Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2173 (GUJ)

Gautam Shankar S/o Uday Kumar v. Union of India

2016-11-17

R.SUBHASH REDDY, VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2016
JUDGMENT : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. This petition is filed by way of public interest litigation by the students espousing public cause with the prayers which read as under: “(A) Your Lordships may be please to admit and allow this petition; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant interim relief by way of issuing direction to postpone the examination till the issue of recognition is addressed and/or by issuing the directions to conduct the exams in SBS as conducted erstwhile, under the supervision of GU or any other authorised university as the Court deems fit or may allow to conduct the exam and ensure that it would not give any adverse effects to the students; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant interim relief by way of issuing directions to the authorities and SBS to pull down the advertisements on its website and elsewhere in connection to the BBA course in public interest till some clarification is provided on the status of SBS in connection to the same; (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue guidelines to the GU and the State Government for effective execution to foresee control and curb such perplex situations in the public interest; (E) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue directions in relation to the compensation to the aggrieved students under the supervision and/or guidance of this Hon'ble Court; (F) Your Lordships may be please to issue any writ in nature of writ of mandamus, or certiorari or any other appropriate writ in any other nature to the State Government to act in the interest of the students and in public interest; (G) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue any writ in nature of writ of mandamus or, certiorari any other appropriate writ in any other nature to the GU to act [in the interest of the students and provide affiliation to the limited students facing the present problem in the interest of justice; (H) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue any writ in nature of writ of mandamus or, certiorari any other appropriate writ in any other nature to the CVRU to act in the interest of the students and provide affiliation to the limited students facing the present problem in the interest of justice; (I) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in fact and circumstances of the case at any stage in the interest of students and in public interest; 2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under: 2.1 The petitioners are the students studying in Shanti Business School (‘SBS’ for short). The said SBS is run by Chiripal Charitable Trust. The said institute issued advertisement in the newspaper for admission to BBA course. The applications were also invited through internet in the said course. It was claimed that the said BBA course is UGC recognized full time course. The admissions were given to the concerned students in the academic year June-July, 2013 by issuing admission letters on the letter head of the said institute. It was also stated that the said course is full time UGC recognized course having affiliation with Dr. C.V Raman University (‘CVRU’ for short). The concerned students verified on the UGC website and it was found that CVRU is a recognized university under Section 2(f) of University Grants Commission Act of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and has powers to confer degree under Section 22 of the said Act. 2.2 On commencement of the first academic year, the students were given study material by SBS and the said study material were in the form of books whereon it was mentioned “Institute of Open and Distance Education”. When inquired, it was stated that the said books are mere reference books. Thereafter, two other batches were admitted to SBS where again full fledged advertisements were published by SBS claiming to be UGC approved and recognized whereby providing three years full time BBA undergraduate course. In all the three batches, total 249 students were enrolled. 2.3 It is the case of the petitioners that on 13.2.2016, news item was published in Sandesh daily newspaper stating that BBA degree of the students of SBS is an unrecognized one citing their communication with the Chancellor of CVRU mentioned that “CVRU being a State Private University has acted beyond its powers and has not extended accreditation to any college or study centre beyond the jurisdiction of the University.” The students of SBS and their parents inquired from the Director General of SBS and thereafter meetings were also held with Directors of Chiripal group and after the meeting dated 17.2.2016, it was informed to the students and their parents in writing as under: “(1) That the BBA programme offered by SBS is an online-distance learning one and is not a regular Programme. (2) The distance learning BBA programme is valid by the laws of UGC and CVRU affiliation. (3) The promoter Mr. Chiripal Sir have admitted that he is responsible for any activity and will be final in SBS institute. (4) That Mr. Chiripal & Dr. Arbind Sinha have conformed to have dialogue with Gujarat University & UGC and government bodies to regularise the degree at any extent. (5) That promoter-management will accompany students committee a meeting with education minister of Gujarat State on 18.02.2016” 2.4 In the meantime, the Gujarat University was asked by the government to form a three member Committee to look into the issue of SBS and take necessary steps. Thereafter, on 20.4.2016, the petitioner no. 1 addressed a communication to Ministry of Human Resources and Development through e-mail and copy of the same was forwarded to UGC. However, vague reply was received by the petitioner no. 1 that the grievance of the petitioner was forwarded to CVRU. 2.5 Thereafter, the petitioners came to know through newspaper reports that a Committee formulated by the Gujarat University has decided to direct SBS to refund 150% of the fees as compensation to the students. However, issue with regard to the recognition of the degree obtained from SBS was not taken into consideration. 