JUDGMENT G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner an educational institution which is conducting a Bachelors in Education course (for short “B.Ed.”) has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution interalia praying for writ of mandamus against the Respondent - University of Mumbai (for short ‘University’) to quash and set aside the decision of the University to impose a fine/penalty on the Petitioner institution of Rs. 5,40,000/- and the coercive steps being taken against the Petitioner for recovery of the same. This decision of the University is contained in the communication dated 3.12.2007, 5.12.2012 and 7.2.2013 of the University as challenged in prayer clause (a) of the writ petition. This penalty/fine is imposed by the University on the petitioner as a condition for issuing provisional eligibility certificates in favour of 54 students admitted by the petitioner to the B.Ed. Course for the academic year 2007-08 on the ground that the application for issuance of provisional eligibility certificates in respect of these students was submitted by the Petitioner after the prescribed date. It is the petitioner's case that on account of non payment of this amount by the Petitioner, the University is not issuing mark-sheets of the students who have appeared for B.Ed. Examination. The University has quantified the said amount at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per student and that is how has arrived at a penalty of Rs. 5,40,000/- in respect of 54 students admitted by the petitioner for the academic year 2007-08. The facts in nutshell are:- 3. The petitioner is an unaided B.Ed. College recognized by the National Council for Teachers' Education and is affiliated to the Respondent University conducting the B.Ed. Course since the year 2004. 4. For the academic year 2007-08, the petitioner admitted 54 students to the B.Ed. course who had passed the qualifying graduation examination not from the Respondent University but from the other Universities. It is the petitioner's case that in respect of such students an eligibility application is required to be made to the University on the basis of the migaration certificates issued by the respective Universities so as to make those students eligible to undertake the course affiliated to the Respondent University. It is the petitioner's case that in respect of such students an eligibility application is required to be made to the University on the basis of the migaration certificates issued by the respective Universities so as to make those students eligible to undertake the course affiliated to the Respondent University. It is the Petitioner's case that such students do not receive the migration certificates and other necessary certificates from their parent Universities on time and invariably such certificates are belatedly received by the students. After the said certificates are received the Petitioner forwards a list of such students along with requisite forms alongwith the certificates to the University for issuance of a provisional eligibility certificates to these students. In the academic year 2007-08 there was delay in making such application to the University in respect of the 54 students admitted by the Petitioner. The extended cut off date by which such application was required to be made was 29-09-2007. The Petitioner forwarded the list of the students along with the forms on 1.11.2007. There is no other dispute on the legality of the admissions granted to these students on their respective merit as also they being qualified to pursue the B.Ed course. 5. The University, by its communication dated 19.11.2007 informed the petitioner that it would accept the forms forwarded by the Petitioner and a provisional eligibility certificate would be issued to these students subject to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner as a penalty as per the decision taken by the Management Council. This penalty/fine was imposed on the ground that Ordinance 111 of the University stipulated admitting students after grant of provisional statement of eligibility which was stated to be violated by the petitioner in making 54 admissions for the academic year 2007-08. The petitioner was called upon to make payment of Rs. 10,000/- by a demand draft. The petitioner was warned not to repeat such mistake in future. The petitioner accordingly submitted to the University a demand draft dated 27.11.2007 of Rs. 10,000/-. The University however, by its letter dated 3.12.2007 addressed to the Petitioner, returned the demand draft clarifying that the petitioner was expected to remit the penalty/fine of Rs. 10,000/- for each of the 54 students and hence a total amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- was payable in cash or a demand draft to the University alongwith necessary documents in original. 10,000/-. The University however, by its letter dated 3.12.2007 addressed to the Petitioner, returned the demand draft clarifying that the petitioner was expected to remit the penalty/fine of Rs. 10,000/- for each of the 54 students and hence a total amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- was payable in cash or a demand draft to the University alongwith necessary documents in original. The petitioner was requested to make payment within a week failing which the admission would be treated to be cancelled. 6. The petitioner however did not deposit the amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- and pretended to make a representation to the University requesting to issue eligibility certificate without demanding penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per student. The request of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the University by its letter dated 16.2.2008 and the petitioner was called upon to deposit the said amount. The petitioner therefore again submitted a representation dated 18.3.2008 inter alia stating that there was no rule on the basis of which the University had imposed such heavy penalty. It was stated that as per the Management Council's decision a total penalty of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was required to be paid by an institution for late submission of forms and not a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per student. It was stated that the University was not acting under any rule in imposing such penalty. The University however again by its communication dated 28.4.2008, rejected the said representation of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner thereafter addressed a letter dated 30.5.2008 to the University requesting for withdrawing the penalty amount by Rs. 10,000/- per student. It was also brought to the notice that the penalty was not imposed on certain other institutions and provisional statement of eligibility was issued to such institutions after the due date, and hence, it was stated that Eligibility and Migration Department of the University was working as per its whims. Again a pay order of Rs. 10,000/- was forwarded by the Petitioner with a request to consider the issue sympathetically. 