ORDER : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. The proceedings of the first respondent dated 21.2.2011, and its office order dated 6.1.2014, are under challenge in this writ petition as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Regulation 12 of the University Grants Commission (Institution Deemed to be Universities), Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter called the "Regulations"). A consequential direction is sought to the respondents to accord approval, to the law college and management institute of the petitioner in Mahabubnagar District, in accordance with the Regulations. The policy on which reliance is placed on behalf of the respondents, and which is also under challenge in this writ petition, is as enunciated in the proceedings of the first respondent dated 21.2.2011 wherein reference is made to the constitution of a committee of experts by the Central Government, by its notification dated 6.7.2009, to review the functioning of the existing institutions 'deemed to be Universities' so as to satisfy itself of the justification of their continuance as institutions deemed to be Universities. Para 5 of the said policy dated 21.2.2011 reads as under: "5. And further whereas, the issue regarding expansion of those institutions as mentioned above, can be considered by the Government only when these institutions rectify the deficiencies found in the review within the stipulated period of three years from the date of the Report, as otherwise, expansion of such institutions would further enhance their deficiencies." 2. The Task Force constituted by the Central Government, which was headed by Prof. P.N. Tandon, graded "deemed Universities", on the basis of various parameters, as Categories-A, B and C. While the petitioner was placed in Category-B, several others were placed in Category-C. The impugned proceedings dated 6.1.2014, whereby their proposal for establishing an Off-Campus Centre was returned along with the demand draft submitted by them for Rs. 5.00 lakhs, was passed on the ground that, even after re-review by the task force, the petitioner continued to be in Category-B; and, as per the policy decision, expansion of deemed Universities, placed in Category-B, could not be allowed. 3. 5.00 lakhs, was passed on the ground that, even after re-review by the task force, the petitioner continued to be in Category-B; and, as per the policy decision, expansion of deemed Universities, placed in Category-B, could not be allowed. 3. In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that the Review Committee, in its report dated 19.10.2009, had divided various institutions (deemed to be Universities) into three categories; the petitioner was placed in the second category (Category-B) where institutions, deemed to be Universities, were to take certain corrective measures to satisfy the criteria of an "institution deemed to be University"; these corrective measures were to be taken within a period of three years so as to remove the deficiencies pointed out in the review, and justify their continuance as an institution deemed to be a University; even in its application filed before the Supreme Court, in WP (Civil) No. 380 of 2010, the Central Government had referred to various deficiencies; subsequently the Central Government had, by order dated 21.2.2011, constituted a task force to examine applications from institutions deemed to be Universities placed in Category-B so as to assess whether the deficiencies, pointed out in the review, had been overcome by these institutions and whether these institutions were eligible to continue as institutions deemed to be Universities and, accordingly, advise the Government. In response thereto, the petitioner had submitted its compliance report and had made a presentation before the task force on 29.5.2012 and the task force, after taking into consideration the deficiencies pointed out by the U.G.C. Expert Committee which inspected the petitioner institution in January, 2010, had pointed out the following deficiencies: "(i) Only about 7% of the faculty members have Ph.D. qualifications. (ii) The institution is yet to create adequate funding for research activity and also to provide grants for the entire University. (iii) Research component and publications are at present very meagre and need to be improved. (iv) Most of the departments are not headed by qualified Professors in the concerned discipline. (v) The faculty participation in conferences, outside the University is not very common. (vi) The faculty improvement programmes needs improvement. (vii) The constituent units of the University are yet to conduct regular national and international conferences. (iv) Most of the departments are not headed by qualified Professors in the concerned discipline. (v) The faculty participation in conferences, outside the University is not very common. (vi) The faculty improvement programmes needs improvement. (vii) The constituent units of the University are yet to conduct regular national and international conferences. (viii) The library resources in some of the constituent units are not adequate enough to cater to the needs of the total strength, in spite of the books supplied to the students on chargeable basis. (ix) The University's faculty recruitment process is expected to follow UGC norms prescribed for appointment of teaching faculty. (x) The University is to follow the rules of reservation. (xi) The University needs separate directorates for student's welfare, college (unit) development council, faculty's professional development centre, publications division, IPR Cell, consultancy and extension divisions." 