JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. 1. Heard. This is a bunch of writ petitions filed by the Educational Institutions/students seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondent-affiliating university for accepting the examination-forms of the students, issuing admit-cards to them and allowing them to appear in the examination relating to the respective courses for the academic-session 2014-15. 2. The question which falls for consideration in these cases are as under: "Whether the institutions in question have admitted students in respective courses in excess of their intake? Whether the intake capacity was determined by the affiliating university? If so, whether the excess students admitted by them are entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the said university or not?" 3. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that interim orders were passed in these writ petitions for allowing all the students admitted by the institutions to appear in respective examinations. Against the interim order, passed in Writ Petition No. 1403 (M/S) of 2015 and other connected writ petitions Special Appeals bearing Nos. 149 of 2015, 147 of 2015 and 148 of 2015 were filed wherein it was provided that only the students who are within the intake capacity can be permitted to appear in the examination. Consequently, only such students were allowed to appear. In respect to the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 976 (M.S.) of 2014 the court subsequently passed an order on 28.4.2015 permitting only such students who were admitted within the permitted intake capacity, to appear in the examination. 4. It is not in dispute that the colleges involved are affiliated to the respondent-University either temporarily or permanently. Statute 11.26 of the 1st Statute of Dr. 4. It is not in dispute that the colleges involved are affiliated to the respondent-University either temporarily or permanently. Statute 11.26 of the 1st Statute of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Avadh University, Faizabad, with which the colleges involved are affiliated, reads as under: "11.26 - fdlh lac) egkfo|ky; esa fdlh d{kk vFkok vuqHkkx ¼lsD'ku½ esa Nk=ksa dh la[;k] v/;;u d{k esa O;k[;ku ds iz;kstukFkZ fcuk dqyifr dh iwokZuqKk ds 60 ls vf/kd u gksxh] fdUrq ;g fdlh Hkh n'kk esa 80 ls vf/kd u gksxhA" Statute 11.27 of the said 1st Statutes reads as under: "11.27 - fdlh egkfo|ky; )kjk fdlh d{kk esa dksbZ u;k vuqHkkx [kksyus ds iwoZ] visf{kr vfrfjDr v/;kid oxZ ¼mudh vgZrk;a vkSj osru u;s vuqHkkx dh v/;kiu lkfj.kh] miyC/k LFkku rFkk vfrfjDr miLdj ,oa iqLrdky; dh lqfo/kkvksa dh O;oLFkk½ ds laca/k esa iwjh lwpuk fo'ofo|ky; dks Hksth tk;sxh vkSj dqyifr dh iwoZ vuqKk izkIr dh tk;sxhA" 5. On a reading of the aforesaid statutes it is evident that the number of students permissible in a class or section is 60' which can be increased to 80' with the permission of the Vice Chancellor, but not otherwise. A college can open new sections in a class only after approval of the Vice Chancellor and after sending requisite information regarding additional teaching staff, their qualifications, availability of seats, library and other infrastructure as mentioned in Statute 11.27, and not otherwise. 6. As per Section 31(11)(a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 no teacher recommended by the Selection Committee shall be appointed by the Management of an affiliated or associated college (other than a College maintained exclusively by the State Government), unless prior approval of the Vice Chancellor has been obtained. The manner of selection and appointment of such teachers for the University and in the affiliated or associated college has been laid down in Section 31 of the Act of 1973. 7. The manner of selection and appointment of such teachers for the University and in the affiliated or associated college has been laid down in Section 31 of the Act of 1973. 7. With regard to the intake capacity of students in respect to a college the State Government has also issued a Government Order dated 7.10.2014 which reads as under: "la[;k 925@lRrj&1&2014&16¼20½@2011 izs"kd] lw;Z izdk'k flag lsxj] vuqlfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] dqyifr leLr jkT; fo'ofo|ky;] mRrj izns'kA mPp f'k{kk vuqHkkx-1 y[kuÅ % 07 vDVwcj 2014 fo"k; %& jkT; fo'ofo|ky;ksa ls lEc) ek= LofoRriksf"kr egkfo|ky;ksa ds dyk] okf.kT; ,oa foKku ikB~;dze ds Lukrd izFke o"kZ eas izns'k ea vk jgh dfBukb;ksa ds funku ds laca/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la0&993@lRrj&1&2014&16¼20½@2011 fnukad 07 vxLr] 2013 dk d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA 2& bl laca/k esa 'kklu dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k x;k gS fd izns'k esa b.Vj ikl Nk=&Nk=kvksa dks dyk] okf.kT; ,oa foKku ikB~;dze ds Lukrd izFke o"kZ esa izos'k esa xEHkhj leL;kvksa dk lkeuk djuk iM jgk gSA bl laca/k esa mRrj izns'k jkT; fo'ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e] 1973 esa fofgr izkfo/kuksa ds vuq: i fo'ofo|ky; dh ifjfu;ekoyh esa ;g O;oLFkk dh x;h gS fd egkfo|ky;ksa