2.6 It is the say of the petitioners that when the students and their parents approached the authority of SBS for claiming refund of the fees, the fees were refunded to some of the students on condition that they have to fill up the prescribed form. 2.7 Thereafter, on 17.5.2016, the Director of BBA programme for SBS intimated the students through e-mail that their exams were to be conducted by CVRU on 16.6.2016 and SBS has further informed that the students are to get their documents for the purpose of registering them in CVRU as full time BBA students. 2.8 Thus, it is the grievance of the petitioners on behalf of the students that they are thrown to the mercy of SBS and SBS is acting out of its whims and fancies. At the time of filing of [the petition, the exams were approaching and the students were forced in a way to give their migration and leaving certificate as is instructed by SBS in order to convert the programme from ODL to full time BBA course. At the time of filing of [the petition, the exams were approaching and the students were forced in a way to give their migration and leaving certificate as is instructed by SBS in order to convert the programme from ODL to full time BBA course. Hence, in the present petition, further grievance is raised that when the examinations were approaching, students were instructed to go to CVRU, Chhatisgarh to give their exams, the order of compensation is not properly enforced by the Gujarat University and the issue of recognition is kept hanging. Therefore, the petitioners are having no option but to approach before this Court by filing the petition with the aforesaid prayers. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Aum Kotwal for the petitioners, learned advocate Ms. Khare for respondent no. 2-UGC, learned GP Ms. Manisha Shah for respondent no. 3, learned senior counsel Mr. S.N Shelat assisted by learned advocate Ms. Nanavati for respondent no. 4-Gujarat University, learned advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Mr. Harsh Parekh for respondent no. 5-CVRU and learned senior counsel Mr. D.C Dave assisted by learned advocate Mr. Niral Mehta for respondent no. 6-SBS. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Kotwal for the petitioners mainly contended that SBS has defrauded the students fraternity by saying that it was a full time BBA course having UGC recognition and has collected huge amount of fees. In fact, the course offered by SBS was not a full time BBA course, it was a distant learning programme. However, wrong advertisements were issued by SBS and thereby taken huge amount of fees from the students and their parents. It is further submitted that SBS has stated that it is accredited to CVRU in relation to ODL programme. SBS has conducted the examination in its own campus and CVRU has issued mark-sheets to the students. SBS authorities have provided certain documents from which it is revealed that CVRU has acknowledged that SBS is an authorized information and counselling centre of CVRU since 2013 and is authorized to admit students to the university's BBA programme through its ‘on line portal.’ However, the students were kept in dark regarding the same till the students and their parents came to know from newspaper reports that full time BBA course conducted by SBS is not recognized. Thus, the students are defrauded. Thus, the students are defrauded. 3.2 Learned counsel further pointed out that CVRU is a State Private University in Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh and was accorded institutional recognition by erstwile Distance Education Council from 2009-10 to 2012-13 to offer programms through distance mode. The recognition given to the University for the said period was institutional i.e. for the programms which were approved by the statutory bodies of the university/institution and not to any specific programme. Further, the university was accorded programme-wise recognition by erstwhile DEC/UGC-DEB to offer specific programmes through distance mode 2013-14 to 2015-16. It is specifically pointed out that being a private university, it cannot open its centres even within the state as per the regulations framed by UGC without approval of UGC. The university is not authorized to open study centre/off campus centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the state as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Professor Yash Pal v. The State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420. It is the case of the petitioners that UGC has not granted any approval to CVRU to open off campus/study centre anywhere. Thus, CVRU is incapable to act beyond its territorial jurisdiction and cannot offer any accreditation to any college without prior permission of UGC. Thus, the petitioners and other students are misled by SBS and CVRU. 3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Kotwal thereafter contended that the State Government on 4.3.2016 directed the Gujarat University to look into the issue and exercise the powers vested under Section 5 of the Gujarat Universities Act. The Gujarat University therefore formed a Committee. The said Committee ultimately decided and directed SBS to pay compensation of 150% of the fees charged by SBS. However, the said decision taken by the Gujarat University is challenged by SBS by filing a separate petition which is pending before the learned Single Judge. 