4. According to the first respondent the Task Force submitted its report, on the petitioner institution, on 12.9.2012. It had observed that, even though some improvement/progress had been made by the petitioner, (a deemed to be University), for which it was granted 25 marks out of 45, it still fell short of the benchmark of 30 marks for placing it in Category-A and it, thus, continues to remain in Category-B; and the petitioner-institution should use its energy to improve its quality and focus so as to take resolute steps towards achieving Category-A status, rather than disperse it in expanding into diverse academic and quasi-academic territories and distant off-campus sites. The counter-affidavit extracts the general observations made by the Task Force which read as under: "I. It may be reiterated that prior to the review in 2009 the Review Committee clearly enunciated the parameters on which the deemed to be Universities were to be evaluated. II. One of the important considerations for the Review Committee was that a University, including a deemed University, is to be clearly distinguished from a college, even a very good college. A University is an institution engaged in teaching specially at the postgraduate level and, even more importantly, pursuing high quality research in a large number of disciplines, furthering human knowledge in a free and autonomous environment-research which must eventually feed into the teaching. III. The present evaluation was carried out keeping in view the parameters that were used at the time of the initial review by the Review Committee. IV. III. The present evaluation was carried out keeping in view the parameters that were used at the time of the initial review by the Review Committee. IV. In spite of repeated reminders both in writing and during personal interactions regarding the nature of information required by the Task Force, the information provided was voluminous, frequently confusing and often misleading. One had to wade through a mass of irrelevant material to discover the real state of the institution's performance. V. SIU itself accepts that there were only 11 papers indexed in SCOPUS in the name of SIU between 2009 till the date of submission of the Compliance Report. For faculty strength of 412, by no stretch of imagination, this could be considered creditable." 5. It is further submitted, in the counter-affidavit of the first respondent, that as further expansion, without adequately attending to the concerns already brought out by the Review Committee, may lead to a further dilution in standards, the Central Government had taken a policy decision not to permit expansion of Category-B institutions till they transit into Category-A. Reference is also made in the counter-affidavit to the challenge by 44 Category-C institutions deemed to be Universities, to the validity of the report of the Tandon Committee, in Viplav Sharma v. Union of India, WP (Civil) No. 142 of 2006 and Batch dated 21.1.2014, to submit that the Supreme Court had not given any adverse directions against the Tandon Committee; the Supreme Court had categorically stated that the advice of the U.G.C. is not binding on the Union of India; the Union of India had ultimate power to decide the matter at its own discretion; and, however, the Union of India had to give due weightage to UGC's remarks being an expert statutory authority. 6. 6. Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the Central Government is not empowered to return the application, at the very inception, on the basis of a patently illegal policy; it is required under the Regulations to forward the proposal received by it, from a Deemed University for establishing an Off-Campus Centre, to the University Grants Commission ("UGC" for short); the "UGC" is required to conduct an inspection of the proposed Off-Campus Centre, and submit a report thereafter to the Central Government which is then required to take a decision whether or not to accord prior approval for establishing an Off-Campus Centre by an institution deemed to be a University. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioner has been accredited as an 'A' category institution by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (an autonomous institution of the University Grants Commission); the Bar Council of India has granted the Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad (the Off-Campus Centre of the petitioner), temporary approval of affiliation for imparting a five year B.A., LLB course, and a five year BBA, LLB course, for a period of two years from 2013-14 to 2014-15 with an intake of two sections of 60 students in each section; the petitioner was hitherto permitted to establish an Off-Campus Centre at Noida, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in WP (Civil) No. 380 of 2010 dated 3.12.2010; and the Supreme Court, in WP (Civil) No. 142 of 2006 dated 21.1.2014, had directed the University Grants Commission to examine all the reports, submitted by the task force headed by Prof. Tandon, after giving notice to all the 44 "C" Category institutions; tender its advice to the Central Government; and the Central Government was directed to take a decision thereafter. Learned Senior Counsel would rely on State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikhak Sangh, (2006) 2 SCC 545 , in support of his submission that the fundamental rights of the petitioner to establish an educational institution, (the Off-Campus Centre in Mahaboobnagar), can be curtailed only by legislation-either plenary or subordinate and not by way of an Executive Policy. 7. Learned Senior Counsel would rely on State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikhak Sangh, (2006) 2 SCC 545 , in support of his submission that the fundamental rights of the petitioner to establish an educational institution, (the Off-Campus Centre in Mahaboobnagar), can be curtailed only by legislation-either plenary or subordinate and not by way of an Executive Policy. 7. Smt. S. Nanda, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, would submit that the policy of the Government of India, not to grant permission to deemed Universities to establish Off-Campus Centres as long as they remain in Category-B, should not be lightly interfered with in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; any direction by this Court to the Central Government, to grant permission to the petitioner to establish an Off-Campus Centre, would not only fall foul of the policy of the Central Government dated 21.2.2011, but would also contravene the regulations; no mandamus can be issued to the Central Government to do something which is prohibited by law; and the impugned order of the Central Government dated 6.1.2014, refusing to entertain the petitioner's application on the ground that it continued to remain a Category-B institution, does not necessitate interference. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel would rely on K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 264; M. Sunil Chakravarthy v. Principal Sreekalahasteeswara Institute of Technology, 2005 (1) ALD 253 (DB); State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 and Union of India v. Arulmozhi Iniarasu AIR 2011 SC 2731 . 8. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel would rely on K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 264; M. Sunil Chakravarthy v. Principal Sreekalahasteeswara Institute of Technology, 2005 (1) ALD 253 (DB); State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 and Union of India v. Arulmozhi Iniarasu AIR 2011 SC 2731 . 8. Sri P. Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of India, would refer to the counter-affidavit of the Bar Council of India ("BCI" for short) to submit that an inspection team, constituted by the BCI, had inspected the proposed campus on 20.8.2013; the Inspection Committee had submitted its report recommending grant of approval for two years i.e., 2013-14 and 2014-15; the Legal Education Committee of the BCI, at its meeting held on 24.8.2013, had considered the said recommendation and had, thereafter, granted temporary approval of affiliation to the petitioner Institution for imparting a five year BA, LLB course, and a five year BBA, LLB law course, for a period of two years for the academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15; the BCI had also accepted the recommendation, and had granted temporary approval of affiliation to the petitioner Institution to establish an Off-Campus Centre in Mahabubnagar District; the petitioner was informed, by letter dated 8.10.2013, of the temporary approval of affiliation being granted in their favour; the petitioner had been successfully running two centres of Legal Education at Pune and Noida respectively, and had achieved distinction in the quality of education imparted at these Centres; and the BCI, on the occasion of its Golden Jubilee Celebrations, had felicitated five institutions including the petitioner based on their contribution in the field of Legal Education in the country. 9. Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, would submit that the role of the UGC, as stipulated under the Regulations, commences only after a proposal, to establish an Off-Campus Centre, is forwarded to it by the Central Government for causing inspection and for submission of its recommendations; and, as the petitioner's application has been rejected at the threshold, the Commission does not come into the picture. 10. The petitioner herein sought prior approval of the Central Government, in terms of the Regulations, to establish an Off-Campus Centre. Establishing and managing an educational institution is a fundamental right, being a right of occupation envisaged under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 10. The petitioner herein sought prior approval of the Central Government, in terms of the Regulations, to establish an Off-Campus Centre. Establishing and managing an educational institution is a fundamental right, being a right of occupation envisaged under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. A citizen cannot be deprived of the said right except in accordance with law. The requirement of law, for the purpose of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, cannot be achieved by a policy decision in terms of Article 73/162 of the Constitution of India or otherwise. Such a law must be one enacted by the Legislature, (Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh's case (supra) and T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 ) or by the Rule/Regulation making authority. The only manner in which a violation of the fundamental right can be defended is by justifying the impugned action with reference to a valid law, be it a statute, a statutory rule or a statutory regulation. Executive decisions or policy guidelines are not "law" which the State is entitled to make under the relevant clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 in order to regulate or curtail fundamental rights guaranteed by the several sub-clauses of Article 19(1). Nor would it be "a procedure established by law" within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 ). The quintessence of our Constitution is the rule of law. The Union/State or its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can rely on a specific rule of law which authorises their acts. The Union/State or its officers may not, in the exercise of their executive authority and without any legislation in support thereof, infringe upon the rights of citizens merely because the Legislature of the State/Union has the power to legislate in regard to the subject on which the executive power is exercised. Every act of the Government or its officers must, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person, be supported by legislative authority. (Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Dr. Every act of the Government or its officers must, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person, be supported by legislative authority. (Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Dr. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi, (1967) 3 SCR 525 : AIR 1967 SC 1836 ; Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, (1976) 2 SCR 347 : AIR 1975 SC 2299 ; S. Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1982 SC 33 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Thakur Bharat Singh, (1967) 2 SCR 454 : AIR 1967 SC 1170 ; Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1570 ; Wazir Chand v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 415 ; Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi v. State of Bihar, (1953) SCR 1129 : AIR 1953 SC 215 ). 