 2011 by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 25.07.2011, within ten days. Aggrieved against the said order, third respondent filed W.A(MD)No.1517 of 2011 and the same was disposed of on 20.12.2011. The Hon'ble Division Bench directed the third respondent University to reconsider the matter afresh as per the direction given by the earlier order of the Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.740 of 2011 and also by considering the reply submitted by the petitioner herein dated 25.07.2011. After disposal of said writ appeal, the third respondent filed two miscellaneous petitions seeking for extention of time and also to direct the petitioner college to cooperate for further inspection. Both the applications were dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 09.05.2012. Challenging the said order, the third respondent preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(Civil)Nos.17760 and 17761 of 2012. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by an order dated 30.05.2012, dismissed the special leave petitions by holding that no ground was made out to interfere in this matters. (iii) Another Public Interest Litigation Petition was filed against the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner has filed detailed counter. The said Public Interest Litigation is nothing to do with the affiliation process to be done by the third respondent university. The petitioner has provided all the infrastructural facilities and the same were already considered by the Inspection Committee of the third respondent University. Therefore, there is no legal embargo to grant affiliation. The said Public Interest Litigation is nothing to do with the affiliation process to be done by the third respondent university. The petitioner has provided all the infrastructural facilities and the same were already considered by the Inspection Committee of the third respondent University. Therefore, there is no legal embargo to grant affiliation. The third respondent University is not considering the affiliation to the petitioner college simply because the trustees of the Trust which is running the petitioner college are affiliated to a political party and the Founder Trustee happened to be a Member of Parliament belonging to DMK party. (iv) Even after six months from the date of the order passed in W.A(MD)No.1517 of 2011, the third respondent has not passed the order. Though the period for compliance was also extended upto 30.05.2012, the third respondent has not obeyed the same. Therefore, the petitioner was forced to file W.P(MD)No.7525 of 2012 seeking for grant of temporary affiliation and also to permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling for the academic year 2012-2013. The said writ petition was dismissed by holding that the petitioner has to approach only the Hon'ble Division Bench, which passed earlier order. Hence, the petitioner filed writ appeal in W.A(MD) No.469 of 2012 challenging the above said order. On 29.06.2012, the said writ appeal came to be disposed of by holding that the question of granting temporary affiliation does not arise, in view of the subsequent development and that the University would pass orders on the affiliation of the college after getting committee's report, immediately after the inspection made on 26.06.2012. However, no further action was taken by the third respondent for grant of affiliation. (v) By order dated 06.07.2012, new reasons were stated for rejecting the affiliation request for the year 2012-2013. The petitioner challenge the said order in W.P(MD)No.9695 of 2012. By an order dated 21.09.2012, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. Against the said order, the third respondent preferred writ appeal in W.A (MD)No.884 of 2012. (vi) The third respondent University sent a letter to AICTE making allegation against the petitioner college. Subsequently, the AICTE also issued show-cause notice to the petitioner on 05.12.2012. A personal enquiry was conducted by AICTE. Against the said order, the third respondent preferred writ appeal in W.A (MD)No.884 of 2012. (vi) The third respondent University sent a letter to AICTE making allegation against the petitioner college. Subsequently, the AICTE also issued show-cause notice to the petitioner on 05.12.2012. A personal enquiry was conducted by AICTE. However, the AICTE has not taken any action against the petitioner and on the other hand, it has granted recognition for the academic year 2013-2014 through letter dated 30.04.2013. Thus, it shows that the petitioner has fulfilled all the infrastructural and other basic requirements. Hence, the petitioner made a request to the third respondent to grant affiliation for the year 2013-2014. On 05.03.2013, the third respondent university has chosen to appoint a Committee of Inspection by fixing the date of inspection as 13.05.2013. The said communication reached the petitioner only on the date of inspection. Therefore, staff members and other faculty members were not available to have the inspection. The Inspection Committee left the premises without passing any order or issuing inspection report. However, the Inspection Committee seems to have reported that the petitioner college was not functioning. Accepting such report, the third respondent passed an order dated 20.05.2013, rejecting the request for affiliation for the year 2013-2014. The petitioner challenged the said rejection order in W.P(MD)No.8719 of 2013. On 07.06.2013, the said writ petition was allowed with cost of Rs.25,000/- and by directing the University to grant provisional affiliation. The third respondent University preferred writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.532 of 2013 against the said order. (vii) Both writ appeals in W.A(MD)Nos.532 of 2013 and 884 of 2012 were taken up together and heard by the Hon'ble Division Bench. On 03.07.2013 a common order was passed in these appeals. The Writ Appeal (MD)No.884 of 2012 was dismissed as infructuous since the relevant academic year was over by that time. In so far as the other writ appeal is concerned the Hon'ble Division Bench restored the application filed by the college with a direction to the University to send an Inspection Team to the college to compare and verify the availability of infrastructural and instructional facilities, including faculty members, which were submitted before the AICTE for the grant of approval of the courses for the year 2013-2014, and pass fresh orders within a period of ten days. (viii) Consequent upon the order by W.A(MD)No.532 of 2013, an inspection was conducted by the Inspection Committee on 11.07.2013. The University empowered the Inspection Committee to go beyond the direction given by this Court. The Inspection Team and the standing committee of affiliation have recommended for provisional affiliation for the academic year 2013-2014 on fulfillment of three conditions, namely, (i) Certificate from licensed holder for electrical installation is to be obtained (ii) Certificate from the Health Inspector is to be renewed (iii) Certificate from PWD Superintending Engineer for the Structural Stability of the building is to be obtained. Based on such report of the committee, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 15.07.2013 rejecting the request for grant of affiliation in view of the discrepancies observed in the survey numbers cited in the Land Use Certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and also because of the objection raised by the District Collector, dated 20.08.2011. Aggrieved against the said order dated 15.07.2013, the present writ petition is filed as stated supra. 