Ajay Mohan Goel, J. : By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) That the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to issue NOC (no objection certificate) on the basis of old norms Annexure P-2 for the start of Post graduation classes (MSC) in Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Math and also M.Com for the session 2016-2017 in the petitioner institute. (b) That the respondent No. 2 may be directed to extend the date of counseling in MSC in Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Math and also M.Com for the session 2016-17. (c) That the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to dispense with the requirement of inspecting as the inspection has already been conducted by respondent No. 1. (d) That the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to grant the affiliation to the petitioner in order to start with the M.Sc. in Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Math and also M.Com for the session of 2016-17. (e) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also be granted in favour of the petitioners. (f) Costs of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that Department of Higher Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh issued Notification dated 23rd August, 2010, vide which it notified norms and guidelines for the grant of “No Objection Certificate” to Societies/Trusts/Institutions, who intended to start courses in the State of Himachal Pradesh in private sector, i.e. (i) Graduate Courses in Arts, Science, Media/Journalism, Commerce, Sanskrit, Law including BBA, BCA and other courses affiliated to H.P. University and recognized by U.G.C. (ii) Postgraduate Courses in Arts, Science, Media/Journalism, Commerce, Sanskrit, Law, Business Administration including PGDCA and other courses affiliated to H.P. University and recognized by U.G.C. The case of the petitioners is that as the said society was interested in starting Post graduation courses in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Math and M.Com, it applied to the Directorate of Higher Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 19.11.2015 for the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” in consonance with the norms/guidelines laid down by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in this regard vide Notification dated 23rd August, 2010. As per the petitioners, it was having infrastructure as well as facilities which were contemplated under the norms issued by the respondent/State dated 23rd August, 2010 and accordingly, it applied to the Directorate of Higher Education vide communication dated 19.11.2015 for inspection of college for the purpose of issuance of “No Objection Certificate”. It is further the case of the petitioners that the college of the petitioners was inspected by Director of Higher Education on 24.06.2016 and in the inspection so carried out, it was found that the College of the petitioner- Society was fulfilling all the norms, however, when despite this “No Objection Certificate” was not issued in favour of the College of the petitioner-Society, it made a request in this regard to the respondent- State vide communication dated 06.07.2016. As per the petitioners, before this vide communication dated 08.06.2016, they also applied to respondent No. 2-University for inspection of their College and for the issuance of affiliation to run post graduate courses for the session 2016- 2017 after depositing the requisite fee etc. in this regard. As per the petitioners, when they visited the office of Director, Higher Education on 15.07.2016, the petitioners were informed by the Director that “No Objection Certificate” was not being issued in favour of the petitioner- Society as the institute in issue had not purchased the books. Pursuant to this, an undertaking was given by the petitioner-Society on the asking of the respondent-State that institute shall purchase books amounting to Rs.50,000/- per course. Petitioners have also stated that more books were purchased on 16.07.2016 in order to meet out the requirements of the respondents. According to the petitioners, in action on the part of the respondents in the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” despite the fact that the Committee had approved the institute for grant of “No Objection Certificate” was highly arbitrary. Petitioners have also stated that more books were purchased on 16.07.2016 in order to meet out the requirements of the respondents. According to the petitioners, in action on the part of the respondents in the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” despite the fact that the Committee had approved the institute for grant of “No Objection Certificate” was highly arbitrary. It is further the case of the petitioners that despite the fact that file of the petitioner-Society, complete in all respects, with the recommendations for grant of “No Objection Certificate” by the inspection committee was received by the Secretary on 22.07.2016, their case was not being considered for the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” purportedly on the ground that the State was contemplating to formulate new norms for the purpose of issuance of “No Objection Certificate” without appreciating that the case of the petitioners could not be assessed on the basis of new norms which had not yet come into force and their case had to be assessed on the basis of the norms which were existing at the time when the petitioners applied for the grant of “No Objection Certificate”. It is further the case of the petitioners that new norms which were introduced by the respondent-State w.e.f. 11.08.2016, i.e. during pendency of the present petition for grant of “No Objection Certificate” could not be made basis for adjudging/deciding the application so filed by the petitioner-Society for grant of “No Objection Certificate” as decision on the application of the petitioner-Society has to be taken on the basis of the norms which were in force as on the date when the application was filed by the petitioner-Society. It is further the case of the petitioners that they have made huge investments by taking loan from the nationalized bank on the holding out of the respondent/State that petitioners case was being considered as was evident from the acts of the respondent/State and the respondent/State was now estopped from denying the “No Objection Certificate” to the petitioners on the ground that their case has to be assessed as per the new norms which have come into force w.e.f. 11.08.2016. Accordingly, on these grounds, the petitioners have prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to issue “No Objection Certificate” in their favour on the basis of the norms which were existing at the time when they applied for “No Objection Certificate” to run post graduate courses, with further direction to respondent No. 2 to grant affiliation to petitioners to start post graduation courses in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Math and M.Com for the academic Session 2016-17. 