ea fdlh d{kk vFkok vuqHkkx ¼lsD'ku½ ea Nk=ksa dh la[;k\ v/;;u d{k esa O;k[;ku ds iz;kstukFkZ fcuk dqyifr dh iwokZuqKk 60 ls vf/kd u gksxh] fdUrq ;g fdlh Hkh n'kk esa 80 ls vf/kd u gksxhA 3& vr% bl laca/k esa eq>s p;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd d`i;k jkT; fo'ofo|ky;ksa ls lac) ek= LofoRriksf"kr v'kkldh; egkfo|ky;ksa ea mudh vko';drk] muesa miyC/k voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa rFkk f'k{kdksa vkfn dh miyC/krk dk fu/kkZfjr ekudksa ds vuqlkj ijh{k.k djrs gq;s ifjfu;eksa esa nh x;h O;oLFkkuqlkj o"kZ 2014&15 gsrq lhV o`f) ds lEcU/k esa vius Lrj ls dk;Zokgh djkus dk d"V djsaA d`i;k mDr vkns'k dk vuqikyu 'kklukns'k la[;k &750@70&1&2013&16¼20½@2011 fnukad 31 ebZ 2013 ds vuqlkj lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sA Hkonh;] lw;Z izdk'k flag lsaxj½ vuqlfpo" 8. Thus, a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that the number of classes/sections are necessarily related to the number of teachers available in the institution, as, one teacher can only teach only one class/section. Thus, a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that the number of classes/sections are necessarily related to the number of teachers available in the institution, as, one teacher can only teach only one class/section. The maximum number of students permissible in a class/section being 80 that too with the permission of the Vice Chancellor the stated number when multiplied with the number of approved teachers, the resultant is the intake capacity of an institution in respect to a particular course such as B.Sc., B.Com., B.A. etc. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 729 (S.B.) of 2012, Suresh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, vide its judgment dated 1.3.2013, after considering the relevant provisions of the Act of 1973, the First statutes and Government Orders has already held that no admission can be made beyond the sanctioned strength in violation of teacher-student ratio. The Admission Committee is competent to prescribe the number of students to be admitted in each course or session, as held by the earlier Division Bench of this Court in a case in Ramesh v. Vice Chancellor, 1985 ALJ 290. 10. The Division Bench in Suresh Kumar Pandey's case (supra), considered the provisions of Section 28 of the Act of 1973 relating the Admission Committee. The Division Bench also held that as per sub-section (6) of Section 28in case admission is done beyond the sanctioned strength the Vice Chancellor is to take appropriate action in accordance with law and students so admitted can be debarred from appearing in the examination. Section 28 of the Act of 1973 reads as under: "Section 28--Admissions Committee.--(1) There shall be an Admissions Committee of the University the constitution of which shall be such as may be provided for in the Ordinances. (2) The Admissions Committee shall have the power to appoint such number of sub-committees as it thinks fit. (3) Subject to the superintendence of the Academic Council and to the provisions of sub-section (5), the Admissions Committee shall lay down the principles or norms governing the policy of admission to various courses of studies in the University and may also nominate a person or a sub-committee as the admitting authority in respect of any course of study in an Institute or a constituent college maintained by the University. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), the Committee may issue any direction as respects criteria or methods of admissions (including the number of students to be admitted) to constituent colleges maintained by the State Government and to affiliated or associated colleges, and such directions shall be binding on such colleges. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act,-- (a) reservation of seats for admission in any course of study in University, Institute, constituent college, affiliated college or associated college for the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backwards Classes of citizens may be made and regulated by such orders as the State Government may, by notification, make in that behalf: Provided that reservation under this clause shall not exceed fifty per cent of the total under number of seats in any course of study: Provided further that reservation under this clause shall not apply in the case of an institution established and administered by minorities referred to in Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution: Provided also that the reservation under this clause shall not apply to the category of Other Backwards Classes of citizens specified in Schedule II to the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backwards Classes) Act, 1994-- (b) admission to medical and engineering colleges and to courses of instruction for degrees in education and Ayurvedic or Unani systems of medicine (including the number of students to be admitted), shall subject to Clause (a), be regulated by such orders (which if necessary may be with retrospective effect, but not effective prior to January 1, 