8. Though the issue remained unresolved, out of 54 students 51 students admitted for the academic year 2007-08 were permitted to undertake the examination, their results were also declared, however, the original degree/mark-sheets/certificates were not issued to the said students by the University as the said penalty amount was not deposited by the Petitioner. 8. Though the issue remained unresolved, out of 54 students 51 students admitted for the academic year 2007-08 were permitted to undertake the examination, their results were also declared, however, the original degree/mark-sheets/certificates were not issued to the said students by the University as the said penalty amount was not deposited by the Petitioner. The petitioner has stated that students admitted for subsequent academic years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 did not face any problem with regard to eligibility certificate however even in respect of these students the original mark sheets/degree certificates were not released by the University on the ground of non payment of penalty amount of Rs. 5,40,000/-. The students had approached for collection of their original academic documents but the same were not issued by the University. The petitioner has stated that for the academic year 2012-13 students were permitted to appear for 1st Semester examination held in December, 2012, however, the results of those students have been withheld by the University on the ground that the amount of penalty of Rs. 5,40,000/- was not paid. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation dated 24.12.2012 to the University inter alia stating that the alleged claim of the penalty amount was not in accordance with the decision of the Management Council. It was further stated that the students were permitted to appear for examination and their results were also declared, the University could not have detained their mark-sheets and original certificates. The petitioner requested the University to withdraw the said penalty. 9. On behalf of the University an affidavit in reply of Mr. L.R. Mane, Deputy Registrar has been filed to oppose the writ petition. The University has justified its action of imposition of penalty on the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had forwarded the forms of provisional eligibility after the prescribed extended date of 29.9.2007. It is the case of the University that without the provisional eligibility certificate being issued by the University, the petitioner ought not to have admitted the students. It is stated that such an action on the part of the petitioner is detrimental to the interest of the students. It is the contention of the University that the Resolution of Management Council completely supports the action of imposing of penalty. It is stated that such an action on the part of the petitioner is detrimental to the interest of the students. It is the contention of the University that the Resolution of Management Council completely supports the action of imposing of penalty. It is stated that the Management Council's Resolution dated 2.6.2008 was clarified by another Resolution dated 1.9.2008 and it is only logical that fine of Rs. 10,000/- is calculated as a basis of it being applicable to per student and not as a whole and lumpsum amount. 10. We have heard Mr. C.K. Thomas, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rui Rodrigues learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University. With the assistance of the learned Counsel we have gone through the paper book of the present petition. 11. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the action on the part of the University in imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per student is bad and illegal for the reason that the Management Council's Resolution dated 16.10.2007 does not contemplate imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per student, but provides for penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the institution for submission of forms for provisional statement of eligibility to the students after the due date. He submits that this action of the University is not supported by any Rules, Statute or Ordinance. It is urged that the University is adopting a discriminatory approach inasmuch as certain institutes are not imposed with such penalty and the eligibility forms were accepted. It was urged that many times there are practical difficulties for the students in timely securing mark lists/migration certificates and other relevant documents from the outside Universities and submit the same before the due date as prescribed by the University. Though the students may take all the efforts to secure such certificate from the other Universities, but every time it may not be possible to obtain the same within the prescribed period owing to several factors. He submits that the University is required to adopt a practical, reasonable and non-discriminatory approach in issue of this nature as a student who is otherwise eligible, desirous of fulfilling his educational needs cannot be penalized so as to render them ineligible for admission as there are reasons beyond their control or penalize the late application with such heavy fine for Rs. 10,000/-. 10,000/-. He submits that this would render the students' right to receive education nugatory. He submits that the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per student is harsh, unreasonable apart from being unlawful and unsupported by any Ordinance or regulation of the University. 