ORDER : Though the petition is listed for consideration of the interlocutory application, since the same would relate to the consideration of the main petition, the petition itself is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and disposed of by this order. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the statement of compliance issued by the second respondent as against the petitioner be quashed since the second respondent had sought the petitioner-University to submit the statement of compliance in adherence to the requirements of UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010 (‘Regulations 2010’ for short). The petitioner is also seeking that the communication dated 22.01.2014 be quashed and a mandamus is sought to direct the second respondent to indicate the assessment and accreditation of the petitioner-University and issue Certificate of Accreditation without insisting upon the petitioners to comply with the Regulations, 2010. 3. Though several contentions have been raised in the instant petition and the objection statement with regard to the requirement contained in Regulations 2010 and the petitioners declining to comply with the same for the purpose of accreditation is filed, the question as to whether the said Regulations was to be mandatory complied by the petitioners for the purpose of accreditation would not arise for consideration at this juncture since the petitioners who were aggrieved by the said Regulations 2010 had assailed the same in W.P.No.12476/2012. They have succeeded in the said writ petition and the Regulations has been quashed. In that light, the issue arising in the instant petition requires consideration only on the aspect with regard to the manner in which the second respondent is required to consider the application filed by the petitioners seeking accreditation and the effective date of such certification of accreditation if granted. 4. At the first instance, the second respondent had granted the Certificate of Accreditation on 29.01.2009 on the petitioner-University complying with the requirement. The said accreditation was for a period of five years i.e., upto 28.01.2014. It is in that view, the petitioners were required to file their application for continuation of accreditation to be granted to them on satisfying the requirement. The said accreditation was for a period of five years i.e., upto 28.01.2014. It is in that view, the petitioners were required to file their application for continuation of accreditation to be granted to them on satisfying the requirement. The application in that regard provided that the petitioners were also to indicate therein that their statement of compliance will also include the adherence with the provision contained in Regulations 2010 which according to the second respondent was a requirement. 5. However, at the point when the petitioners were to submit the application, they were aggrieved by the Regulations 2010 and had assailed it before this Court in W.P.No.12476/2012. The petitioners therefore addressed a communication dated 10.01.2014 to the second respondent indicating their inability to comply with the said Regulations 2010 due to the fact that the same had been questioned before this Court and this Court had directed that the status quo be maintained. Hence, the petitioners had sought for consideration of their application in a different format. The second respondent through their communication dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure-J) have however declined the request of the petitioners to accept the application without indication regarding the compliance of Regulations 2010. It is in that view, the petitioners have approached this Court as their initial five year period of accreditation was coming to an end. This Court while issuing notice to the respondents had granted the interim order so as to continue the accreditation as at Annexure-A. The said interim order has remained in force during the pendency of this petition, thereby accreditation remained extended. 6. The respondents through their objection statement have indicated that after the lapse of initial five years period for which the accreditation is granted, the process would have to be undertaken afresh. For that purpose, the application would have to be made six months prior to the date of expiry and the entire process as provided under AnnexureR1 would have to be complied and the application filed would be considered. The reason for filing the said application prior to six months is to complete the process before the date of expiry and if the accreditation is continued, the same would result in continuity from the end of the earlier granted period. The reason for filing the said application prior to six months is to complete the process before the date of expiry and if the accreditation is continued, the same would result in continuity from the end of the earlier granted period. It is therefore contended that in the instant case, when the petitioners have not filed their application as required under the Regulations and have only subsequently filed the application, at this juncture, the petitioners cannot claim continuity from the expiry of the initial five years, but the accreditation if granted would be after the process is completed and the same is granted to the petitioner. From the objection statement, it is clear that the second respondent has no objection to consider the application in accordance with law even at this stage, but what is stated is that the accreditation if granted will only be prospective. 7. In the light of the rival contentions, it is seen that insofar as the application having been made by the petitioners seeking accreditation and the same to be considered by the second respondent, there is no serious dispute. The only question which would arise for consideration herein is the date from which the accreditation to be granted by the second respondent if all the requirements and compliances are fulfilled by the petitioners, will become effective. 8. From the view point of the second respondent as put forth by the learned counsel for the second respondent, certainly the procedure as required would have to be complied by a University by filing the application as per the requirement and the consideration thereof would have to be made and to that extent, the second respondent would stand justified in a normal situation. However, from the sequence as noticed above in the instant case, it cannot be in dispute that the petitioners being aware of the requirement to file an application seeking renewal of the accreditation on expiry of the period as granted in AnnexureA had in fact approached the second respondent in that regard. The petitioners had indicated at that stage that they were not in a position to comply with Regulations 2010 as the same had been assailed before this Court and therefore at that stage, having challenged the same, they would not subject themselves to the said Regulations. The petitioners had indicated at that stage that they were not in a position to comply with Regulations 2010 as the same had been assailed before this Court and therefore at that stage, having challenged the same, they would not subject themselves to the said Regulations. The fact that they had already approached this Court by filing W.P.No.12476/2012 and there was an interim order dated 18.04.2012 granted in their favour is evident from the records. 9. If that be the position, certainly in the instant facts, when the petitioners were litigating before this Court with regard to the very same Regulations, 2010 regarding which a compliance was sought by the second respondent, they were justified in informing the second respondent that their application without adherence to the said Regulations, 2010 is to be considered. The second respondent despite being informed about the status quo order passed by this Court, through their communication dated 22.01.2014 had still insisted on the compliance thereto which was not justified. It is in that circumstance, the application to be filed by the petitioners in the form as required by the second respondent could not be filed at that stage and the process could not be taken further, which resulted in the stalemate. 10. As already noticed, at this juncture, Regulations 2010 has been quashed by this Court by its order dated 22.05.2014 in the batch of petitions. Hence, the compliance in any event does not arise. Though the learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that subsequent thereto, new Regulations have been brought into force, the same would not be relevant to be noticed at this juncture in view of the point at which the accreditation process would arise in the instant case. Therefore, in such circumstance, the application filed by the petitioners would arise for consideration on the material available and in any event, the second respondent shall process the same and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, in such circumstance, the application filed by the petitioners would arise for consideration on the material available and in any event, the second respondent shall process the same and pass appropriate orders. In the facts and circumstances arising in the instant case, since the petitioners were already before this Court with their grievance immediately prior to expiry of the initial five years period for which the Certificate of Accreditation was issued as at Annexure-A and this Court had granted the interim order to extend the accreditation in favour of the petitioners and the said order has continued till this date, in my opinion, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of the continuity of the accreditation till the application is considered and disposed of by the second respondent. 11. It is further clarified that in view of the interim order granted by this Court and the benefit being extended at this stage whereby the accreditation has continued to be in force, if ultimately the second respondent considers the application of the petitioners favourably and it is decided to grant the Certificate of Accreditation in favour of the petitioners, the same shall be deemed to have been continued from 29.01.2014 i.e., the date of expiry of initial five years period. However, the consideration of the application made by the petitioners shall be in terms of the Regulations and all other compliances thereto. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.