3. The respondents 3 to 5 filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated as follows:- The petitioner college is run by a Trust and applied for grant of affiliation with five programmes. The petitioner college has obtained recognition from AICTE. The petitioner college has been facing litigation before the Court of law and statutory proceedings before the competent authority of Revenue Department regarding title to the site where the college has been constructed. The university constituted an Inspection Team and sent an intimation to the petitioner college on 09.05.2013 informing the proposed visit of the Inspection Committee on 13.05.2013. The college received the said communication on 10.05.2013. The petitioner college requested for grant of affiliation for the academic year 2012-2013 before sending the Inspection Committee for the academic year 2013-2014. The inspection team visited the petitioner college on 13.05.2013 at 10.45 a.m. and found the gate of the petitioner college was closed. The Inspection Team was told by the security that the petitioner college has not been functioning for the past one year. The petitioner failed to extend their cooperation for completion of inspection and therefore, the committee members have taken photographs in front of the locked gate and have reported that the college has not been functioning. The Inspection Team was told by the security that the petitioner college has not been functioning for the past one year. The petitioner failed to extend their cooperation for completion of inspection and therefore, the committee members have taken photographs in front of the locked gate and have reported that the college has not been functioning. In pursuant to the order dated 03.07.2013 made in W.A(MD)No.532 of 2013, the university sent an intimation on 05.07.2013 to the petitioner about the inspection on 11.07.2013. If really the petitioner college had earlier complied with the norms, there is no impediment for the petitioner to disclose the authenticity during the inspection by the Inspection Committee. The production of structural stability certificate from the Superintending Engineer of PWD is a requirement for grant of affiliation as per the Statues and Regulations for affiliation of Anna University. The college has obtained certificate from the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, as seven survey numbers were not included in the letter earlier issued by the said official. 4. The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows:- In order to comply with the order made in W.A(MD)No.740 of 2011, the 6th respondent has not filed a report. The then District Collector has inspected the field. The report of the then District Collector revealed that there are discrepancies in relating to the queries raised by the Commissioner of Technical Education and the Anna University. Therefore, the report submitted by the then District Collector revealed that issue is serious in nature. There are water channels originating from Sluice No.4 leading to Survey No.168 and the same were destroyed on the ground of construction of the buildings. The petitioner has not applied for clearance from the Government under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961. 5. The 7th respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows:- With regard to the discrepancies in the land use letter issued by the 7th respondent, at no point of time, contention was raised to the effect that there was some typographical error in the communication issued by the 7th respondent office. The petitioner applied on 12.12.2008 and got the approval of the 7th respondent office on 24.12.2008. After completion of the construction, it was found that there has been additional construction beyond the approved plan for which demolition notice has been sent on 28.06.2012. The petitioner applied on 12.12.2008 and got the approval of the 7th respondent office on 24.12.2008. After completion of the construction, it was found that there has been additional construction beyond the approved plan for which demolition notice has been sent on 28.06.2012. The petitioner college submitted a revised plan and same was forwarded to the 7th respondent office on 30.07.2012. On receiving the above said proposal, physical inspection was done on 14.08.2012. On 16.05.2012, the proposal was returned without granting permission. The petitioner has sent a requisition for reconsidering the proposal. On 01.06.2013 such request for reconsideration has been forwarded to the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning. Therefore, the additional construction has not been approved so far. 6. Mr. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after elaborately taking through various orders passed by this Court in the earlier rounds of litigation in respect of the same issue, has further submitted as follows:- When AICTE has granted approval to the petitioner college upto the current financial year, the third respondent University is not justified in rejecting affiliation on the grounds which are not within the purview or for consideration of the University. The last order passed by this Court in W.A(MD)Nos.532 of 2013 dated 03.07.2013 has not been properly followed and complied by the University. In the above said order, the Hon'ble Division Bench clearly directed the University only to compare and verify the availability of infrastructural and instructional facility including faculty members which were submitted before the AICTE. Therefore, the University cannot go to its statute once again and invent some reason for rejecting the impugned order. In fact, all these objections were raised by the University before the AICTE opposing the grant of approval to the petitioner college. However, the AICTE has not accepted those objections and on the other hand, extended the approval upto the current academic year 2014-2015. All these issues raised by the University earlier were rejected by this Court, which was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Impugned Proceedings is purely a mala fide action of the third respondent University, merely because the trust which established the petitioner college is affiliated to political party, namely, DMK. The University has not adopted the same yardstick for all the colleges for granting affiliation. In fact, some of the colleges were granted affiliation without conducting inspections. Impugned Proceedings is purely a mala fide action of the third respondent University, merely because the trust which established the petitioner college is affiliated to political party, namely, DMK. The University has not adopted the same yardstick for all the colleges for granting affiliation. In fact, some of the colleges were granted affiliation without conducting inspections. Therefore, there is a clear discrimination in the case of the petitioner. Students have not been admitted, even though AICTE has granted approval for all these years. The Public Interest Litigation filed against the petitioner college and the pending of the same have no bearing on this writ petition for its disposal. Already similar objection raised was rejected in W.P(MD)No.9667 of 2011 dated 21.10.2011 as well as the order made in W.P (MD)No.9695 of 2012 dated 21.09.2012. An application seeking for affiliation given for a particular academic year does not become infructuous by efflux of time, since an affiliation once granted to the particular academic year is only renewable for the subsequent years. Rejection of the application repeatedly has been contemned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case reported in AIR 1996 SC 1469 (A1.Karim Educational Trust vs. State of Bihar). Therefore, the Court can grant affiliation straight away without issuing a direction to the third respondent University. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted as follows:- The prayer in this writ petition seeking for affiliation for the year 2013-2014 has become infructuous, as the academic year is over by this time. The petitioner has to make fresh application for academic year 2014-2015. The third respondent University has to act as per statute. Accordingly, the Inspection Committee will inspect and report to the standing committee for considering the claim for affiliation. Paragraph 7.1 of the Regulations of the third respondent University deals with grant/withdrawal of affiliation. Therefore, for each academic year the affiliation has to be sought for separately. The petitioner has to produce original certificates at the time of inspection and those certificates will be verified by the Inspection Committee and they have to give a report to the Standing Committee. The University is also concerned with the safety and security of the students. Therefore, the structural stability of the building is very much essential. The petitioner has to produce original certificates at the time of inspection and those certificates will be verified by the Inspection Committee and they have to give a report to the Standing Committee. The University is also concerned with the safety and security of the students. Therefore, the structural stability of the building is very much essential. The structural stability certificate has to be obtained from the Superintending Engineer of the Public Works Department as contemplated under the University Regulations. The petitioner has obtained the said certificate from private Engineer, which is not valid. Therefore, the petitioner has not followed the Rules. With regard to the requirement of certificate by the Health Inspector, it is an admitted case that the petitioner has only applied for the said certificate, therefore, they have not produced the said certificate as such. Equally in respect of the certificate from the Licensed holder for Electricity Installation is concerned, the petitioner has not obtained the said certificate so far. If these three certificates are produced, the University will consider the grant of affiliation to the petitioner. Already a Public Interest Litigation in W.P(MD)No.8876 of 2012 is pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court challenging the construction put up by the petitioner in a water body. An interim prayer is sought for in that writ petition against the University not to grant affiliation. Even as per the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench made in W.A(MD)No.740 of 2011 dated 09.08.2011 affiliation has to be granted only as per statutes. Therefore, the affiliation is not automatic. 8. In support of his submission, the learned Additional Advocate General relied on a decision reported in 2005 WLR 395, 2008(1) CTC 545 and 2009(6) CTC 392. 9. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 10. The petitioner is an Engineering College established by a Trust called M.K. Alagiri Charitable Trust. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order of the third respondent, dated 15.07.2013, whereby, the affiliation sought from the third respondent University, for the academic year 2013-2014, has been rejected by stating as follows:- "Upon scrutiny of the items placed, the Standing Committee on Affiliation has made the following observations: 1. Certificate from Licensed holder for Electrical installation is to be obtained. 2. Certificate from the Health Inspector is to be renewed. 3. Certificate from Licensed holder for Electrical installation is to be obtained. 2. Certificate from the Health Inspector is to be renewed. 3. Certificate from PWD Superintending Engineer for the Structural Stability of the building is to be obtained. In addition, there are certain discrepancies observed in the survey numbers cited in the Land Use Certificate dated 26.12.2000 issued by RDO, Usilampatti and the letter dated 22.02.2011 issued by Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Madurai region. The Madurai District Collector through his letter dated 20.8.2011 submitted to the Commissioner of Technical Education had raised some objections that are to be clarified by the college. In view of the above facts, the Standing Committee on Affiliation recommended grant of provisional affiliation to your college for the academic year 2013-2014, on submission of the above listed Certificates and on furnishing satisfactory explanation for the issues related to the objections raised by the District Collector and for the discrepancies mentioned above. Hence, it is informed that the University is not in a position to grant provisional affiliation to your college for the academic year 2013-14 at this juncture." 11. By challenging the said proceedings of the third respondent, the petitioner also seeks for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to grant temporary affiliation to the petitioner college for the academic year 2013-14 by permitting the petitioner college to participate in the counselling for admission of students for the Engineering Courses for the academic year 2013-14. 12. The respondents 3 and 4 strongly opposed the above writ petition and supported the impugned order. I have already extracted the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on their behalf and therefore, in order to avoid the repetition, I refrain myself from reiterating the pleadings and the submissions once again hereunder. 13. Before going into the merits of the matter, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Additional Advocate General that this writ petition has to be tagged along with the Public Interest Litigation writ petition filed in W.P(MD)No.8876 of 2012 arising between the same parties. It is true that the above said Public Interest Litigation was filed against the petitioner college and is pending, complaining that the college has put up the constructions unauthorizedly in water body. It is true that the above said Public Interest Litigation was filed against the petitioner college and is pending, complaining that the college has put up the constructions unauthorizedly in water body. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, a learned single Judge of this Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition in W.P (MD)No. 9667 of 2011 has considered the very same objection at paragraph 81 of his order and found that there is no impediment to hear the said writ petition seeking for affiliation without tagging along with the Public Interest Litigation writ petition which is on a different cause of action. Though a writ appeal was filed against the said order, in W.A(MD)No.1517 of 2011, the Hon'ble Division Bench has not given any finding as against the above observations made by the learned single Judge. Therefore, I am of the view that when similar objections raised were rejected already by this Court the, same cannot be raised once again, especially when the said finding of the learned single Judge has not been set aside or any positive order is made by the Hon'ble Division Bench to tag along with the Public Interest Litigation writ petition. Consequently, I proceed to decide the matter on merits, based on the material available before this Court. 