12. The learned Counsel on behalf of the University on the other hand submits that the University is fully justified in imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per student so that the institution needs to have deterrent as to comply with the academic time schedule in submitting the provisional eligibility forms of the students. He submits that the Management Council Resolution dated 16.10.2007 completely supports the stand of the University and justifies its action to recover a penalty amount of Rs. 10,00/- per student in respect of 54 students admitted by the petitioner for the academic year 2007- 08. He further submits that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to deposit the said amount and therefore, the action of the University in withholding the original degree certificates of the students who were admitted by the Petitioner since the academic year 2007-08. The learned Counsel for University has relied upon the Management Council's Resolution dated 2.6.2008 and 1.9.2008 to state that the University is justified in imposition of penalty Rs. 10,000/- per student. 13. Having heard the learned Counsel for parties, the principal issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the University would be within its authority and power to impose a monetary penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per student in respect of submission of application forms after the prescribed date to seek provisional eligibility certificate of students as contained in the impugned communication. 14. In imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per student for late submission of the forms by the petitioner-Institution, the University has placed reliance on the Management Council's Resolution dated 16.10.2007 which reads as under:- “Management Council - 16th October, 2007. ITEM 9: After due deliberation, it was resolved that the proposal for issuing the provisional statement of Eligibility to the students by imposing a penalty after due date prescribed for the respective year, on the affiliated colleges/recognized institutes of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- for non-professional and professional courses respectively be accepted. ITEM 9: After due deliberation, it was resolved that the proposal for issuing the provisional statement of Eligibility to the students by imposing a penalty after due date prescribed for the respective year, on the affiliated colleges/recognized institutes of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- for non-professional and professional courses respectively be accepted. However, the said penalty shall be made effective from 1st October, 2007 till further orders, subject to the fulfillment of conditions as laid down in the Ordinances 119 & 120 relating to the attendance to be kept by the students and also subject to the condition that the student is admitted as per the admission schedule of the University.” The plain reading of the aforesaid Management Council's Resolution nowhere indicates that a fine of Rs. 10,000/- is contemplated per student. In fact what is provided for is a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on the affiliated colleges/recognized institutes in case of issuance of provisional statement of eligibility after the prescribed due date. It is urged on behalf of the University that this Resolution is further clarified by Resolution dated 1.9.2008, which would authorize the University to impose a fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the institution for submission of the forms to seek provisional statement of eligibility after the prescribed date. It is submitted that therefore, action of the University to demand Rs. 10,000/- per student in respect of eligibility of 54 students from the petitioner for the academic year 2007-08 is justified. 15. The University is a creature of a statute viz the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 and it would exercise powers, functions and duties as flowing from the said Act. There is no direct provision under the Act which would confer authority on the University or the Management Council to impose a monetary penalty. On a perusal of the scheme of the enactment it is seen that the University and its Authorities would administer the University by framing of Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. 16. Section 27 of the Act provides for constitution of Management Council of a University which shall be the principal executive authority to formulate statutes and forward the same to the Senate for approval and make ordinances to administer the affairs of the University. Section 28 of the Act prescribes powers and duties of Management Council. Section 28 of the Act does not specifically prescribed a specific authority to impose penalty. Section 28 of the Act prescribes powers and duties of Management Council. Section 28 of the Act does not specifically prescribed a specific authority to impose penalty. Subsection (v) of Section 28 of the Act authorises the Management Council to prescribe fees and other charges which would not contemplate imposition of penalty at the hands of the Management Council as the wording “other charges” is required to read ejusdem generis so as to include such charges which are akin to the fees different from a penalty/fine. It is, therefore, difficult to contemplate that the Management Council can directly by its Resolution impose a penalty or fine and of such unreasonable amount in respect of eligibility forms to be accepted after the prescribed date. 17. In this context, it is therefore necessary to examine as to whether such power is required to be exercised by the University by framing a statute or an ordinance. Chapter V of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 provides for the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. Section 51 of the Act provides for Statues and the matters for which the Statutes may provide. Sub-section (1) to sub-section (17) of Section 51 of the Act provides for the issues on which the Statutes can be framed. A reading of these provisions do not indicate that a “statute” can be subject matter of imposing a penalty. Section 53 of the Act concerns an Ordinance and its subject matter and provides that the Management Council may make Ordinances to provide for all or any of the matters as enumerated in clauses (i) to (xiv) of the said provision. The relevant clauses are (i), (ii), (xiii) and (xiv), they as under:- “53. Ordinance and their subject matter. Section 53 of the Act concerns an Ordinance and its subject matter and