1979) as the State Government may by notification, make in that behalf: Provided that no order regulating admission under this clause shall be inconsistent with the rights of minorities in the matter of establishing and administering educational institutions of their choice; (c) in making an order under Clause (a), the State Government may direct that any person who willfully acts in a manner intended to contravene, or defeat the purposes of the order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or with both, as may be specified in the order. (5A) Every order made under Clause (a) of sub-section (5) shall be laid, as soon as may be, before both Houses of the State Legislature and the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23A of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 shall apply as they apply in respect of rules made by the State Government under any Uttar Pradesh Act. (6) No student admitted to any college in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be permitted to take up any examination conducted by the University, and the Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to cancel any admission made in such contravention." 11. The Division Bench also took note of Section 13 of the Act of 1973 regarding the powers and duties of the Vice Chancellor which makes him responsible for holding and conducting the University examination properly. The Division Bench also took note of the U.G.C. Regulations prescribing the minimum Square Feet Area per student in a Lecture/Seminar Room. 12. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa and others v. State of Karnataka and others, (2007) 7 SCC 238, has disapproved the entitlement of students admitted by the institutions in excess of the permitted quota and affirmed the decision of the High Court upholding the decision barring them from appearing in the examination. 13. In a similar matter involving similar facts and issues an institution namely Pt. Rajaram Upadhyaya Mahavidyalaya, which was also affiliated to the same University, filed a writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 5613 of 2014 with a prayer to permit admission of remaining 182 students of B.A.-Ist year and to permit the students to fill up their examination forms. This Court vide its judgment dated 8.12.2014 relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa's case (supra), and dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the students admitted in excess of the permissible limits were not entitled to any relief. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that the University did not fix the intake capacity of the institutions. There is no provision in the First Statutes or the Act of 1973 laying down a formula for ascertaining and fixing of intake capacity. The admissions were taken by the colleges in respective courses without any objection being raised by the University. There is no provision in the First Statutes or the Act of 1973 laying down a formula for ascertaining and fixing of intake capacity. The admissions were taken by the colleges in respective courses without any objection being raised by the University. If at all any limit was to be imposed it should have been done at the time of admissionffiliation, and not just before examinations were to commence. The examination-forms of the students were filled online, but same were not accepted by the University which claims to have fixed an intake capacity, thereby causing grave prejudice to the institutions and the students. The University did not accept the forms nor the fee through R.T.G.S. The conduct of the University is violative of Articles 14, 15and 16 of the constitution. 15. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Sri U.N. Sharma, assisted by Sri Neeraj Tewari and Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, appearing for the University, relying upon the provisions contained in Statutes 11.26 and 11.27, G.O. dated 7.10.2014 and Section 28 of the Act of 1973 submitted that, the Admission Committee is empowered to ascertain and fix the intake capacity in terms of the aforesaid provisions. Maximum number of students permissible in a class/section being 80, the said number on being multiplied by the number of approved teachers results in fixation of the intake capacity. The Admission Committee duly fixed the intake capacity and uploaded the said information on the website, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-C.A.-7 to the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 1318 (M.S.) of 2015 which has been annexed with the counter-affidavit filed by the University in Writ Petition No. 1403 (M.S.) of 2014 and which has been adopted in all the writ petitions, therefore, the stand of petitioners cannot be accepted. 