3. In its reply filed to the petition, respondent/State took the stand that Department of Higher Education had issued norms/guidelines for the grant of “No Objection Certificate” to various Societies/Trusts/Institutions for the purpose of starting courses in the State of Himachal Pradesh on 18.08.2008, which were further revised on 23.08.2010. As per State, Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh on 22.12.2015 was asked to revise the said norms, which were submitted on 05.02.2016 and subsequently, the revised norms were sent for approval on 27.04.2016 and the competent authority approved the same resulting in issuance of Notification dated 11.08.2016 and keeping in view the fact that now the grant of “No Objection Certificates” was governed by Notification dated 11.08.2016 and there were other cases also of 13 other private colleges in addition to that of the petitioners, which were under consideration, the said cases were now to be considered/finalized by the State as per new norms notified on 11.08.2016. It was further stated in its reply by the respondent/State that the petitioner-College will be given “No Objection Certificate” for running post graduation courses if it fulfills the norms notified on 11.08.2016. Incidentally, in the preliminary submissions made by the respondent/State, it has been stated that the petitioner-College submitted its case for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” for the purpose of running post graduation courses on 27.11.2015 in the Directorate of Higher Education and after removing the shortcomings pointed out in the said proposal, the petitioner-College submitted revised proposals vide letter dated 10.02.2016 and inspection of the College was carried out on 24.06.2016. It was further admitted in the reply that the petitioner-College had removed the shortcomings as were pointed out in the inspection carried out on 20.07.2016 and case for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” was received by the respondent/State on 22.07.2016 from the Directorate of Higher Education. It was further admitted in the reply that the petitioner-College had removed the shortcomings as were pointed out in the inspection carried out on 20.07.2016 and case for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” was received by the respondent/State on 22.07.2016 from the Directorate of Higher Education. However, as the respondent/State had now finalized the new norms on 11.08.2016, the cases were accordingly returned to the Directorate of Higher Education for reconsideration of the said cases. Thus, in a nut-shell according to the respondent/State, despite the fact that the case of the petitioner-College was duly received for the purpose of grant of “No Objection Certificate” as on 22.07.2016, however, the same was returned back to the Directorate of Higher Education for reconsideration in lieu of the fact that new norms had come into force on 11.08.2016. 4. In its reply filed by respondent No. 2-University, its stand was that though the petitioners had applied for grant of permission to start post graduate courses in Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Maths and M.Com, however, their proposals were incomplete as the same were not accompanied with compulsory “No Objection Certificate”, which has to be issued by the State Government which is required for grant of affiliation to start new courses as per the provisions contained in the First Ordinances of the Himachal Pradesh University, i.e. Ordinance No. 38.6 read with Ordinance No. 38.13 as well as Regulations for affiliation of Colleges framed by the respondent-University. 5. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the act of the respondent/State of not granting the “No Objection Certificate” in favour of the petitioners was an arbitrary and discriminatory act because the denial of the same to the petitioners in the garb of new norms having come into force w.e.f. 11.08.2016 was totally unjustified in law. According to Mr. Chandel, the petitioners submitted their application for inspection of College and for grant of “No Objection Certificate” on 19.11.2015. Respondent/State did not apprise the petitioners at that stage that as it was contemplating to come up with new norms for the grant of “No Objection Certificate”, therefore, the case of the petitioners shall not be considered for the purpose of grant of “No Objection Certificate” till the State formulates the new norms. On the contrary, as per Mr. Respondent/State did not apprise the petitioners at that stage that as it was contemplating to come up with new norms for the grant of “No Objection Certificate”, therefore, the case of the petitioners shall not be considered for the purpose of grant of “No Objection Certificate” till the State formulates the new norms. On the contrary, as per Mr. Chandel, the application of the petitioners was acted upon and thereafter discrepancies which were pointed out by respondent No. 1 in the infrastructure provided by the petitioners were rectified/removed by them, which ultimately led to the inspection of petitioners’ College by Inspection Committee, which duly recommended the petitioners’ College for the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” as is also evident from the reply filed by the respondent/State. Mr. Chandel also argued that it was well settled law that the application of the petitioners was liable to be considered as per the norms which were in force and in vogue at the time when the petitioners submitted their application and whether or not the petitioner’s College was entitled for the grant of “No Objection Certificate” was to be decided as per the norms/guidelines which were prevalent at the time when the petitioners applied for “No Objection