provides that the Management Council may make Ordinances to provide for all or any of the matters as enumerated in clauses (i) to (xiv) of the said provision. The relevant clauses are (i), (ii), (xiii) and (xiv), they as under:- “53. Ordinance and their subject matter. Subject to the conditions prescribed by or under this Act, the Management Council may make Ordinances to provide for all or any of the following matters namely:- (i) the conditions under which students shall be admitted to courses of study for degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions; (ii) the fees to be charged for enrolment of students for attending such courses in the university and colleges (including the tuition fees and hostel charges), which shall, as far as possible, be uniform for the colleges situated in the same local area, for admission to the examinations leading to degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions, and for registration of graduates; (iii) --- ----- --- to (xii) --- --- --- (xiii) all other matters which, by or under this Act or the Statutes, are to be, or may be, provided by Ordinances; and (xiv) generally, all matters for which provision is, in the opinion of the Management Council, necessary for the exercise of the powers conferred, or the performance of the duties imposed on the Management Council by or under this Act, or the Statutes.” A conjoint reading of the aforesaid sub-section of Section 53 indicates that for these matters an ordinance is required to be framed though a direct power to impose a penalty has not been prescribed in any of the sub-sections of Section 53. Taking into consideration the mandate of the provisions of Section 53 and 55 that it was incumbent upon the University if permissible in law to frame an Ordinance or a Regulation or Rule to prescribe a monetary penalty in respect to accept applications for grant of provisional eligibility certificate after the prescribed date and the Management Council could not have just passed a resolution to impose penalty or fine in the absence of any specific provision authorizing it to do so. The resolution of the Management Council dated 1.9.2008 states that the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per student is in the nature of a punishment. The resolution of the Management Council dated 1.9.2008 states that the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per student is in the nature of a punishment. For imposing a penalty as a punishment a Statutory body cannot act without a specific provision, rule, regulation (an ordinance in the present case) authorising it to do so. The Respondent has not acted as such in imposing the impugned penalty. 18. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the impugned communications/orders dated 3.12.2007, 5.12.2012 and 7.2.2013 imposing a monetary penalty on the Petitioner and that too of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per student are issued without any authority of law and illegal and we, accordingly, quash and set aside the same. Considering the mandate of the aforesaid provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, the Management Council's resolutions dated 16.10.2007 and 1.9.2008 also cannot have any statutory force so as to empower the Management Council to impose a monetary penalty. 19. The relevancy to have an ordinance or regulation for such issue also becomes significant so as to avoid any discretionary exercise of powers by the Officers of the University. What has disturbed us is the submission on behalf of the Petitioner that the University in respect of some institutions has not imposed such fine/penalty and in fact has accepted applications for eligibility after the cut off date. This fact has not been denied in the affidavit filed by the University. Such discriminatory actions are not expected from a public body like as University. It therefore becomes imperative, that to avoid such situations of indiscriminate exercise of discretion a discipline of uniformity and consequent accountability is established when such solemn task of administering education is undertaken by the University. Such issues are hence required to be addressed by framing an ordinance, Rule or regulations which would bring arrant uniformity in the functioning of the University. This is another reason on which the impugned action on the part of the University is rendered arbitrary and illegal. 20. As we have held that the University had no power and authority to impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per student in respect of 54 students admitted by the petitioner for the academic year 2007-08, the consequential action on the part of the University to withhold the degree certificate/mark-sheets of the students who were permitted to appear for examination is also illegal. 10,000/- per student in respect of 54 students admitted by the petitioner for the academic year 2007-08, the consequential action on the part of the University to withhold the degree certificate/mark-sheets of the students who were permitted to appear for examination is also illegal. It is a settled position in law that once the University has permitted the students to appear at the examination and in this case has even declared the results, then the University cannot withhold issuance of degree certificates/mark-sheets. The law in this regard is well settled as laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “Shri. Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra ( AIR 1976 SC 376 )” and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Ganesh R. Baheti v. The University of Pune, ( 2003 (5) Bom.C.R. 464 ).” We, therefore, direct the University to forthwith issue the mark-sheets/degree certificates to such students who were permitted to appear for examination for the past academic years and whose results were declared and their degree certificates/mark-sheets were not issued for the reasons of non payment of the said penalty amount. 21. In view of the above discussions, we allow the writ petition in the aforesaid terms with a further direction that the penalty amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty thousand only) as deposited by the petitioner with the University in pursuance of an interim order dated 29.4.2013 passed by this Court cannot be retained by the University and hence, be refunded to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.