3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Kotwal thereafter submitted that innocent students of first batch have studied for three years in SBS. Similarly, other students of second batch have studied for two years in SBS. However, the said decision taken by the Gujarat University is challenged by SBS by filing a separate petition which is pending before the learned Single Judge. 3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Kotwal thereafter submitted that innocent students of first batch have studied for three years in SBS. Similarly, other students of second batch have studied for two years in SBS. However, the degree awarded to the students who studied in SBS, if not considered as valid or recognized, they will suffer irreparable loss and therefore appropriate direction be issued to the respondent-authorities to recognize the degree awarded to the students of SBS and the first year and second year students of SBS be accommodated in other recognized institutes. 3.5 Learned advocate Mr. Kotwal lastly submitted that appropriate direction be issued to SBS as well as CVRU to pay the compensation to the students of SBS and appropriate action be taken against the concerned authorities of SBS as well as CVRU. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Khare appearing for respondent no. 2 submitted that respondent no. 5-CVRU is private university established, by an Act of State Legislature of Chhatisgarh and it is also governed as per UGC regulations of 2003. The said university is empowered to award degrees to the students as per Section 22 of the UGC Act only through its main campus in regular mode and distance mode after obtaining approval of Statutory Bodies/Councils where-ever required. CVRU had initially applied for recognition and approval of educational programmes in ODL system during academic session 2009-10 which was earlier granted by IGNOU. Thereafter, UGC also granted programme wise recognition and approval for ODL system by letter dated 27.8.2013 for two years. The said approval was subject to compliance of all Rules of UGC, AICTE, NCTE or any other statutory body as prescribed from time to time. CVRU was also required to comply with UGC regulations of 2003. It is further contended that as per Condition No. 2(XIV) of recognition, the territorial jurisdiction of the university for offering educational programmes under ODL will be as per the policy of UGC. It is specifically contended that respondent no. 5 CVRU had neither taken any approval from UGC for entering into franchise agreement with respondent no. 6-SBS nor it can open any off campus/study centre outside the territorial boundaries of State of Chhatisgarh. Learned counsel Ms. It is specifically contended that respondent no. 5 CVRU had neither taken any approval from UGC for entering into franchise agreement with respondent no. 6-SBS nor it can open any off campus/study centre outside the territorial boundaries of State of Chhatisgarh. Learned counsel Ms. Khare further submitted that many complaints were received against CVRU with regard to violation of terms and conditions of recognition and therefore UGC issued show cause notice dated 11.5.2015 for withdrawal of recognition for conducting ODL programmes due to violation of UGC regulation of 2003. No satisfactory reply was given by respondent no. 5-CVRU and therefore by letter dated 9.11.2015, once again UGC sought clarification from CVRU and also directed it to strictly follow UGC rules and regulations. Thereafter, UGC has not extended recognition for offering educational programmes in ODL mode to CVRU for academic session 2016-17. 4.1 Lastly, it is submitted that UGC has not granted any recognition to respondent no. 6-SBS for conducting any educational programme either independently or through any distance education mode by affiliating with any other universities. Hence, courses offered by SBS are not recognized and degree awarded by SBS cannot be recognized. Thus, it is submitted that request of the petitioner to recognize the degree obtained by them from SBS and CVRU cannot be entertained. 5. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Shah appearing for respondent no. 3 submitted that UGC has already issued regulations and the same is circulated to the Vice Chancellors/Directors regarding statutory jurisdiction and offering all programmes through off campus/study centres etc. by institutions or universities. Such guidelines were published on 23.8.2013 The Commissionerate of Higher Education, State of Gujarat also issued instructions to the Administrative Officer of Commissionerate of Information, whereby it was informed to the public at large by issuing press note regarding issuance of the guidelines of UGC in the interest of students. Similarly, in February, 2016 Commissioner of Higher Education also instructed all the District Education Officers of State of Gujarat as well as the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board to inform all the parents as well as students to be cautious while taking admission in the college/institute which holds affiliation as per the rules and regulations of UGC. Similarly, in February, 2016 Commissioner of Higher Education also instructed all the District Education Officers of State of Gujarat as