Certificate”. According to Mr. Chandel, the application of the petitioners cannot be considered on the basis of subsequent norms which have come into force w.e.f. 11.08.2016 and which were not in vogue at the time when the petitioners applied for “No Objection Certificate”. According to Mr. Chandel, the norms which have been introduced for the grant of “No Objection Certificate” w.e.f. 11.08.2016 will have prospective effect, meaning thereby that these norms can be applied only on those applications which are received after these norms came into force. On these basis, it was submitted by Mr. According to Mr. Chandel, the norms which have been introduced for the grant of “No Objection Certificate” w.e.f. 11.08.2016 will have prospective effect, meaning thereby that these norms can be applied only on those applications which are received after these norms came into force. On these basis, it was submitted by Mr. Chandel, that the action of respondents not granting the “No Objection Certificate” to the petitioners was totally arbitrary and discriminatory and this Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to issue “No Objection Certificate” in its favour forthwith for the purpose of running post graduate courses in the subjects in which it had applied for the same keeping in view the fact that the Inspection Committee of the respondent/State has recommended the case of the petitioners’ College for grant of “No Objection Certificate” as far back as on 20th July, 2016, i.e. much before the new norms in fact came into existence. Mr. Chandel has further argued that had the respondent/State at any stage intimated them that their cases for grant of “No Objection Certificate” shall not be considered till new norms are formulated by the respondents, then the petitioners would not have made huge investments in creating infrastructure to run the post graduate courses and failure on the part of the State to do so, now estopped them from denying the “No Objection Certificate” to the petitioners. He argued that keeping in view the fact that petitioners case stood recommended by the Inspection Committee for grant of “No Objection Certificate” before coming into force of the new norms, the petitioners now had a legitimate expectation as far as issuance of grant of “No Objection Certificate” for running post graduation courses in their favour was concerned. 6. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, on the other hand argued that once the new norms have come into force w.e.f. 11.08.2016 and no “No Objection Certificate” has been issued in favour of the petitioners by respondent No. 1 as on 11.08.2016, now the case of the petitioners has to be considered as per norms dated 11.08.2016 and the petitioners cannot insist upon the State to issue them “No Objection Certificate” by applying the old norms which no more exist after 11.08.2016. Mr. Mr. Guleria further argued that at no stage it was held out by the respondent/State to the petitioners that simply because they had submitted their application for grant of “No Objection Certificate” under the old norms, they shall be issued “No Objection Certificate” by the State. According to Mr. Guleria, issuance of “No Objection Certificate” depended upon the applicant’s fulfilling necessary conditions contemplated in the norms and guidelines and as new norms and guidelines have come into force w.e.f. 11.08.2016, it was incumbent upon the State to ensure that no new institutions were permitted to run courses which were not fulfilling the norms and guidelines as were prescribed in the norms issued vide Notification dated 11.08.2016. On these basis, it was urged by Mr. Guleria that there was no merit in the case of the petitioners and the same be dismissed. 7. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 reiterated that the case of the petitioners was pre-mature as until and unless respondent-University receives the case of the petitioners for grant of affiliation alongwith “No Objection Certificate” issued in this regard by the respondent/State, neither any affiliation can be granted to the petitioners by the respondent/University nor the petitioners can be permitted to run post graduation courses. 8. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention at this stage that on 25.07.2016 this Court had directed respondent No. 2 during the pendency of the present petition to carry out the inspection of the infrastructure provided by the petitioners and report compliance. The inspection so carried out by the respondent/University was made available to the Court which after perusal was returned back in a sealed cover. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case which have been made available by the learned Assistant Advocate General and Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 10. It is not in dispute that when the petitioners applied to respondent No. 1 for inspection of College and issuance of “No Objection Certificate” on 19.11.2015, the norms and guidelines which had been notified vide Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 for the purpose of grant of “No Objection Certificate” were in vogue. 10. It is not in dispute that when the petitioners applied to respondent No. 1 for inspection of College and issuance of “No Objection Certificate” on 19.11.2015, the norms and guidelines which had been notified vide Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 for the purpose of grant of “No Objection Certificate” were in vogue. It is also evident from the reply filed by respondent No. 1 that Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh was asked on 22.12.2015 to submit proposal to revise the old norms, meaning thereby that when the petitioners had applied to Director of Higher Education for issuance of “No Objection Certificate”, the Director of Higher Education had not even been asked to submit proposal to revise the said norms. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that after the petitioners submitted their application on 19.11.2015 for inspection of College and issuance of “No Objection Certificate”, their application was acted upon by the respondent-department and petitioners were called upon to rectify the shortcomings which were pointed out from time to time. Not only this, the College of the petitioners was also inspected by the Inspection Committee on 24.06.2016 and after the petitioners removed the shortcomings as were pointed out in the inspection their case was sent by the Director of Higher Education to the competent authority on 22.07.2016 for issuance of “No Objection Certificate”. Even thereafter, the “No Objection Certificate” was not issued by the respondents and in the meanwhile, new norms for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” came into force on 11.08.2016. However, before that this writ petition stood filed by the petitioners, i.e. before coming into force of the new norms dated 11.08.2016. Therefore, in these circumstances, the act of the respondent/State of denying the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” in favour of the petitioners for running post graduation courses despite the fact that the petitioners were fulfilling all the norms in this regard as per Notification dated 23rd August, 2010, in our considered view is an arbitrary act. This is for the reason that the respondent/State having acted upon the application submitted by the petitioners dated 19.11.2015 is now estopped from denying the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” in favour of the petitioners on the pretext that now new norms/guidelines for the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” have come into force w.e.f. 11.08.2016. This is for the reason that the respondent/State having acted upon the application submitted by the petitioners dated 19.11.2015 is now estopped from denying the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” in favour of the petitioners on the pretext that now new norms/guidelines for the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” have come into force w.e.f. 11.08.2016. It is not the case of the respondent/State that the petitioners are not possessing infrastructural facilities which were required as per the norms/guidelines existing at the time when the petitioners applied for the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” to the State for running post graduation courses. After holding out to the petitioners by its act of entertaining the application submitted by the petitioners dated 19.11.2015, processing the same culminating in inspection of the institute of the petitioners, issuance of directions for removal of shortcomings and thereafter forwarding the case of the petitioners to the competent authority for the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” and that too before 11.08.2016, its conduct now estoppes the respondent/State from denying the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” in favour of the petitioners to run post graduation courses as per norms notified on 23rd August, 2010. 11. In Union of India Vs. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies etc. AIR 1968 SC 718 , it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it was open to a party who had acted on a representation made by the Government to claim that the Government shall be bound to carry out the promise made by it, even though the promise was not recorded in the form of a formal contract. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others AIR 1979 SC 621 has approved that equitable estoppel will be invoked against the State when justified by the facts. 13. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusumam Hotels Private Limited Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and others (2008) 13 SCC 213 that it is well settled principle of law that doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to the State and all administrative orders ordinarily are to be considered prospective in nature and when a policy decision is required to be given, a retrospective operation, it must be stated so expressly or by necessary implication. 14. In U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. 14. In U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Sant Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. and others (2008) 2 SCC 777 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that once a representation has been made by one party and the other party acts on that representation and makes investment and thereafter the other party resiles, such act cannot be stated to be fair and reasonable. It was also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that doctrine of promissory estoppel will operate even in the legislative field. 15. Perusal of the Notification dated 11.08.2016 which has been placed on record by the State demonstrates that the norms and guidelines framed thereunder have been brought into force with immediate effect and there is no stipulation contained either in the Notification or Annexure appended with the same to the effect that the applications which were submitted by prospective parties for grant of “No Objection Certificate” as per Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 were now to be scrutinized on the basis of new Notification, i.e. Notification dated 11th August, 2016. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 740 has held that retrospective operation is not taken to be intended unless that intention is manifested by express words or necessary implication. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in MRF Ltd., Kottayam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax and others (2006) 8 SCC 702 has held that the provisions of the Act or notification are always prospective in operation unless the express language renders it otherwise making it effective with retrospective effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held: “30. The High Court in its judgment has recorded a finding that the notifications being statutory "no plea of estoppel will lie against a statutory notification". This finding of the High Court is erroneous. The doctrine of promissory estoppel has been repeatedly applied by this Court to statutory notifications. Reference may be made to Pournami Oil Mills Vs. State of Kerala, 1986 (Supp.) SCC 728. This finding of the High Court is erroneous. The doctrine of promissory estoppel has been repeatedly applied by this Court to statutory notifications. Reference may be made to Pournami Oil Mills Vs. State of Kerala, 1986 (Supp.) SCC 728. In the said case the Government of Kerala by an order dated 11.4.1979 invited small scale units to set up their industries in the State of Kerala and with a view to boost industrialization, exemption from sales tax and purchase tax was extended as a concession for a period of five years, which