11. As the UGC made the Regulations in the exercise of the powers conferred under Section 26(1)(f) and (g) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the Regulations have statutory sanction and the force of law. Regulation 1.2 of the Regulations stipulates that these Regulations shall apply to every institution seeking declaration as an institution deemed to be University under the Act as also, albeit prospectively, to an institution which has been declared as an institution deemed to be University under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. Regulation 2.02 defines 'Off-Campus Centre' to mean an approved (by the Central Government) centre of the institution deemed to be University beyond its Campus in the country. Regulation 2.04 defines "Committee of Experts" to mean a Committee appointed by the Commission consisting of academics, researchers or other experts in the relevant fields of knowledge and notified under these Regulations for such purpose as it may specify. Regulation 2.08 defines 'Government' to mean the Central Government. 12. As the petitioner is a "deemed to be University" it is not necessary for this Court to refer to the contents of Regulations 4 to 10. Regulation 11 requires an institution deemed to be University to maintain standards, higher than the minimum of instruction, academic and physical infrastructure, qualifications of teachers, etc., as prescribed for college level institutions by the UGC or by the Statutory/Regulatory body concerned which, in the present case, is the BCI; and to obtain their approval for running various programmes of study wherever applicable. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner has been granted temporary approval of affiliation by the BCI. Regulation 12 relates to new departments, Off-Campus Centres and Off-Shore Campuses and as, in the present case, the dispute relates to grant of approval by the Central Government to the petitioner for establishing an Off-Campus Centre in Mahabubnagar District of the State of Andhra Pradesh, it is useful to extract Regulation 12.01 to 12.16 of the Regulations. 12.0. New Departments Off-Campus Centres and Off-Shore Campuses: 12.01. An institution deemed to be University shall normally operate within its own main Campus as is declared by the Central Government in the notification and conduct approved programmes of study falling within the area of its specialization. 12.02. If an institution deemed to be University wishes to start a new department dealing with a subject which is not in the field of its specialization or in an allied field, it may do so only if that field is covered under the objectives for which the institution deemed to be University was established, and with the prior approval of the Commission. 12.03. An institution deemed to be University may be allowed to operate beyond its approved geographical boundaries and start Off-Campus(es)/Off-Shore Campus(es) under the following conditions: 12.03.1. It has been in existence as an institution deemed to be University for a minimum period of three years. 12.03.2. It has been conducting postgraduate programmes and research. 12.03.3. It has earned a reputation for excellent and innovative teaching which, inter alia, includes practising academic and examination reforms like introducing modular structure, continuous internal evaluation, etc., and for meaningful and purposeful research and extension activities. 12.03.4. It has a good track record of conforming to the relevant Regulations/norms of the Commission and other Statutory/Regulatory bodies regarding minimum standards of instruction, qualification of faculty, merit-based admission of students on an all India basis and reasonable fee structure. 12.03.5. It has obtained prior approval of the Statutory/Regulatory body to start the new department/programme, wherever applicable, and undertakes to comply with all the requirements of the said body. 12.03.6. It has a currently valid accreditation from National Accreditation and Assessment Council (NAAC) with the highest grade offered; 12.03.7. 12.03.5. It has obtained prior approval of the Statutory/Regulatory body to start the new department/programme, wherever applicable, and undertakes to comply with all the requirements of the said body. 12.03.6. It has a currently valid accreditation from National Accreditation and Assessment Council (NAAC) with the highest grade offered; 12.03.7. It has adequate financial resources for starting the proposed new department/Off-Campus Centre/Off-Shore Campus; 12.03.8 it has not entered into any franchise agreement, either overtly or covertly, with any other organization for establishing and running the Off-Campus Centre/Off-Shore Campus of the institution deemed to be University. 12.04. A new department in the Campus or in the approved Off-Campus Centre shall be established by an institution deemed to be University only with the prior approval of the Commission. 12.05. An Off-Campus Centre shall be established by an institution deemed to be University with the prior approval of the Central Government, on the recommendation of the Commission. The Central Government shall also consider the views of the State/UT Government concerned where the Off-Campus Centre is proposed to be established. 12.06. An Off-Shore Campus of an institution deemed to be University shall be established with the prior permission of the Central Government, on the recommendation of the Commission: Provided that the country, where such Off-Shore Campus is proposed to be established, requires grant of approval by it for such establishment, then the application to the Central Government for permission shall be made along with the approval granted by that country: Provided further that if the country where such Off-Shore Campus is proposed to be established requires prior concurrence of the Government of India for the approval, referred to in the first proviso, of that country to be granted, then the Central Government, on the recommendation of the UGC, may give a 'No Objection' to the proposal but such 'No Objection' shall not be construed as permission of the Central Government to the institution deemed to be University to establish an Off-Shore Campus. Such an institution deemed to be University shall also submit an undertaking that it shall comply with all laws, norms or standards prescribed by that country where the Off-Shore Campus is proposed to be established. 