JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. All these Writ Appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Judge, imposing costs upon certain self-financing Engineering Colleges who are the appellants herein, with a direction in some cases to pay the costs to the students and some other cases to pay the costs to the State. 2. Heard Mr. AR.L. Sundararsan, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V. Sanjeevi, Mr. Issac Mohanlal, Mr. C. Robert Bruce, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State and Mr. K. Govindarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent University and the respective learned Counsel appearing for the students who are the respondents herein. 3. Pursuant to the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of T.M.A. Pai, Foundation v. State of Karnataka reported in 2002 (8) SCC 481 the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.109, Higher Education Department, dated 10.04.2002, formulating the guidelines for admission of students under the NRI quota in self-financing Engineering Colleges. Those guidelines were adopted from the academic year 2003 to 2009. 4. After finding that non meritorious students are able to take advantage of the NRI quota and get admission, to the detriment of meritorious students, the Honourable Supreme Court rendered a judgment on 03.11.2008 in Uttarakand Forest Hospital Trust Medical College. In the said case, the Honourable Supreme Court held that only genuine students are eligible for NRI quota. 5. As a consequence, the Government issued revised guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.162, Higher Education(J1) Department dated 02.06.2009. This guidelines were directed to be followed for admission from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. 6. Paragraph 4' of the G.O.Ms.No.162, Higher Education(J1) Department dated 02.06.2009 reads as follows:- "4. The Government have examined the proposal of Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Technical Education in detail and decided to accept the same. Accordingly they direct that following guidelines be adopted for admission of students under NRI quota in Self Financing Engineering Colleges and Self Supporting Courses run in Government Aided Engineering Colleges from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards:- (a) The NRI quota shall not exceed 15 % of the total sanctioned strength in each Branch. (b) Admission to the NRI seats may be made on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. (b) Admission to the NRI seats may be made on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. (c) The candidates to be admitted under NRI quota are required to have obtained a pass in the Higher Secondary Examination (10+ 2 pattern or equivalent) (d) The seats under NRI quota should be utilised bona fide by the NRI's only and for their children or wards. Therefore, the NRI financially supporting the candidate should either be the parent (Father or Mother) of the candidate or legally declared as guardian of the candidates by the Court as per provisions in "The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890". (e) Candidates admitted under "NRI" quota should submit the following documents:- (i) NRI status certificate of the financial supporter issued by the Indian Embassy of the respective country under their seal. (ii) Certificate of Relationship between the NRI financial supporter and the candidate issued by the competent authority. Valid Indian Passport of the NRI Financial supporter. (iii) NRE (Non Resident External) Bank Account Pass Book of the Financial Supporter. (iv) Evidence for Payment of Development charges of US $ 1000/- to the College by the NRI Financial supporter (One time payment at the time of admission only)" 7. But, it appears that all the appellants herein (self financing professional educational colleges) admitted students under the NRI quota, in violation of the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.162, Higher Education(J1) Department dated 02.06.2009. Therefore, when the appellant Colleges sought approval of the admissions of these students, the Anna University refused to grant approval. But by the time the University communicated the refusal by orders passed in November 2009, those students have been admitted and they have started undergoing courses. 8. Therefore, those students came up with batches and batches of writ petitions, seeking a direction to the University, to approve their admissions or alternatively to quash the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.162, Higher Education (J1) Department dated 02.06.2009. Since the life of innumerable students and one full academic year for those students were involved, this Court granted an interim order while admitting those writ petitions directing the University to permit the students to write the examination. The directions which were issued at first to write one semester were followed by subsequent directions to declare the results. Thereafter a series of order followed permitting the students to write the examination in the next semester. The directions which were issued at first to write one semester were followed by subsequent directions to declare the results. Thereafter a series of order followed permitting the students to write the examination in the next semester. Therefore, half the curriculum was spent by the students in the examination hall and half the curriculum in the Court hall. 9. Eventually, the writ petitions came up for final disposal before the learned Judge. The learned Judge found himself in precarious position. He found that the admissions of the students under the NRI quota were completely contrary to law and that the Government order itself could not be found fault with, especially since it was issued only to implement the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court. AICTE had also issued the similar guidelines. Therefore, the learned Judge found that the writ petitions filed by the students deserved to be dismissed. 10. But, the learned Judge was in a dilemma in view of the fact that by the time the writ petitions were taken up for final disposal, the students had completed two years of curriculum out of four years of course, by spending huge money. Therefore, instead of penalising the students and their families the learned Judge adopted the via media directing the appellant colleges to pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the State Government for their failure to implement the Government Order. It is against the said order that all these Self Financing Colleges have come up with these appeals. 