well as the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board to inform all the parents as well as students to be cautious while taking admission in the college/institute which holds affiliation as per the rules and regulations of UGC. Thereafter, on 4.5.2016, the Education Department instructed Gujarat University and the Registrar of all the other state universities to file police complaint against unrecognized and bogus institutions which come under their territorial jurisdiction. It is further submitted that when the complaint was received from the students of SBS, the State Government instructed the Registrar of Gujarat University to look into the matter and thereafter Gujarat University formed a committee and directed the SBS to refund 150% of the fees by way of compensation. On 10.5.2016, Principal Secretary, Education Department communicated to the Chairman of UGC whereby it was informed that CVRU had violated the UGC norms and regulations in giving affiliation to SBS. 5.1 Learned Government Pleader further submitted that on 18.5.2016, Commissionerate of Higher Education had instructed all the state Universities falling under the Education Department to publish the public advertisement to issue guidelines to the students as well as to publish list of the recognized colleges/institutes on the website of respective universities so that the students and parents can know which are the recognized institutes. At this stage, it is submitted that the State Government, through the Education Department, had informed the Registrar of Gujarat University to file criminal complaint against the concerned officers of SBS for violating the UGC norms and for defrauding the students. Thus, it is contended that the State Government has taken effective steps for providing awareness amongst the students and public at large regarding the recognized colleges/institutes and also informed the competent authorities to take appropriate steps against the institutes which are not following UGC norms and regulations. Learned GP submitted that the State Government will abide by the directions which will be issued by this Court in the interest of the students community. 6. Learned senior counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing for respondent no. 5-CVRU submitted that the petitioner and other students were registered for distance education programme of the university through its ‘on line portal’ and have been studying in this programme for three years. 6. Learned senior counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing for respondent no. 5-CVRU submitted that the petitioner and other students were registered for distance education programme of the university through its ‘on line portal’ and have been studying in this programme for three years. The concerned students appeared in the examination for first two years and they have also received their results and mark-sheets. The respondent no. 6-SBS which is AICTE approved PGDM programme school has only been authorized to provide information, counselling to the students and admit them to the university's distance learning programmes through its on line portal. Therefore, it does not amount to any affiliation with the university and no such status has been accorded to SBS. It is pointed out that with the change of the leadership at SBS, the faculty of the said institute reached out to the authorities of the university seeking certain clarifications about the university and its programmes. CVRU had given detailed clarification to them by letter dated 16.2.2016 As per UGC notification dated 14.10.2013, the degrees issued under the distance education programme are considered same as and equivalent to the regular degree/diploma programme. It is pointed out at this stage that CVRU by its e-mail dated 19.2.2016, advised to SBS that if they want to conduct a regular full time BBA programme at their institute, they should seek affiliation with a local university. When certain students including some of the petitioners visited CVRU campus and met the Registrar of CVRU, the concerned Registrar explained about the mode of study and examination, award of degree as per rules, regulations and ordinance of Universities and they were clearly told that if they want to attend full time on-campus BBA programme, they will have to attend regular classes at the University and fulfill all the other norms. When they understood the norms, they provided undertakings to this effect to the university. The third year students were permitted to appear in the examination conducted at CVRU. 6.1 Learned senior counsel Mr. When they understood the norms, they provided undertakings to this effect to the university. The third year students were permitted to appear in the examination conducted at CVRU. 6.1 Learned senior counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta thereafter submitted that if there is a procedural lapse i.e. before startling ODL at SBS, prior approval of UGC is not obtained, such procedural lapse can be rectified by seeking ex-post facto approval from UGC and if the students have studied in the course which is otherwise permissible if prior approval of UGC is obtained, then UGC can certainly reexamine the matter in the interest of the students and therefore this Court may grant liberty to the respondent no. 5-University to make the representation for granting recognition to the degrees given to the students of SBS and UGC be directed to reconsider the decision in the interest of the students. 