12.07. Such an institution deemed to be University shall also submit an undertaking that it shall comply with all laws, norms or standards prescribed by that country where the Off-Shore Campus is proposed to be established. 12.07. An institution deemed to be University intending to start a new Off-Campus Centre/Off-Shore Campus shall apply to the Government of India in the prescribed proforma at least six months prior to the proposed date of starting the Centre/Off-Shore Campus. The Government of India shall forward the proposal to the Commission for its advice. In case of establishment of a new department in the Campus or an approved Off-Campus Centre, the application in the prescribed format shall be sent directly to the Commission. 12.08. The Commission shall cause to be undertaken a spot visit/verification of the proposed Off-Campus(es) and Off-Shore Campus(es) to verify the infrastructure facilities, programmes, faculty, financial viability, etc., before sending its advice to the Central Government. In case of a proposal for establishment of a new department, the Commission shall arrive at a decision after the spot visit. 12.09. In case such permission is not granted, the institution deemed to be University may reapply for such permission, but not before two years from the date of rejection of its earlier application. 12.10. The Off-Campus Centre/Off-Shore Campus shall have adequate academic and physical infrastructure facilities as per the norms and standards prescribed by the Commission and the Statutory/Regulatory body concerned. Such facilities shall be proportionate to the size and activities of the Off-Campus Centre/Off-Shore Campus. The Off-Shore Campus of the institution deemed to be University shall also comply with all norms and standards of the country in which it is established. 12.11. The Off-Campus Centre/Off-Shore Campus shall be directly administered by the parent institution deemed to be University in matters of admission, instruction, evaluation, conferring of degrees, etc. In case of the Off-Shore Campus, lease in the name of the institution deemed to be University may be acceptable (as per the procedure of the country in which such Off-Shore Campus is proposed to be established). In case lease is not permissible in any particular country, land and other assets in the name of a Strategic Partner shall be accepted. In case lease is not permissible in any particular country, land and other assets in the name of a Strategic Partner shall be accepted. For this, the institution deemed to be University shall have a duly registered MOU/collaboration with the Strategic Partner which shall be governed in accordance with the law for the time being in force, in India. 12.12. The new department/Off-Campus Centre/Off-Shore Campus shall offer only those programmes of study which are approved by the appropriate bodies of the institution deemed to be University and the statutory/Regulatory body concerned such as All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Medical Council of India (MCI), Dental Council of India (DO), Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), Bar Council of India (BCI), Indian Nursing Council (INC), etc., wherever applicable. In case of any new or existing institution of higher learning proposed to be brought under the ambit as a constituent unit of any existing institution deemed to be University, only those students who were admitted in such institutions on a date subsequent to the date of notification of the declaration under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 in regard to bringing the institution under the ambit of the existing institution deemed to be University, shall be eligible for being examined by the institution deemed to be University and, therefore, for the award of degree or any other qualification by the institution deemed to be University on successful completion of their respective courses or programmes of study. 12.13. In the case of an Off-Shore Campus, the remittances of funds from/to the main Campus shall be governed by the Reserve Bank of India Rules. 12.14. The overall performance of an Off-Campus Centre/Off-Shore Campus shall be monitored by the Commission biennially for six years and subsequently after five years and whose directions on management, academic development and improvement shall be binding on the Campus. 12.15. If the functioning of the Campus/Off-Campus Centre of an institution deemed to be University does not meet the standards stipulated by the Commission and remains unsatisfactory for two consecutive reviews, as assessed by the Commission, the institution deemed to be University may be instructed by the Central Government, on the advice of the Commission, to close down the Off-Campus Centre/Campus concerned. The Commission may initiate action against erring institutions deemed to be Universities even on the basis of complaints received against such Centres/Campuses. The Commission may initiate action against erring institutions deemed to be Universities even on the basis of complaints received against such Centres/Campuses. In the interest of the students, the Commission may allow the Centre/Campus to function till the last batch of students enrolled therein, as on the date of such instruction, passes out. The institution deemed to be University shall take appropriate steps to safeguard the interests of the faculty/staff at the Centre/Campus. In the event of closure of the Centre/Campus, the assets and liabilities thereof shall revert to the institution deemed to be University. 