16. In this regard, he invited attention of the court to the undisputed fact that during the academic session 2013-14 a similar situation arose when the University was not willing to allow the students admitted by the institutions in excess of their intake capacity and in this scenario the institutions submitted notarial affidavits admitting their mistake undertaking not to repeat the same in future years and on this condition the excess students were allowed to appear in the examination for the year 2013-14. Surprisingly, during the academic session 2014-15 the same illegality was repeated by the institutions inspite of the affidavits filed by them earlier. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as claimed in these writ petitions, specially as they have concealed the aforesaid fact of having submitted an affidavit in this regard. He submitted that there has to be an intake capacity and the institutions cannot be permitted to admit students as per their free-will. The intake capacity is dependent upon the available infrastructure and teaching staff. In some of the cases the institutions had admitted more than 1,000 students in one course for which they did not have the necessary infrastructure nor the approved teachers. 17. On a careful perusal of the pleadings of the writ petitions it is revealed that the petitioners, specially the institutions which are before the court had not disclosed the fact in their petitions that during the academic year 2013-14 a similar situation arose and they had submitted a notarial affidavit undertaking not to admit excess students in future years and to abide by the provisions of Statutes and the Act of 1973. 18. One such affidavit which has been annexed by the respondent-University alongwith its counter-affidavit, reads as under: "le{k dqylfpo Mk0 jke euksgj yksfg;k vo/k fo'ofo|ky; QstkcknA eSa fd 'kiFkh lwjt flag iq= Jh johUnz flag fuomlh xzke cYyhiqj uokcxat Fkkuk uokcxat ftyk xks.Mk dk fuolh gwW 'kiFkiwoZd c;ku djrk gwW fd& /kkjk&1 ;g fd eSa ds0vkj0,l0 vkQ gk;j ,twds'ku cYyhiqj uokcxat xks.Mk dk izcU/kd gwWA /kkjk&2 ;g fd 'kiFkh l'kiFk iwoZd ?kks"k.kk djrk gS fd egkfo|ky; esa Lukrd Lrj ij dyk ladk; ds vUrxZr dqy 430 Nk=ksa dk izos'k fd;k gwW o Lukrd Lrj ij foKku ladk; ds vUrxZr dqy 650 Nk=ksa dk izos'k fy;k x;k gSA /kkjk&3 ;g fd 'kiFkh l'kiFk ?kks"k.kk djrk gS fd o"kZ 2013&14 dh eq[; ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dh vuqefr nh tk;sA /kkjk 4 ;g fd 'kiFkh l'kiFk ?kks"k.kk djrk gS fd o"kZ 2014-15 dh eq[; ijh{kk esa lhVksa ds lkis{k izos'k fd;s tk;saxs rFkk jkT; fo'ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e 1973 ds vUrxZr of.kZr lHkh fu;eksa dk ikyu fd;k tk;sxkA ;fn ,slk ugha fd;k tk;sxk rks esa O;fDrxr rkSj ij ftEesnkj jgwWxkA /kkjk&5 ;g fd egkfo|ky; ds )kjk vkids izi=ksa dk tokc ,oa Vhpj vuqeksnu ysVj izsf"kr fd;k tk jgk gSA" 19. Similar affidavits have been filed by other institutions also. Similar affidavits have been filed by other institutions also. In some of the affidavits the language is slightly different, but the background against which the said affidavits were filed cannot be lost sight of. All these institutions had admitted students in excess of their intake capacity, therefore, they gave the undertaking not to do so in future and to admit students as per the intake capacity and also to abide by the provisions of Act of 1973 and the Statutes. Concealment of this fact is a grave omission on the part of such institutions. The writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under which this High Court exercises extraordinary discretionary and equitable jurisdiction. It is trite that one who does not approach the court with clean hands is not entitled to indulgence of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India. 20. As far as determination of intake capacity is concerned, the Admission Committee of the University under Section 28 is empowered to do so. This Court has no reason to believe that it did not do so in view of the specific assertions of the opposite parties that it did fix the intake capacity and uploaded the said information on the website. A copy of such determination is annexed alongwith the counter-affidavit filed by the University mentioning the intake capacity of each institution coursewise. The contention of the petitioners that this intake capacity was not fixed is also not acceptable in view of the affidavits filed by them during the academic session 2013-14 wherein they themselves stated that in future they shall admit students as per the sanctioned seats. If they had any doubt as regards their intake capacity they could have approached the University specifically, but there is nothing on record to indicate that they did so. In any case, while fixing the intake capacity the maximum permissible limit as per the number of approved teachers available in these institutions has been prescribed. The provisions of the statutes and the Act of 1973 are known to the institutions and they cannot feign ignorance in this regard. The maximum number of students permissible in a class/section being 80, when multiplied by the total number of approved teachers appointed in accordance with Section 31 of the Act of 1973 for a particular course, i.e., B.A., B.Sc., B.Com. etc. The maximum number of students permissible in a class/section being 80, when multiplied by the total number of approved