7. Learned counsel Mr. D.C Dave appearing for respondent no. 6-SBS submitted that the basic grievance of the petitioners against respondent no. 6 is two fold. First, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the course in which the petitioners were admitted was a distance learning course and not the regular course but they were made to believe that the said course is a regular course. Secondly, respondent no. 5-CVRU which offers the said course is not an authorized university as per UGC to offer the said course as distance learning course and therefore the degree which the petitioners would get upon successful completion of the said course from respondent no. 5-CVRU would not be a recognized degree. It is submitted by learned counsel that such grievances are misconceived. As per the say of the learned counsel, the prospectus which was issued by respondent no. 6-SBS for the academic year 2013-14 is relevant for the purpose of deciding the grievance of the petitioners. It is contended that it is stated in the said prospectus that the said course is approved by UGC. It cannot be said to be a misstatement because in the letter dated 6.1.2016, it is clarified that respondent no. 5-CVRU is having approval of UGC to offer distance learning course. It is further contended that by way of prospectus, respondent no. 6-SBS has simply attempted to convey that for the concerned courses, the students have to attend the classes on full time basis. 7.1 Learned senior counsel Mr. 5-CVRU is having approval of UGC to offer distance learning course. It is further contended that by way of prospectus, respondent no. 6-SBS has simply attempted to convey that for the concerned courses, the students have to attend the classes on full time basis. 7.1 Learned senior counsel Mr. Dave thereafter submitted that SBS is administered by Chiripal Charitable Trust and the said institute is offering post-graduate diploma in management course since 2010. The same is approved by AICTE. It is contended that respondent no. 5-CVRU decided to have its centre at Ahmedabad. Hence, respondent no. 5 approached SBS through its local office for opening its centre at the premises of SBS for BBA programme under the nomenclature “Information and Counselling Centre”. As per the proposal of CVRU, the centre so proposed to be opened at SBS would facilitate the admission of students at Ahmedabad who would be enrolled as the students of CVRU pursuing their studies at its centre at SBS, Ahmedabad. Thus, centre at SBS proposed by CVRU would take the shape of off-campus centre of CVRU. At this stage, it is pointed out by learned counsel that the students admitted by respondent no. 6-SBS were provided with facility of learning through the faculty engaged by SBS in its class room. However, the curriculum for the programme was prescribed by CVRU, as also the text books and other materials to be followed by the students. It is submitted that though it was distance learning course as per the policy of CVRU, the students have to attend the classes regularly. 7.2 Learned counsel Mr. Dave thereafter submitted that now as per the stand taken by UGC in its affidavit, UGC has not granted any recognition to SBS for conducting any educational programme either independently or any distance education mode by affiliating with any other university and CVRU has not obtained prior permission to establish off campus/study centre. The respondent no. 5-CVRU as well as respondent no. 6-SBS are ready and willing to submit a representation to UGC in the interest of the petitioners and other students for granting ex-post facto approval of UGC. It is submitted that the petitioners and other students have actually studied in SBS as per the syllabus provided by CVRU and merely because prior approval of UGC is not obtained, the petitioner and other students may not suffer because of procedural lapse of respondent no. It is submitted that the petitioners and other students have actually studied in SBS as per the syllabus provided by CVRU and merely because prior approval of UGC is not obtained, the petitioner and other students may not suffer because of procedural lapse of respondent no. 5-CVRU. 7.3 At this stage, learned counsel has placed on record the order dated 3.7.2006 passed by UGC communicating to the Registrar, Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapith, Udaipur. After referring to the said order, it is submitted that in similar type of case, UGC constituted a Committee to consider the request of the said Vidyapith for ex-post facto approval of the course through distance education mode starting in the year 2005 and the Committee took the decision to grant ex-post facto approval keeping in view the future of large number of innocent students on certain terms and conditions. 7.4 It is therefore submitted by learned counsel that UGC may consider the issue and form a Committee in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case for grant of ex-post facto approval in the interest of students. 