11. Before, we proceed to consider the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel and other Counsel appearing for the appellant Colleges, it will be useful to extract the operative portion of the order of the learned Judge impugned in these appeals in paragraphs 30 and 31 while reads as under:- "30. In view of the above, the following findings and directions are issued: (i) The self financing engineering colleges are bound by the admission procedures indicated in G.O.Ms.No.162, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 02.06.2009. (ii) The G.O is legally and constitutionally valid. (iii) Inasmuch as the G.O is allowing the admission procedure for 2009-2010, it cannot be held to be prospective because the very G.O itself is intended to be issued covering the admission procedures for 2009-2010. Hence the contentions of the petitioners are without any legal basis. (ii) The G.O is legally and constitutionally valid. (iii) Inasmuch as the G.O is allowing the admission procedure for 2009-2010, it cannot be held to be prospective because the very G.O itself is intended to be issued covering the admission procedures for 2009-2010. Hence the contentions of the petitioners are without any legal basis. (iv) Since the petitioners claimed that their admissions were made even before admission programme were started, the self financing engineering colleges will have to be punished by imposing exemplary costs. (v) Since the petitioners and in some cases wards are in the 4th semester of their engineering programme and also they had spent huge amounts, in the absence of any challenge of their admissions by any deserved candidates, they should be allowed to continue their engineering courses in the same college as if their admissions are valid. The authorities are directed to act accordingly. (vi) The self financing engineering colleges whose names are set out in the table in paragraph 17 above, are hereby imposed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to be paid by each one of them to the first respondent State Government within a period of four weeks from today, so as to act as a deterrent in future years and prevent the misuse of NRI quota. Even though normally the costs are imposed on the losing petitioners, in this case since the petitioners are only Trojan horses, the costs should be only levied against the named respondent self financing colleges who had indulged in illegal acts and have also set up the students to approach this Court for getting orders for their continuance in utter disregard of law. (vii) The official respondents including the State Government, Director of Technical Education, the affiliating University and the AICTE are hereby directed to take action in future if the colleges violate the NRI quota and even to cancel their recognition/affiliation which permitted them to run the colleges. 31. With these directions, all writ petitions are disposed of with costs as quantified above at Rs.1 Lakh against each of the college referred to in paragraph 17 of this order. The amount shall be paid to the State within four weeks from today. Consequently, all connected Miscellaneous petitions stand closed." 12. 31. With these directions, all writ petitions are disposed of with costs as quantified above at Rs.1 Lakh against each of the college referred to in paragraph 17 of this order. The amount shall be paid to the State within four weeks from today. Consequently, all connected Miscellaneous petitions stand closed." 12. The main grievance of the appellants as projected by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that the results of the Higher Secondary Course examination were published on 18.05.2008 itself. The revised guidelines regarding the admissions under the NRI quota were issued on 02.06.2009. By this time, the Colleges had already filled up the NRI quota. Therefore, it is contended by Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel that the appellants were not at fault. 13. But, we do not accept the above contention. Even if the results of the Higher Secondary Examination had been published on 18.05.2008, and even if the Government Order had been issued on 02.06.2009, the appellants could not have overlooked, the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2005 (6) SCC 537 . This decision clarified the decisions in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka reported in 2002 (8) SCC 481 and in Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2003 (6) SCC 697 . In P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2005 (6) SCC 537 , the Honourable Supreme Court indicated in paragraph 131' as to how the NRI quota has to be filled up. This paragraph is incorporated by the learned Judge in the impugned order in paragraph 9' of his judgment. The entire quota cannot exceed more than 15%. 14. As indicated in the impugned order of the learned Judge, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed a separate Enactment known as Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 2007). This Act also contained a prescription with regard to the NRI quota. In any case G.O.Ms.No. 162, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 02.06.2009, was passed in implementation of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Uttarakand Forest Hospital Trust Medical College. This judgment was delivered on 03.11.2008, at least six months before the Higher Secondary Examination in May 2009. This Act also contained a prescription with regard to the NRI quota. In any case G.O.Ms.No. 162, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 02.06.2009, was passed in implementation of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Uttarakand Forest Hospital Trust Medical College. This judgment was delivered on 03.11.2008, at least six months before the Higher Secondary Examination in May 2009. Once the Honourable Supreme Court had declared the law, it is binding upon all citizens including the appellants. Therefore, the contention based upon the date of declaration of the results of Higher Secondary Examination and the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No. Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 02.06.2009, cannot be accepted. 15. The next grievance of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that certain hard hitting observations have been made by the learned Judge in the preamble portion of the order. But we find that in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the impugned order, the learned Judge merely quoted the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mahindra Nath Shukla v. State of Bihar reported in (1980) 3 SCC 353 . In paragraph 3'of the impugned order the learned Judge made general observations about the manner in which the self financing colleges were acting. No specific insinuation against any particular College was made in the impugned order. Therefore, we do not find think that the said contention is acceptable. 16. The last contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that there were no occasion for the imposition of costs. But, we do not agree. If the appellants have created the situation whereby the violations committed by them became incapable being set at naught, the only manner in which the violations could be dealt with, is to take recourse to reparation. The imposition of costs by the learned Judge is by way of reparation. Therefore, we find that the learned Judge was justified in imposing costs. Hence, these writ appeals are dismissed. The costs imposed by the learned Judge shall be paid by the appellants to the Tamil Nadu Flood Relief Fund within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellants shall file a compliance report on 21.01.2016. No costs. Consequently, all connected Miscellaneous petitions stand closed. Appeal dismissed.