14. Even though several rounds of writ petitions and writ appeals were filed between the very same parties before this Court in respect of the same issue and detailed orders were passed on all those occasions, I refrain myself from dealing with all the orders one by one, except the last order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.532 of 2013 and W.A(MD)No.884 of 2012, dated 03.07.2013, since it has considered all those orders as well as the facts and circumstance of the case. More over, the Hon'ble Division Bench, while passing the said order, has traced the past history of this case in detail at paragraph 3 of its order. In that paragraph, the Honourable Division Bench has referred to the various orders passed by this Court both in the writ petitions and writ appeals arising between the same parties. More over, the Hon'ble Division Bench, while passing the said order, has traced the past history of this case in detail at paragraph 3 of its order. In that paragraph, the Honourable Division Bench has referred to the various orders passed by this Court both in the writ petitions and writ appeals arising between the same parties. Therefore, I am of the view, that it is enough to proceed this case from the stage of the order passed in the above said writ appeals and to find out as to whether the impugned order passed by the third respondent is in conformity with the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the above referred writ appeals. 15. The above referred W.A(MD)No.532 of 2013 was filed by the Anna University against the order made in W.P(MD)No.8719 of 2013. The petitioner herein as the petitioner therein filed the above writ petition challenging order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the Anna University and consequently, sought for a direction to grant affiliation to the petitioner college for the academic year 2013-14 and permit the petitioner college to participate in the counselling for the admission of students. The order dated 20.05.2013 impugned in that writ petition reads as follows:- With reference to your application first cited in the reference submitted for affiliation for the academic year 2013-14, you were informed about the visit of the Inspection Committee to your college on 13.05.2013 through this office letter second cited, so as to verify the fulfillment of the requirements as per the statutory affiliation norms and standards of the University to consider the grant of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2013-14. As informed, the Inspection Committee was sent to your college on 13.05.2013 without prejudice to the contentions of the University in the pending Writ Appeal against the order of Justice K. Vinod Sharma Dt. 21.09.2012. However, the Inspection Committee could not inspect your college, as your gate was closed and you did not extend your cooperation to the Inspection Committee. The Inspection Committee has reported that your college has not been functioning in the recent past from the mere look of the college from outside. Hence, it is informed that the University is not in a position to grant affiliation to your college for the academic year 2013-14. 16. The Inspection Committee has reported that your college has not been functioning in the recent past from the mere look of the college from outside. Hence, it is informed that the University is not in a position to grant affiliation to your college for the academic year 2013-14. 16. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 07.06.2013, allowed the writ petition with a cost of Rs.25,000/-. The learned Single Judge has observed that the action of the University in denying provisional affiliation on one ground or the other is mala fide and that the University under guise of exercising power of inspection and verification has rejected the request for provisional affiliation which is actuated by malice and abuse of process of law. 17. W.A(MD)No.884 of 2012 was filed by the Uniformity against W.P(MD)No.9695 of 2012. The said writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order, dated 06.07.2012, passed by the Anna University informing the petitioner that the application filed by the petitioner for the academic year 2012-13 alone will be processed and considered for grant of provisional affiliation, as the academic year 2011-2012 for which, the petitioner has sought for affiliation was already over. The petitioner also consequently prayed for provisional affiliation to the petitioner college for the said academic year. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 21.09.2012, allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned order, consequently, a Mandamus was issued directing the respondents therein to consider the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the direction issued by this Court. 18. When the above referred orders of the learned single Judges passed in both the writ petitions were challenged in the above said writ appeals, the Hon'ble Division Bench after going through the entire history of the case in detail, has observed that the academic year 2012-2013 was over by the end of May 2013 and therefore, granting affiliation for that academic year at that juncture would not arise. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal in W.A (MD)No.884 of 2012 as infructuous. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Division Bench made in W.A(MD)No.532 of 2013 and W.A(MD)No.884 of 2012 at paragraph No.17 is extracted hereunder:- "17. The academic year 2012-2013 was over by the end of May 2013. Hence, granting affiliation for the year 2012-2013 at this juncture will not arise. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Division Bench made in W.A(MD)No.532 of 2013 and W.A(MD)No.884 of 2012 at paragraph No.17 is extracted hereunder:- "17. The academic year 2012-2013 was over by the end of May 2013. Hence, granting affiliation for the year 2012-2013 at this juncture will not arise. Consequently, W.A.(MD)No.884 of 2012 is liable to be dismissed as infructuous and accordingly dismissed." 19. The Hon'ble Division Bench further observed that approval for the year 2013-2014 was granted by the AICTE by order dated 13.04.2013 and the college failed to cooperate with the University Official to conduct inspection on 13.05.2013; that the request of the college for grant of provisional affiliation for the previous academic year cannot be justified as the previous academic years were over and no admission could be made for that academic year; that the college having applied for affiliation for the year 2013-2014 is bound to cooperate for the conduct of the inspection; that non-cooperation of the college has resulted in passing an order of rejection; that the order passed by the learned single Judge with a positive direction to grant provisional affiliation is not sustainable. The relevant paragraph No.18 of the Judgment in W.A (MD)No.532 of 2013 and W.A(MD)No.884 of 2012 of the Honourable Division Bench is extracted hereunder:- "18. Insofar as the affiliation request of the College for the year 2013-2014 is concerned, the college applied for affiliation on 5.3.2013 i.e., even before the grant of approval by AICTE for the year 2013-2014. The College also paid the inspection fee. Approval for the year 2013-2014 was granted by AICTE by order dated 13.4.2013. To process the said application, the University sent a communication on 9.5.2013 to fix the inspection date as 13.5.2013. The College failed to co-operate with the University Officials to conduct inspection on 13.5.2013. Instead, the College requested the University to grant provisional affiliation for the previous academic years. As the previous academic years were over, and no admission could be made for the previous academic years in May, 2013, the said stand of the College cannot be justified. The College having applied for affiliation for the year 2013-2014 and paid inspection fee, it is bound to cooperate for the conduct of inspection and non- cooperation of the college has resulted in such kind of situation for rejection of affiliation for the year 2013-2014. The College having applied for affiliation for the year 2013-2014 and paid inspection fee, it is bound to cooperate for the conduct of inspection and non- cooperation of the college has resulted in such kind of situation for rejection of affiliation for the year 2013-2014. Hence, the order passed by the learned single Judge with positive direction to grant provisional affiliation for the academic year 2013-2014, without conducting inspection, is not sustainable." 