7.5 Learned counsel Mr. Dave thereafter submitted that FIR is already filed against the concerned office bearers of SBS and others and the investigation is going on and therefore this Court may not pass any order with regard to the same. 7.6 It is further submitted that so far as compensation as prayed for by the petitioners is concerned, the respondent no. 4-Gujarat University has already passed an order to refund 150% of the fees by way of compensation to the students of SBS. However, at this stage, it is submitted that the SBS has challenged the said order by filing separate petition before this Court which is pending and therefore when the issue is pending before this Court, no order of compensation be passed against SBS. 7.7 At this stage, learned counsel has referred to the further affidavit filed by respondent no. 6 on 26.9.2016 and submitted that out of 124 students in the first year for the academic year 2015-16, 102 students have already taken refund of their fees and they got admission in other colleges and rest 22 students decided to continue with the course and appeared in the examination for the first year and on the basis of the result of first year, they got admission in different colleges. Learned counsel referred to the said details annexed with the affidavit. It is further pointed out that out of 85 students studying in second year in the academic year 2015-16, 37 students appeared in the examination and other 48 students opted for the refund and as per the information available with SBS, all the 37 students got admission in different colleges. Similarly, out of 38 students studying in the third year in the academic year 2015-16, 30 students including petitioners have chosen to continue with the course and they appeared in the examination. All the 30 students have cleared the examination and they have been awarded degree certificate also. Some of the students have got the jobs and some of the students are persuading their higher studies as per the information received by SBS and remaining eight students have chosen not to continue with the course and have opted to take the refund. 7.8 Thus, learned counsel Mr. Dave submitted that respondent no. 6-SBS has refunded the fees to the students who are desirous of taking back the fees and others have appeared in the examination and got the certificate. At this stage, it is once again submitted that so far as the recognition of the degree in the facts and circumstances of the present case is concerned, if liberty be given to respondent no. 5 CVRU and respondent no. 6-SBS to make representation before UGC along with relevant material and the petitioners and other students may also be permitted to submit their representation before UGC and UGC be directed to decide the issue in the interest of students at large. He, therefore, submitted that this petition be accordingly disposed off. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shelat for respondent no. 4-Gujarat University submitted that as per the direction given by the Government, Gujarat University has already passed an order against respondent no. 6-SBS directing it to refund fees to the tune of 150% by way of compensation. However, it is submitted that the said order is under challenge before this Court by filing separate petition. 9. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the material produced on record. 10. 6-SBS directing it to refund fees to the tune of 150% by way of compensation. However, it is submitted that the said order is under challenge before this Court by filing separate petition. 9. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the material produced on record. 10. It has emerged from the record that SBS has admitted students in the academic year 2013-14 in the three years BBA course for which SBS issued the advertisement in the newspaper as well as the applications were invited through internet. It was claimed that said BBA course is UGC recognized full time course and having affiliation with respondent no. 5-CVRU. However, from the record, it is revealed that CVRU is a private university established by an Act of State Legislature of Chhatisgarh and V akin to all private universities and same is governed by UGC regulations of 2003. The said university is empowered to award degrees to the students as per Section 22 of the UGC Act only through its main campus in regular mode and distance mode after obtaining approval of statutory bodies/councils wherever required. It is also revealed from the record that respondent no. 5-CVRU had initially applied for recognition and approval of all educational programmes under ODL system during the academic sessions 2009-10 which was earlier granted by IGNOU. Thereafter, UGC after scrutiny of applications had granted programme wise recognition and approval for ODL system vide its letter dated 27.8.2013 for two years. It transpires from the record that such approval for conducting educational programmes under ODL system was subject to compliance of rules of UGC, AICTE etc. From the affidavit filed by UGC, it is further clear that by way of notification dated 27.6.2013, UGC had not granted any permission to any private university to establish off campus/study centre. In spite of that, respondent no. 5-CVRU has not taken any approval from UGC for entering into franchise agreement with respondent no. 6-SBS. Thus, CVRU has opened off campus/study centre outside territorial boundary of State of Chhatisgarh, without prior approval from UGC. 11. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners and other students have taken admission pursuant to the prospectus issued by respondent no. 5-CVRU has not taken any approval from UGC for entering into franchise agreement with respondent no. 6-SBS. Thus, CVRU has opened off campus/study centre outside territorial boundary of State of Chhatisgarh, without prior approval from UGC. 11. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners and other students have taken admission pursuant to the prospectus issued by respondent no. 6-SBS and advertisement published by it in the newspaper in three years BBA course and afterwards, now it has been revealed that the said course is of ODL. Third year students have studied in the institute for a period of three years. Similarly, second year students have also studies for two years and at this stage, it has been revealed that UGC has not granted approval to CVRU to start off campus/study centre outside the territorial boundary of State of Chhatisgarh. Thus, we are of the opinion that respondent nos. 5 and 6 have not acted in accordance with law as a result of which the students are sufferers. 