teachers appointed in accordance with Section 31 of the Act of 1973 for a particular course, i.e., B.A., B.Sc., B.Com. etc. determines the intake capacity of the institution, therefore, contention of the petitioners that this was never done by the University or that there was no provision for the same in the Act and the statutes is not acceptable. The institutions cannot admit students at will ignoring the available infrastructure and strength of the approved teaching staff. In some of the writ petitions as in W.P. No. 1403 (M.S.) of 2015 it has been stated that 15 guest teachers were appointed on consolidated salary after requisitioning subject experts from the University, till regularly appointed teachers join in the college, but it is an undisputed fact that none of these appointments were approved by the University. The subject experts in some cases were appointed by the University on 13.2.2015 whereas the academic session starts in July, 2014. Moreover, such averment has been made only in respect to the petitioner No. 1 of the said writ petition. The University vide letter dated 27.6.2014 asked the colleges to submit their request for enhancement of seats. Most of the colleges did not do so, even otherwise the enhancement could only be done upto the maximum permissible limit as mentioned hereinabove. All the institutions admitted students beyond the said limit. 21. In view of the facts and reasons stated hereinabove, specially the pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court dated 1.3.2013, the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa's case (supra), the provisions of Statutes 11.26, 11.27, Government Order dated 7.10.2014, Sections 28 and 31 of the Act of 1973 the relief as claimed by the petitioners for allowing the excess students admitted to the respective courses in excess of the intake capacity cannot be granted. In the order of the court dated 22.4.2015 it has been recorded that in Nandini Nagar P.G. College, Nawabganj, Gonda, 5760 students were admitted in B.Sc. Part I. This fact, if correct, points towards an alarming situation. The State Government and the University is directed to look into the matter as to whether there were other institutions which admitted students in excess of permissible limit. Part I. This fact, if correct, points towards an alarming situation. The State Government and the University is directed to look into the matter as to whether there were other institutions which admitted students in excess of permissible limit. If so, appropriate action be taken in this regard as per law including action against concerned officials of the University responsible in this regard. In response to the order of the court dated 22.4.2015 and 28.4.2015 the requisite affidavit has been filed and preventive as also remedial measures have been ensured for future academic session so that such a situation does not arise in future. Considering the concealment by the institutions no indulgence is required to be shown in the matter. The institutions have not approached the court with clean hands. For the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered as under: (i) The students admitted in excess of the intake capacity as mentioned in the chart annexed by the University with its counter-affidavit based on the number of students permissible in a class/section are not entitled to appear in the examination. (ii) The fee deposited by the students admitted in excess of the intake capacity shall be refunded by the respective institutions to them within a period of six weeks of receiving the certified copy of this judgment. The University shall ensure refund of the amount as aforesaid, failing which it shall take appropriate action against such institutions. (iii) Writ Petition Nos. 1403 (M.S.) of 2015, 1318 (M.S.) of 2015 and 976 (M.S.) of 2015 are dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 (One lac only) payable by each of the petitioner-institution separately within a period of six weeks, for concealment of material facts by them, failing which the Senior Registrar of this Court shall proceed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. Out of the costs so deposited/recovered, 25% amount shall be remitted to Oudh Bar Association for the purpose of its library, the remaining amount shall be remitted to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee of this Bench. Out of the costs so deposited/recovered, 25% amount shall be remitted to Oudh Bar Association for the purpose of its library, the remaining amount shall be remitted to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee of this Bench. (iv) Writ Petition No. 1578 (M.S.) of 2015, 1581 (M.S.) of 2015, 1579 (M.S.) of 2015, 1580 (M.S.) of 2015, 2096 (M.S.) of 2015 and 1054 (M.S.) of 2015 are also dismissed, but with liberty to the petitioner(s) students to seek appropriate compensation from the concerned institution, and others who may be responsible for the loss and prejudice caused to their academic career, if any. All the writ petitions are dismissed in the aforesaid terms.