20. The Hon'ble Division Bench further observed that the AICTE is the specialized body, constituted for bringing uniformity in technical education all over the country and to ensure that the institution possess complete infrastructure, staff facilities and is capable of maintaining educational standards for imparting technical education; that the department of the States and affiliating University cannot lay down any guideline or policies in conflict with the central statute or standards laid down by the central body; that the procedure for obtaining affiliation and any condition, which may be imposed by the University could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act and authorities, namely, AICTE and affiliating University have to work in tandem; that the University which is the examining body is mainly to satisfy with regard to the requirements in the aspects of eligibility of students for admission, conduct of examinations and the manner in which the prescribed courses should be completed. The relevant paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the Judgment made in W.A(MD)No.532 of 2013 are extracted hereunder:- "20. The issue as to whether once approval is granted by the Central Agency, whether the University can find a new ground to reject the affiliation, came up for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2013) 2 SCC 617 (Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P.) the question arose regarding the functioning of three bodies viz. NCTE, University and State Government, regarding the grant of recognition, permission and affiliation of Teacher Training Course. In paragraph 52 to 54 it is held thus, "52. Under the scheme of the NCTE Act, there are three principal bodies involved in processing the applications for grant or refusal of recognition for running of teacher training courses by various institutions. They are the NCTE, the State Government, the affiliating body or the University, as the case may be. In paragraph 52 to 54 it is held thus, "52. Under the scheme of the NCTE Act, there are three principal bodies involved in processing the applications for grant or refusal of recognition for running of teacher training courses by various institutions. They are the NCTE, the State Government, the affiliating body or the University, as the case may be. Each of these stakeholders has been assigned a definite role under the provisions of the NCTE Act and even the stage at which such role is required to be performed. The provisions of the NCTE Act even identify the scope and extent of power which each of these bodies is expected to exercise. As already noticed, the NCTE Act has been enacted with the object of constituting a National Council with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development of teacher education system throughout the country and also to ensure maintenance of proper norms and standards in teacher education system. The NCTE is a specialized body and is expected to perform varied functions including grant of recognition, ensuring maintenance of proper norms and standards in relation to teacher education, inspection of the colleges through experts and to ensure strict adherence to the time schedule specified under the NCTE Act and rules and regulations framed therein. 53. The NCTE Act is a special act enacted to cover a particular field, i.e. teacher training education and, thus, has to receive precedence over other laws in relation to that field. No institution or body is empowered to grant recognition to any institution under the NCTE Act or any other law for the time being in force, except the NCTE itself. Grant of recognition by the Council is a condition precedent to grant of affiliation by the examining body to an institute. 54. The non-obstante language of Section 16 requires the affiliating body to grant affiliation only after recognition or permission has been granted by the NCTE. The provisions of Section 16 give complete supremacy to the expert body/NCTE in relation to grant of recognition. In fact, it renders the role of other bodies consequential upon grant and/or refusal of recognition. When the NCTE is called upon to consider an application for grant of recognition, it has to consider all the aspects in terms of Section 14(3)(a) of the NCTE Act. In fact, it renders the role of other bodies consequential upon grant and/or refusal of recognition. When the NCTE is called upon to consider an application for grant of recognition, it has to consider all the aspects in terms of Section 14(3)(a) of the NCTE Act. The amplitude of this provision is very wide and hardly leaves any matter relatable to an educational institution outside its ambit. To put it simply, the NCTE is a supreme body and is vested with wide powers to be exercised with the aid of its expertise, in granting or refusing to grant recognition to an educational institution. The NCTE is the paramount body for granting the approval/recognition not only for commencing of fresh courses but even for increase in intake, etc. The Council has to ensure maintenance of educational standards as well as strict adherence to the prescribed parameters for imparting of such educational courses, including the infrastructure. The provision and scheme of the NCTE Act is pari materia to that of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 etc." Further in paragraph 59, how the three bodies should function while conducting of course by the College was emphasised, which reads thus, "59. The above enunciated principles clearly show that the Council is the authority constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education of standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over the views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University have a role to play but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guideline or policy which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body. State can frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. They cannot lay down any guideline or policy which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body. State can frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. In the present cases, there is not much conflict on this issue, but it needs to be clarified that while the State grants its approval, and University its affiliation, for increased intake of seats or commencement of a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the conditions for approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of imparting of education properly and ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a coordinated manner and with cooperation, will they be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist." In the said judgment in paragraph 77 and 79, it is further held as follows: "77. The fields which are sought to be covered under the provisions of Section 37 of the Universities Act and the Statutes of various universities are clearly common to the aspects which are squarely covered by the specific language under the Act. That being so, all State laws in regard to affiliation in so far as they are covered by the Act must give way to the operation of the provisions of the Act. To put it simply, the requirements which have been examined and the conditions which have been imposed by the NCTE shall prevail and cannot be altered, reexamined or infringed under the garb of the State Law. The affiliating/examining body and the State Government must abide by the proficiency and command of the NCTE's directions. To give an example, existence of building, library, qualified staff, financial stability of the institution, accommodation, etc. are the subjects which are specifically covered under Section 14 (3)(b) of the Act. Thus, they would not be open to reexamination by the State and the University. To give an example, existence of building, library, qualified staff, financial stability of the institution, accommodation, etc. are the subjects which are specifically covered under Section 14 (3)(b) of the Act. Thus, they would not be open to reexamination by the State and the University. If the recognition itself was conditional and those conditions have not been satisfied, in such circumstances, within the ambit and scope of Sections 46 and 16 of the Act, the affiliating body may not give affiliation and inform the NCTE forthwith of the shortcomings and noncompliance of the conditions. In such situation, both the Central and the State body should act in tandem and, with due coordination, come to a final conclusion as to the steps which are required to be taken in regard to both recognition and affiliation. But certainly, the State Government and the University cannot act in derogation to the NCTE. 79. ................ Once it grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy viz-a-viz the State Government as well as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions cannot be re-agitated at the time of grant of affiliation. Once the University conducts inspection in terms of its Statutes or Act, without offending the provisions of the Act and conditions of recognition, then the opinion of the State Government at the second stage is a mere formality unless there was a drastic and unacceptable mistake or the entire process was vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent danger to life of the students working in the school because of non-compliance of a substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies. In the normal circumstances, the role of the State is a very formal one and the State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable." 21.The conduct of technical courses, which were granted approval by the AICTE, and the role of the University and the State Government came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2013) 3 SCC 385 (Parshavanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education). In the said judgment it is held that the AICTE is a specialized body, constituted for bringing uniformity in technical education all over the country and to ensure the institution possess complete infrastructure, staff facilities and are capable of maintaining educational standards for imparting technical education. Hence, the department of the States and affiliating University cannot lay down any guideline or policies in conflict with the central statute or standards laid down by the Central body. It is further held that the procedure for obtaining affiliation and any condition, which may be imposed by the University, could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act and the authorities viz., AICTE and affiliating University have to work in tandem, as all of them have common object to ensure maintenance of proper education for the betterment of technical educational system. The harmonious construction of both the statutory bodies viz., AICTE and the affiliating University should be applied and the proper test would be whether effect can be given to the provisions of both the laws or whether both the laws can stand together. The University, which is the examining body is mainly to satisfy with regard to the requirements in the aspects of eligibility of students for admission, conduct of examinations and the manner in which the prescribed courses should be completed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further pointed out that even though approval/recognition was granted for particular course, the affiliating body need not grant affiliation automatically, but must exercise its discretion fairly and transparently, while ensuring that the conditions of the law of the University and the functions of the affiliating body should be complementary and not to be in derogation." (emphasis supplied) 21. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Division Bench that the college has not started the courses due to non grant of affiliation by the University, even though approval for conducting B.E. degree course was granted by the AICTE for the academic year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. No admission of students took place and some of the staff members, who were shown as staff members in the original application are not available as on date and new faculty members were appointed by the college. All the above facts are to be verified by the University, which could be ascertained only after conducting inspection. No admission of students took place and some of the staff members, who were shown as staff members in the original application are not available as on date and new faculty members were appointed by the college. All the above facts are to be verified by the University, which could be ascertained only after conducting inspection. The University is well within its right to conduct inspection to satisfy whether the infrastructural and instructional facilities, which were shown before the AICTE for the grant of approval, are still available to run the college, so as to enable the University to grant affiliation for the courses. The relevant paragraph Nos.24 and 26 of the Judgment made in W.A(MD)No.532 of 2013 are extracted hereunder:- "24. We are aware that even though approval for conducting five B.E degree programmes was granted by the AICTE for the academic year 2011-2012, 2012-2013, due to non grant of affiliation by the University, the college has not started the courses. No admission of students took place. Some of the staff members, who were shown as staff members in the original application are not available as on date and new faculty members were appointed by the College. All the said facts are to be verified by the University, which could be ascertained only after conducting inspection, for which the College also paid inspection fee while seeking affiliation for the year 2013-14. The College should have co-operated for conducting inspection as intimated by the University. Instead of co-operating to conduct inspection, the College management refused to permit the University officials to enter the college and to make inspection. Once it is held that the AICTE and affiliating University should have worked in tandem and their functions are complementary to each other, University is well within its right to conduct inspection to satisfy whether the infrastructural and instructional facilities, which were shown before the AICTE for the grant of approval, are still available to run the college, so as to enable the University to grant affiliation for the courses. 