12. In view of the aforesaid background, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners are required to be examined. One of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners is that respondent no. 6 be directed to pay the compensation to the students. So far as the said prayer is concerned, it is borne out from the record that the respondent-Gujarat University has already passed an order by which the respondent no. 6-SBS is directed to refund the fees to the tune of 150% by way of compensation. It has also come on record that most of the students have accepted the fees paid by them. However, the order of awarding compensation of 150% of the fees is under challenge before this Court and therefore we are not inclined to make any further observation with regard to the same. 13. Another relief prayed for by the petitioners is that the degree granted by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 be recognized. However, as per the stand taken by UGC, it is not appropriate for this Court to pass an order of recognition of the degrees received by the petitioners and other students. However, learned counsel Mr. 13. Another relief prayed for by the petitioners is that the degree granted by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 be recognized. However, as per the stand taken by UGC, it is not appropriate for this Court to pass an order of recognition of the degrees received by the petitioners and other students. However, learned counsel Mr. Dave appearing for SBS is right in making submission that UGC has in past taken the decision after constituting a Committee for considering the similar issue and the said Committee took the decision to grant ex-post facto approval to Janardan Rai Nagar Rajsthan Vidyapeeth of Udaipur keeping in view the future of number of innocent students on certain terms and conditions. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the respondent nos. 5 and 6 are permitted to make representation to the respondent no. 2-UGC for granting ex-post facto approval to the degrees awarded by respondent no. 5-CVRU and the petitioners and other students are also permitted to file representation pointing out their grievances to UGC. Respondent no. 5-CVRU and respondent no. 6-SBS shall also provide the list of the students to whom the degrees are awarded with further details of curriculum of the course conducted by SBS. If such representations are made by respondent no. 5, 6, the petitioners and other students of SBS, respondent no. 2-UGC shall consider and decide the same keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in mind future of the students and also the order dated 3.7.2006 passed in the case of Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth by UGC. 14. So far as the alleged fraud committed by the concerned respondent is concerned, the FIR is already lodged against the concerned office bearers of the concerned respondent and investigation is going on and therefore it is not proper for us to make any observation with regard to the same as criminal machinery is already set into motion. 15. Further, to keep a check on bogus institutions, UGC has already issued regulations and the same is circulated by the State Government to the Vice Chancellors/Directors regarding statutory jurisdiction and offering all programmes through off campus/study centres etc. by institutions or universities. 15. Further, to keep a check on bogus institutions, UGC has already issued regulations and the same is circulated by the State Government to the Vice Chancellors/Directors regarding statutory jurisdiction and offering all programmes through off campus/study centres etc. by institutions or universities. Such guidelines were published on 23.8.2013 The Commissionerate of Higher Education, State of Gujarat also issued instructions to the Administrative Officer of Commissionerate of Information, whereby it was informed to the public at large by issuing press note regarding issuance of the guidelines of UGC in the interest of students. Similarly, in February, 2016 Commissioner of Higher Education also instructed all the District Education Officers of State of Gujarat as well as the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board to inform all the parents as well as students to be cautious while taking admission in the college/institutes which holds affiliation as per the rules and regulations of UGC. The respondent-State Government has also stated in the affidavit that on 18.5.2016, the Commissionerate of Higher Education, State of Gujarat had instructed all the state universities falling under the Education Department to publish the advertisement with regard to the guidelines issued by UGC as well as to publish the list of recognized colleges/institutions on the website of respective universities so that the students and parents can take note of list of recognized institutions/colleges,. Thus, we are of the opinion that the State Government has taken sufficient steps by issuing directions. However, in addition to that, we direct the concerned Universities to take immediate steps for lodging FIR against the bogus institutions/colleges and its promoters, which commence its educational course/programme without prior approval of the concerned authorities/UGC with a view to curb bogus institutions from cropping up in future. 16. With the above discussion, observations and directions, this petition is disposed off.