was to run from the date of commencement of production. By a subsequent notification dated 29.9.1980, published on Gazette on 21.10.1980, the State of Kerala withdrew the exemption relating to the purchase tax and confined the exemption from sales tax to the limit specified in the proviso of the said notification. While quashing the subsequent notification, it was observed: "If in response to such an order and in consideration of the concession made available, promoters of any small-scale concern have set up their industries within the State of Kerala, they would certainly be entitled to plead the rule of estoppel in their favour when the State of Kerala purports to act differently. Several decisions of this Court were cited in support of the stand of the appellants that in similar circumstances the plea of estoppel can be and has been applied and the leading authority on this point is the case of M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P.. On the other hand, reliance has been placed on behalf of the State on a judgment of this Court in Bakul Cashew Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Quilon, 1986 (2) SCC 365 . In Bakul Company's (supra) case this Court found that there was no clear material to show any definite or certain promise had been made by the Minister to the concerned persons and there was no clear material also in support of the stand that the parties had altered their position by acting upon the representations and suffered any prejudice. On facts, therefore, no case for raising the plea of estoppel was held to have been made out. This Court proceeded on the footing that the notification granting exemption retrospectively was not in accordance with Section 10 of the State Sales Tax Act as it then stood, as there was no power to grant exemption retrospectively. On facts, therefore, no case for raising the plea of estoppel was held to have been made out. This Court proceeded on the footing that the notification granting exemption retrospectively was not in accordance with Section 10 of the State Sales Tax Act as it then stood, as there was no power to grant exemption retrospectively. By an amendment that power has been subsequently conferred. In these appeals there is no question of retrospective exemption. We also find that no reference was made by the High Court to the decision in M.P. Sugar Mills' case, 1979 (2) SCC 409 . In our view, to the facts of the present case, the ratio of M.P. Sugar Mills' case directly applies and the plea of estoppel is unanswerable. Such exemption would continue for the full period of five years from the date they started production. New industries set up after 21.10.1980 obviously would not be entitled to that benefit as they had noticed of the curtailment in the exemption before they came to set up their industries." [Emphasis supplied]” 18. Therefore, in view of the discussion held above as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in our considered view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the State is not justified in denying the issuance of “No Objection Certificate” in favour of the petitioners to run post graduation courses as per Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 on the pretext that the said Notification has been superseded by new Notification which has come into force w.e.f. 11.08.2016. Though the vires of Notification dated 11.08.2016 have also been assailed by the petitioners, however, as we have dwelled on this aspect of the matter as to whether the said Notification will have retrospective effect or prospective effect, therefore, we do not deem it necessary to go into the vires of the said Notification in the present case. 19. We have also perused the report dated 06.08.2016, which was submitted to us by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in a sealed cover, a perusal of which demonstrates that Committee constituted by respondent No. 2 for inspection of the petitioners institute has recommended the grant of affiliation in favour of the petitioners to run the following courses in post graduation for the Session 2016-17: “(a) M.Sc. (Maths) with an intake of 40 students subject to fulfillment of findings returned by Inspection Committee. (b) M.Sc. (Chemistry) with an intake of 40 students subject to fulfillment of deficiencies pointed out by the Committee before the commencement of course. (c) M.Sc. (Botany) with an intake of 25 students subject to fulfillment of conditions pointed out by the Inspection Committee. (d) M.Com course with an intake of 40 students subject to fulfillment of conditions pointed out by the Inspection Committee. (e) M.Sc.(Zoology) with an intake of 25 students subject to fulfillment of conditions pointed out by the Inspection Committee.” 20. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondent/State is directed to issue “No Objection Certificate” in favour of the petitioners to run post graduation courses in the courses mentioned above, i.e. M.Sc. (Maths), M.Sc. (Chemistry), M.Sc. (Botany), M.Com course and M.Sc.(Zoology) for the academic Session 2016-17 on or before 14th October, 2016 as per Notification dated 23rd August, 2010, with further direction to the respondent No. 2/University to grant affiliation to the petitioners for the purpose of running the above mentioned courses for the academic Session 2016-17 forthwith thereafter. Respondents are also directed to allow the petitioners to make admissions for the said courses strictly in accordance with U.G.C. norms or any other norms governing the field. Respondent No. 2/University is also directed to allow the petitioners to hold extra classes/grant relaxation so as to ensure that the students admitted in the above mentioned courses with the petitioners are able to put in the minimum academic lectures required as far as the First Semester is concerned. We make it clear that these directions have been issued in the present case keeping in view the fact that the petitioners had approached this Court before the issuance of Notification dated 11.08.2016. We also make it clear that respondent No. 2/University shall ensure that the petitioners run the post graduation courses strictly in accordance with the requirements of affiliating University and meet all the recommendations of the Inspection Committee. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the miscellaneous applications, if any. No order as to costs.