12.16. The Commission may give an in-principle 'No Objection' to the institution deemed to be University for establishing an Off-Campus Centre, wherever required by the Statutory Councils, if the Commission is so satisfied about the viability of the proposal; but such 'No Objection' shall not be construed as permission of the Commission to the institution deemed to be University to establish an Off-Campus Centre. In all such cases, formal proposal(s) shall be examined by the Commission under these Regulations. The institution deemed to be Universities shall not admit student(s) to its course(s) in such Off-Campus Centre(s) before the permission is granted by the Commission to such proposal(s). 13. An institution, deemed to be University, intending to start a new Off-Campus Centre is required, under Regulation 12.07, to apply to the Government of India, in the prescribed proforma, at least six months prior to the proposed date of starting the Centre. The said Regulation requires the Central Government to forward the said proposal to the UGC for its advice. The UGC is required, in terms of Regulation 12.08, to cause to be undertaken a spot visit or verification of the proposed Off-Campus Centre to verify the infrastructure facilities, programmes, faculty, financial viability etc., before sending its advice to the Central Government. Under Regulation 12.10 the Off-Campus Centre is required to have adequate academic and physical infrastructure facilities as per the norms and standards prescribed by the UGC and the Statutory/Regulatory body concerned (i.e., the Bar Council of India); and such facilities should be proportionate to the size and activities of the Off-Campus Centre. Regulation 12.05 stipulates that an 'Off-Campus Centre' can be established by an institution deemed to be University only with the prior approval of the Central Government on the recommendation of the UGC. Regulation 12.05 stipulates that an 'Off-Campus Centre' can be established by an institution deemed to be University only with the prior approval of the Central Government on the recommendation of the UGC. The said Regulation requires the Central Government to also consider the views of the State Government concerned where the Off-Campus Centre is proposed to be established. 14. The procedure prescribed under the Regulations for grant of prior approval, for a deemed to be University, to establish an Off-Campus Centre is for submission of an application by the institution deemed to be University, to the Central Government, to start a new Off-Campus Centre; on receipt thereof, the Central Government is required to forward the said proposal to the UGC for its advice; the UGC is required, thereafter, to undertake a spot visit or verification of the proposed Off-Campus Centre to verify its infrastructure facilities, programmes, faculty, financial viability etc. After undertaking this exercise, the UGC is required to send its recommendations to the Central Government and it is only after receipt of the recommendation of the UGC is the Central Government required to take a decision whether or not to grant prior approval, to the institution deemed to be University, for establishing an Off-Campus Centre. In the present case, however, the petitioner's application has been rejected at the threshold on the ground that the policy decision of the Central Government prohibits deemed to be Universities, placed in Category-B, from being allowed to expand by establishing Off-Campus Centres. 15. As noted herein above, the Task Force headed by Prof. P.N. Tandon has placed the petitioner in Category "B" and the Central Government has, in terms of its policy dated 21.2.2011, returned the petitioner's application, by its order dated 6.1.2014, as it is not in Category "A". Around 44 deemed to be Universities were placed in Category "C", by the Task Force, lower in rank than the Category "B" in which the petitioner was placed. These 44 deemed Universities, placed in Category-C, invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in Viplav Sharma's case (supra) and the Supreme Court, by its order in WP (Civil) No. 142 of 2006 and Batch dated 21.1.2014, observed: "......Regulation 22 of UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010 deals with the consequences of violation of regulations. These 44 deemed Universities, placed in Category-C, invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in Viplav Sharma's case (supra) and the Supreme Court, by its order in WP (Civil) No. 142 of 2006 and Batch dated 21.1.2014, observed: "......Regulation 22 of UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010 deals with the consequences of violation of regulations. Regulations 22.1 enables the Central Government and the Commission to cause an inspection of the institutions deemed to be University, or inspection in matter of the institution deemed to be University. We have now two parallel inquiries, one conducted by the UGC directly and another conducted by the Central Government through Prof Tandon. But we find that UGC had no occasion to examine the Prof Tandon Committee Report. Further, we also notice that there is another report of the Committee of Officers, which has also not been placed before the UGC. Under such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to give a direction to the UGC to examine all the reports, with notice to all the 44 institutions concerned. Institutions are free to raise their objections against the reports and the UGC has to consider the same and take an independent decision in accordance with law, if necessary, after affording a hearing, within a period of two months from today. UGC has then to tender its advice to the Central Government with its report. Needless to say that the advice of the UGC is not binding on the Union of India but has to be given due weight since the UGC is an expert statutory authority......" (emphasis supplied) 16. While the legality or otherwise, of continuing the deemed to be University status of these 44 institutions was in issue before the Supreme Court in Viplav Sharma's case (supra), and not the right of the deemed to be University to establish an Off-Campus Centre, the petitioner had also approached the Supreme Court earlier, on its not being granted permission to establish an Off-Campus Centre at Noida in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court, in its order in WP (Civil) No. 380 of 2010 dated 3.12.2010, observed: ".....In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, reply and rejoinder thereto have been filed. The Supreme Court, in its order in WP (Civil) No. 380 of 2010 dated 3.12.2010, observed: ".....In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, reply and rejoinder thereto have been filed. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that two statutory authorities, namely, the Bar Council of India and the University Grants Commission have accepted the proposal of petitioner No. 1 to start its law programme. These statutory authorities are responsible for co-ordination and determination of standards in the Universities. It is further stated that the University Grants Commission has granted permission to petitioner No. 1 to start BBA programme. List this matter for final disposal along with the connected matter, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 142/2006 (Viplav Sharma v. Union of India and others (supra)). Meanwhile, we permit petitioner No. 1 to admit students, conduct classes and start its Off-Campus Centre at Noida, pending final disposal of this writ petition. We further direct that the fact of pendency of the writ petition shall be brought to the notice of the students before admission. We direct the petitioners to remove the deficiencies which have been pointed out by the Bar Council of India, University Grants Commission and the Central Government within the time granted by the three authorities. This order shall be subject to the final order to be passed in the writ petition." (emphasis supplied) 17. It is not even the case of the respondents, nor has it been so stated in the counter-affidavit, that its policy dated 21.2.2011 is referable to any legislation-either plenary or sub-ordinate. It is evident, therefore, that the power to frame the policy dated 21.2.2011 is referable only to the executive power of the Central Government under Article 73 of the Constitution of India. While the Court would not strike down a policy decision of the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been fairer or more scientific or logical or wiser, and the wisdom and advisability of the policies are, ordinarily, not amenable to judicial review, interference is not impermissible where the policies are contrary to statutory or constitutional provisions or are arbitrary or irrational or were made in the abuse of power. (State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (supra); Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 6 SCC 44 ; Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India, (2009) 7 SCC 561 and State of Kerala v. Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit, (2009) 8 SCC 46 ). 18. While this Court would exercise restraint, and not readily interfere with a policy decision of the Central Government, save infringement of statutory provisions or of Part III of the Constitution of India, the Regulations aforementioned prescribe a detailed procedure for applications being entertained, processed, an inspection being caused and recommendations made thereafter by the UGC, and for a decision to be taken by the Central Government only thereafter. When a procedure has been laid down, the authority must act strictly in terms thereof. (Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) Ch. D 426). If a statute or a statutory rule/regulation has conferred a power to do an act, and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted. (State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 35; Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9 ; Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 588 ; State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas, AIR 1969 SC 634 ). While the first respondent would, undoubtedly, be entitled to rely on any report of an expert body, in addition to the recommendations of the UGC, while considering whether or not to grant prior approval, it cannot, at the very outset, refuse to entertain an application on the basis of an executive policy as the Regulations, (which are statutory in character and have legal sanction), requires it to receive the application; forward it to the UGC; await the recommendations of the UGC; and, thereafter, take a decision whether or not to grant prior approval. While something prohibited by the Regulations cannot be the subject-matter of a mandamus, (M. Sunil Chakravarthy's case (supra)), the petitioner's complaint, in the present case, is of violation of the Regulations by the Central Government. While something prohibited by the Regulations cannot be the subject-matter of a mandamus, (M. Sunil Chakravarthy's case (supra)), the petitioner's complaint, in the present case, is of violation of the Regulations by the Central Government. The relief sought for by the petitioner is for a mandamus to the Central Government to adhere to the Regulations, and not to act contrary thereto. 19. Smt. S. Nanda, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, would submit, rightly so, that a writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court only when there exists a legal right in the petitioner, and a corresponding legal obligation in the State; an illegality cannot be perpetuated; and there cannot be equality in illegality. (Arulmozhi Iniarasu's case (supra); Sushanta Tagore v. Union of India, (2005) 3 SCC 16 ; UP. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd v. Sant Rajh Singh, (2006) 13 SCC 82; State, CBI v. Sashi Balasubrahmanian, (2006) 13 SCC 252; and State of Orissa v. Prasana Kumar Sahoo, (2007) 15 SCC 129 ). The petitioner has not only the fundamental right to establish an educational institution, it has also the statutory right to have its application, for establishment of an Off-Campus Centre, considered in accordance with the Regulations which have statutory force. I see no reason, therefore, to deny the petitioner the writ of mandamus sought for by them. 20. The petitioner has not only the fundamental right to establish an educational institution, it has also the statutory right to have its application, for establishment of an Off-Campus Centre, considered in accordance with the Regulations which have statutory force. I see no reason, therefore, to deny the petitioner the writ of mandamus sought for by them. 20. I find considerable force in the submission of Smt. S. Nanda, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, that compassion and sympathy have no role to play where a rule of law is required to be enforced; adjusting equities, in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, is one thing and the High Court assuming the role of the Central Government is a different thing; this Court, in the exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226, would not direct that the mandatory requirement of law be waived; it is not permissible for the High Court to direct an authority under the Act to act contrary to the statutory provisions; the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is to enforce the rule of law, and ensure that the State and other statutory authorities act in accordance with law; it is not permissible for the High Court to direct an authority under the Act to act contrary to the statutory provisions; and the High Court can intervene only when it finds that there is some illegality in the order of the Central Government. (K.S. Bhoir's case (supra)). 21. The impugned order of the Central Government dated 6.1.2014 is illegal as the Regulations do not enable it to return an application, for grant of approval to establish an Off-Campus Centre, at the very threshold without forwarding the proposal to the UGC and inviting its recommendations. The petitioner is entitled to the grant of relief, of having its application considered in terms of the Regulations, as of right and not on grounds of compassion and sympathy. The impugned order dated 6.1.2014 must be, and is accordingly, set aside. 22. The petitioner is entitled to the grant of relief, of having its application considered in terms of the Regulations, as of right and not on grounds of compassion and sympathy. The impugned order dated 6.1.2014 must be, and is accordingly, set aside. 22. While the policy of the Central Government dated 21.2.2011 has also been subjected to challenge in this writ petition as being irrational and arbitrary, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the contentions urged by Sri D.V. Sitaram Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, in this regard as the petitioner's application is now required to be received by the Central Government, forwarded to the UGC, for the UGC to have an inspection caused, for the UGC to submit its recommendations to the Central Government and for the Central Government, thereafter, to consider whether or not to grant prior approval to the petitioner to establish an Off-Campus Centre. At that stage, i.e., while considering whether or not to grant prior approval, it is open to the Central Government to take into consideration not only the recommendations of the UGC but also the Task Force Report and its policy decision dated 21.2.2011. The validity or otherwise of the Central Government policy dated 21.2.2011 is left open for examination, if need be, in appropriate legal proceedings. 23. Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has completed construction of its Off-Campus Centre in Mahabubnagar District, and has provided all the stipulated infrastructural facilities investing in excess of Rs. 80 crores; as the academic year 2014-15 is to begin shortly, any delay in considering the petitioner's application would result in denial of admission of students for the ensuing academic year, which would cause huge financial loss to them. He would request this Court to fix a time frame for the petitioner's application to be considered, and for a decision to be taken by the Central Government regarding grant of prior approval to the petitioner to establish an Off-Campus Centre in Mahabubnagar District. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioner would resubmit their proposal, along with the demand draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only), within ten days from today. 24. The Central Government shall forward the petitioner's application, within one week of its receipt, to the UGC. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioner would resubmit their proposal, along with the demand draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only), within ten days from today. 24. The Central Government shall forward the petitioner's application, within one week of its receipt, to the UGC. The UGC shall have an inspection caused, verify the infrastructural and other facilities provided by the petitioner at its Off-Campus Centre and submit its recommendations to the Central Government within four weeks thereafter. The Central Government shall, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the recommendations of the UGC, consider the petitioner's application, seeking its prior approval for establishing an Off-Campus Centre, in accordance with law, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is made clear that, while considering the petitioner's application for grant of prior approval, to establish an Off-Campus Centre in Mahaboobnagar District, it is open to the Central Government not only to take into consideration the recommendations of the UGC but also the Task Force Report and the Government policies in this regard. Needless to state that, as stipulated in Regulation 12.05 of the Regulations, the Central Government shall also ascertain the views of the State Government regarding the proposed establishment of the Off-Campus Centre. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs. Disposed off