26. The order of rejection of affiliation dated 20.5.2013 having been passed by the University on the ground of not permitting the Inspection Team to inspect the college and without ascertaining availability of infrastructural and instructional facilities, the said order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 26. The order of rejection of affiliation dated 20.5.2013 having been passed by the University on the ground of not permitting the Inspection Team to inspect the college and without ascertaining availability of infrastructural and instructional facilities, the said order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Consequently, we restore the application filed by the College before the University with a direction to the appellant University to sent an Inspection Team to the first respondent college to compare and verify the availability of infrastructural and instructional facilities, including faculty members, which were submitted before the AICTE for the grant of approval of the courses for the year 2013-2014, and pass fresh orders within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is further directed that the University shall intimate the inspection date to the College three days in advance and the College should cooperate for inspection." (emphasis supplied) 22. Thus, from the thorough reading of the above order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the above Writ Appeal (MD)No.532 of 2013, which has become final, conclusive and binding on the parties, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the third respondent University is not in conformity with the direction issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench. After analyzing the very same objection raised by the University, the Honourable Division Bench has categorically observed that the University is to conduct inspection to satisfy as to whether the infrastructural and instructional facilities, which were shown before the AICTE for the grant of approval, are still available to run the college, so as to enable the University to grant affiliation for the courses. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Division Bench has only directed the University to send an Inspection Team to the petitioner college to compare and verify the availability of infrastructural and instructional facilities, including faculty members, which were submitted before the AICTE for the grant of approval. Therefore, it is very clear that the University has to only compare and verify the availability of infrastructural and instructional facilities, including faculty members, which were submitted before the AICTE and not to impose any further condition and seek for its compliance, especially when the Honourable Division Bench was very specific about the nature of action the University should do. Therefore, it is very clear that the University has to only compare and verify the availability of infrastructural and instructional facilities, including faculty members, which were submitted before the AICTE and not to impose any further condition and seek for its compliance, especially when the Honourable Division Bench was very specific about the nature of action the University should do. In other words, the University has to only compare and verify as to whether the particulars submitted before the AICTE with regard to the infrastructural and instructional facilities, including faculty members are still available to run the college or not. If they are available, then the University has no other option except to grant affiliation. More than that the University cannot travel beyond the direction issued by the Honourable Division Bench and impose some other conditions for grant of affiliation. 23. At the risk of repetition, I would like to emphasis that the Honourable Division Bench has only directed the University to compare and verify the availability of those facilities which were shown before the AICTE. Needless to say that the term "compare and verify" does not mean "reassess" or "assess independently". Instead, the University has proceeded to verify the requirements independently as per the statutory affiliation norms and insisted upon the petitioner to produce certain certificates and also by pointing out certain alleged discrepancies with regard to the land survey numbers as well as by quoting some objection raised by the Commissioner of Technical Education before the District Collector, Madurai, rejected the application. It is to be noted at this juncture that the order of the Division Bench was passed on 03.07.2013, whereas all these alleged discrepancies with regard to the land, as pointed out in the impugned order, were related to the proceedings dated 22.02.2011 of the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Madurai Region and 20.08.2011 of the Commissioner of Technical Education. Therefore, those proceedings cannot stand in the way of the University in complying with the order passed by the Honourable Division Bench which came to be passed subsequent to those proceedings dated 03.07.2013. In any event, it is needless to say that the order of this Court will prevail over the administrative orders, instructions and objections. Thus, in my considered view these objections are being raised by the University only as an after thought to delay the process. 24. In any event, it is needless to say that the order of this Court will prevail over the administrative orders, instructions and objections. Thus, in my considered view these objections are being raised by the University only as an after thought to delay the process. 24. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1469 (A1-Karim Educational Trust vs. State of Bihar) in support of his submissions that the Court can grant affiliation if it is found that the affiliation is being withheld unreasonably or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or other. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the above decisions reads as follows:- "11. In the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the State Government after consulting the Medical Council of India to arrive at a decision. However, if it is found that the affiliation is being withheld unreasonably or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other, this Court would, though reluctantly, be constrained to exercise jurisdiction. We must make it clear that we are not diluting the importance of fulfilling the essential prerequisite set by the Medical Council before granting recognition. The facts of this case are very special and exceptional. 12. In the totality of the circumstances disclosed in the case and having regard to the fact that at each stage new deficiencies are being pointed out, the latest being the report dated 28-6-1995 (explained by the subsequent affidavit of the appellants dated 4-9-1995), we are satisfied beyond any manner of doubt, that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with and minor deficiencies pointed out in the last mentioned report of 28-6-1995 are not such as to permit withholding of the affiliation to which the appellants’ Institution is entitled. From the manner in which the deficiencies have been pointed out from time to time, each time the old deficiencies are shown to have been removed, new deficiencies are shown, gives the impression that the affiliation is unnecessarily delayed. For the removal of the minor deficiencies pointed out in the report of 28-6-1995, a compliance affidavit dated 4-9-1995 is filed. Once the Institution feels secure on the question of affiliation, we have no doubt that these minor deficiencies, if they exist, shall be taken care of by those in charge of the Institution. For the removal of the minor deficiencies pointed out in the report of 28-6-1995, a compliance affidavit dated 4-9-1995 is filed. Once the Institution feels secure on the question of affiliation, we have no doubt that these minor deficiencies, if they exist, shall be taken care of by those in charge of the Institution. For taking such further steps, the grant of affiliation need not wait. We make this position clear. The steps for the grant of affiliation to the appellants’ Institution may now be expedited and we direct the respondents to issue the necessary orders without loss of time." 25. Three decisions relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General were already cited before the Honourable Division Bench and after referring to those decisions and by following the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013(3) SCC 385 , the Hon'ble Division Bench has been passed the order as discussed supra. Therefore, the decisions relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General are not helping or supporting the stand of the University in any way especially under the facts and circumstances of this case. 26. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the prayer sought for in this writ petition is in respect of the academic year 2013-2014 and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous since the said academic year is over by now. No doubt, the petitioner has sought for affiliation to the academic year 2013-2014. However, immediately, after rejection of the said request, they filed the present writ petition. The matter was kept pending and by the time when the matter was argued finally, the academic year 2013-2014 was over in May 2014. Normally, under such circumstances, the petitioner could be directed to make a fresh application for the current academic year so as to enable the University to consider the same and pass orders. But the chequered history of this case would disclose that the petitioner is fighting to get affiliation from the respondent University from the year 2011 onwards by filing one writ petition or other and this is the sixth writ petition. Whenever an order is passed in favour of the petitioner in those matters, the same is taken up by way of appeal by the University immediately for one reason or other. Whenever an order is passed in favour of the petitioner in those matters, the same is taken up by way of appeal by the University immediately for one reason or other. Accordingly, the process is being delayed for grant of affiliation to the petitioner college for every academic year. 27. At this juncture, this Court wants to record its displeasure over the attitude of the University in over stepping in this matter. Every time an order was made by this Court with a specific direction to the University either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal. However, the University, instead of complying with the order as directed by this Court, every time attempted to find out some new reasons or objections with the sole object of rejecting the petitioner's application seeking for affiliation. I wonder, whether the same approach is being made by the University in respect of all the colleges seeking for affiliation. This Court has a strong feeling that the petitioner's college is being treated differently for the reasons best known to the University. Thus, it gives an impression that the apprehension of the petitioner of bias and mala fide has some force. At this juncture, one crucial aspect of the matter in respect of the allegation of bias and mala fide is to be noted. By making such allegation, the petitioner has impleaded the Registrar of the third respondent University in his personal capacity as fifth respondent. Though notice was served on him, the fifth respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court either in person or through counsel to refute the contention of the petitioner. However his name was printed in the cause list. The learned Additional Advocate General has appeared only for third and fourth respondents. It is well settled that when an allegation of bias or mala fide is made by impleading the particular official as party respondent in his individual capacity as well, unless such individual respondent appears and denies those contentions, this Court has no other go except to accept the version of the petitioner on the question of bias and mala fide. Needless to say that the University being the affiliating body, has to treat all applicant colleges alike without showing any discrimination and bias. Needless to say that the University being the affiliating body, has to treat all applicant colleges alike without showing any discrimination and bias. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition cannot be dismissed as infructuous and on the other hand, the relief has to be moulded for rendering substantial justice. 28. Moreover, the Honourable Division Bench in W.A(MD)No. 532 of 2013 dated 03.07.2013 has specifically given a direction to the University, which has not been complied with as discussed supra. Therefore, though such direction was issued in respect of academic year 20132014, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner's application submitted for the academic year 2013-2014 is directed to be treated as the application for the academic year 2014-2015. 29. The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the matter needs to be remitted back to the University for fresh consideration. Going by the order passed by the Honourable Division Bench dated 03.07.2013 and considering the fact that an inspection has already been conducted consequently, I am of the view that there is no need for remitting the matter to the University for fresh consideration for the following reasons. 30. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioner college was inspected by the Inspection Committee in pursuant to the order passed by the Honourable Division Bench. It is also seen that a report was submitted by the said Inspection Committee. Pursuant to the said report, the impugned order came to be passed, wherein, it is not stated that the infrastructural and instructional facilities including the faculty members as submitted before the AICTE, are not available in the petitioner college. Therefore, this Court can safely come to the conclusion that the Inspection Team was satisfied with the availability of those facilities. That is why, it is seen, the Standing Committee of affiliation also recommended for grant of provisional affiliation to the petitioner college subject to the production of those certificates and furnishing of explanation by the petitioner with regard to fresh objections raised. That is why, it is seen, the Standing Committee of affiliation also recommended for grant of provisional affiliation to the petitioner college subject to the production of those certificates and furnishing of explanation by the petitioner with regard to fresh objections raised. In the light of the observations made and specific directions issued by the Honourable Division Bench and in view of the discussions and findings rendered supra, I am of the view that the University is not entitled to refuse provisional affiliation for want of those certificates, especially under the circumstances that the AICTE has already granted approval, based on the materials furnished, in respect of the current academic year 2014-2015 also. Consequently, I am of the view that the writ petitioner college is entitled to get provisional affiliation without any further delay. 31. This Court is fully aware of the fact that in respect of the land dispute, a public interest litigation is pending before the Honourable Division Bench of this Court. It is seen that no order preventing the University from granting affiliation has been passed in that matter even by way of an interim measure. At the same time, it is needless to say that any affiliation to be granted to the petitioner college is always subject to the result of the above said public interest litigation. Further, the fact remains that AICTE has granted approval for current academic year viz., 20142015 even after the objection made by the University. Therefore, in my considered view, there cannot be any impediment for the University to grant provisional affiliation. 32. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with the following directions: (a) The third respondent University is directed to treat the application of the petitioner college submitted for the academic year 2013-2014 as the application for the current academic year 2014-2015. (b) Consequently, the third respondent University is directed to grant provisional affiliation to the petitioner college for the academic year 2014-2015 within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and permit the petitioner to take part in the counselling for the academic year 2014-2015. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.