JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. The petitioners inter-alia, comprising of a trust and two colleges have assailed a decision taken by the respondent no. 1 in its executive council’s meeting held on June 18, 2015. The petitioners have sought for cancellation of the final report of the fact finding committee of the respondent no. 1. The petitioners have also asked for other reliefs with regard to the functioning of the two colleges and their dealings with the respondent no. 1. Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, at the final hearing of the writ petition has restricted the relief sought by the petitioners in the writ petition to the resolution (b) of the executive council of the respondent no. 1 taken on June 18, 2015 and as contained in the writing dated June 22, 2015. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the petitioners are not aggrieved by the decision of the executive council of the respondent no. 1 dated June 18, 2015 in so far as it has censured the college and reserved the right to monitor the functioning of the college. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the respondent no. 1 does not have the jurisdiction to reduce the sanctioned strength of intake of a student in an academic year. Such power vests solely with the All India Council for Teachers Education (AICTE). AICTE has not taken such decision. Therefore, the decision of the respondent no. 1 to such extent is beyond jurisdiction and has to be struck down. He has referred to correspondence exchanged between the colleges and the respondent no. 1 leading up to such decision of the respondent no. 1. He has submitted that, the colleges had forwarded of requisite financial details as sought for by the respondent no. 1. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners have relied upon Sections 15 and 16 of the General Clauses Act and has submitted that since the respondent no. 1 does not have the power to sanction the intake of a student for any academic year, it does not have the jurisdiction to reduce the intake of students. Learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 does not have the power to sanction the intake of a student for any academic year, it does not have the jurisdiction to reduce the intake of students. Learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 has referred to the prayers made in the writ petition and has submitted that the scope and ambit of the writ petition is far wider that the restricted prayer that has been urged at the bar during the final hearing on behalf of the petitioners. She has referred to the affidavits of the respondent nos. 1 to 5 filed in respect of the writ petition. She has pointed out that the management of the colleges was not abiding by any rules, regulations and norms either of the University or of AICTE. The respondent nos. 1 to 5 had received complaints with regard to the non-adherence of the norms, rules and regulations by the colleges concerned. The respondent no. 1 has been receiving various complaints with regard to the functioning of the two colleges. They had undertaken a detailed inquiry in respect of the affairs in respect to the two colleges. By such suit the petitioners have sought to thwart any attempt of the University to look into the affairs of the colleges. The respondent no. 1 is entitled to undertake periodic inspection of the colleges in order to ensure that the norms, rules and regulations of the respondent no. 1 and AICTE are being observed and to take suitable measures in respect to any violation noted. This had prompted the petitioners to cause a defamation suit to be filed against the Vice Chancellor and the Inspector of colleges of the respondent no. 1 with such suit being pending the officials of the respondent no. 1 are finding it difficult to undertake adequate inspection. By such process the colleges are seeking to flout the rules, regulations and norms of the respondent no. 1 and AICTE with impunity. By various writings the respondent no. 1 had asked for various details of the functioning of the colleges. In response thereto by a letter dated October 4, 2014 the trust had written to the respondent no. 1 purporting to give various details and annexing the tax related papers. 1 and AICTE with impunity. By various writings the respondent no. 1 had asked for various details of the functioning of the colleges. In response thereto by a letter dated October 4, 2014 the trust had written to the respondent no. 1 purporting to give various details and annexing the tax related papers. The Annexures to the writing dated October 4, 2014 have however not made available on record in the present writ petition as they have not been annexed to the writ petition. She has submitted that, the respondent no. 1 by its writing dated October 22, 2014 has pointed out to the trust that its letter dated October 4, 2014 did not contain the informations of the financial dealings as sought for by the respondent no. 1. Learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 has referred to the First Regulations Governing Academic and Associated Activities of the respondent no. 1. According to her, if a college fails to fulfill any of the conditions provided by the First Regulation of the respondent no. 1 then the respondent no. 1 is entitled to pass such orders including suspension or partial/total withdrawal of affiliation. In the present case, the respondent no. 1 has found the activities of the colleges to warrant a reduction in the student intake. Such an imposition is within the Regulation 13 of the First Regulation of the respondent no. 1. She has referred to the report of the fact finding committee which had led to the executive committee of the respondent no. 1 taking the decisions on June 18, 2015 as impugned herein. She has highlighted the fact that the colleges had terminated the services of 92 teaching and non-teaching staff at colleges without the due process. The teachers-student ratio at the colleges concerned is far below the norms of AICTE. The academic atmosphere of the two colleges stands vitiated by the draconian measures taken by the management. The management had forced the teaching staff to distribute leaflets at public places including railway stations at 4 A.M. on several days. That is not in consonance to development of a conducive academic atmosphere at an educational institution of any repute. Learned Advocate for the AICTE had submitted that, AICTE under the provisions of the All India Council for Teachers Education Act is the only authority to grant sanction of student intake at an educational institution. That is not in consonance to development of a conducive academic atmosphere at an educational institution of any repute. Learned Advocate for the AICTE had submitted that, AICTE under the provisions of the All India Council for Teachers Education Act is the only authority to grant sanction of student intake at an educational institution. The respondent no. 1 does not have the jurisdiction to reduce the sanction strength of student intake. The respondent no. 10 has taken note of the prevailing situation at the two colleges. It has undertaken an independent inquiry in terms of orders passed by the Court in the present writ petition. The respondent No. 10 would also be taking into account the reports of the respondent no. 1 submitted to Court pursuant to the orders of the Court. The respondent no. 10 would also take into account any other reports as may be directed by the Court. The respondent no. 10 would be taking appropriate steps against the two colleges. So far as the Bengal College of Engineering and Technology is concerned the respondent no. 10 has found infrastructural deficiency including faculty deficiencies. So far as the Bengal College of Engineering and Technology for Women is concerned, the respondent no. 10 has found lesser deficiencies than the other college. Learned Advocates for the respondent nos. 8 and 9 did not advance any argument at the final hearing. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. This is the third writ petition at the behest of the petitioners challenging the actions of the respondent no. 1. The two earlier writ petitions have been disposed of. Two colleges, namely, Bengal College of Engineering and Technology (BCET) and Bengal College of Engineering and Technology for Women (BCETW) enjoy affiliation with the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 had been receiving complaints with regard to the functioning of the two colleges. Disputes and differences had arisen between the teaching and non-teaching staff of BCET and its management. On July 31, 2014, 26 teachers of BCET had submitted their resignation. The academic atmosphere at the colleges being vitiated, the respondent no. 1 had sought to intervene to correct the situation. The efforts of the respondent no. 1 to resolve the impasse was not welcomed by the management of the two colleges. On July 31, 2014, 26 teachers of BCET had submitted their resignation. The academic atmosphere at the colleges being vitiated, the respondent no. 1 had sought to intervene to correct the situation. The efforts of the respondent no. 1 to resolve the impasse was not welcomed by the management of the two colleges. The situation had worsened at the colleges with the teachers going on pen down strike. To meet such situation, the management had filed various complaints with the police authorities. The management, thereafter had proceeded to discharge about 30 teachers. The agitations at the college campuses had continued. The management of the two colleges had dismissed further teaching and non-teaching staff. The respondent no. 1 receiving a representation dated August 19, 2014 had called for explanation from the college by a writing dated August 21, 2014. BCET had replied thereto on August 27, 2014. The respondent no. 1 had arranged a meeting between the Principal of BCET and the Vice Chancellor on September 5, 2014. The petitioners had in their first writ petition complained that the Vice Chancellor had acted in a defamatory manner. The respondent no. 1 had issued a letter dated September 11, 2014. The college authorities had replied thereto. The parties had exchanged various correspondence. The attempts by the respondent no.1 to look into the affairs of the colleges have been alleged by the petitioners to be in abuse of power and defamatory. The respondent no. 1 had constituted a fact finding committee to look into the affairs of the two colleges. The constitution of the fact finding committee and the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 1 to constitute such fact finding committee was questioned by the petitioners in their first writ petition being W.P. No. 10692 (W) of 2015. Such writ petition was disposed of by an Order dated June 2, 2015. By such order the Court had noted that the executive council of the respondent no. 1 had constituted a fact finding committee to look into the affairs of the two colleges and that such fact finding committee had submitted its report. The petitioners were allowed to make a representation against the report of the fact finding committee. The executive council of the respondent no. 1 was directed to extend an opportunity of hearing to the authorized representatives of the petitioners. The executive council was allowed to take a decision. The petitioners were allowed to make a representation against the report of the fact finding committee. The executive council of the respondent no. 1 was directed to extend an opportunity of hearing to the authorized representatives of the petitioners. The executive council was allowed to take a decision. All rival claims were kept open. The petitioners had filed a second writ petition seeking quashing of the fact finding report. Such writ petition being W.P. No. 12215(W) of 2015 was disposed of by an Order dated June 17, 2015. The Court noting the Order dated June 17, 2015 passed in W.P. No. 10692(W) of 2015 had dismissed the second writ petition. The executive council of the respondent no. 1 took a decision which was communicated to the petitioners by a writing dated June 22, 2015. The executive committee of the respondent no. 1 had held a meeting on June 18, 2015. The authorized representatives of the colleges were heard by the executive committee. They were present in such meeting. The executive committee noted the functioning of the two colleges. It had noted the concession on the part of the college authorities that the faculty members were deputed to go for canvassing at 4 A.M. in the morning due to the low admission in 2014. Since the faculty members had expressed a dissenting view than the management with regard to such canvassing the services of the faculty members were terminated. The college authorities had justified such termination on the ground that it was so done to restore normalcy to the two colleges. The executive committee had also noted that the college authorities had failed to produce any papers to prove that the new recruitment was in accordance with the required procedure. The executive committee had thereafter proceeded to impose punitive measures in terms of clause (8) read with clause 13 of part 1 of Chapter I of the First Regulation of the respondent no. 1. This decision of the executive committee taken on June 18, 2015 as communicated by the writing dated June 22, 2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition being the third writ petition. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has restricted to challenge to the resolution (b) of the executive committee. The report of the fact finding committee is no longer under challenge. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has restricted to challenge to the resolution (b) of the executive committee. The report of the fact finding committee is no longer under challenge. The challenge to the same has been given up at the final hearing of the writ petition. The respondent no. 1 under the First Regulation is entitled to look into the affairs of the affiliated colleges to find out whether such colleges are adhering to the conditions of affiliation and the rules and regulations of the university. In the present case, on receipt of complaints the respondent no. 1 had constituted a fact finding committee. The constitution of the fact finding committee was assailed at least twice in two different writ petitions by the petitioner. The constitution of the fact finding committee by the respondent no. 1 cannot be said to be beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 1. For the present writ petition neither the authority of the respondent no. 1 to constitute a fact finding committee nor the report of the fact finding committee have been challenged. Such challenges, if any, have been given up at the final hearing of the writ petition. The report of the fact finding committee is detailed. The report brings out the abysmal academic condition at the colleges. The executive committee had considered the report of the fact finding committee. The petitioners have not established that any part or portion of the report of the fact finding committee or the deliberations recorded in the executive committee meeting held on June 18, 2015 to be perverse. The executive committee after consideration of the report has imposed the punitive measures as recorded in the impugned order. A Writ Court is not concerned with the administrative decision per se but with the decision making process. The executive committee of the respondent no. 1 was allowed by the Order dated June 2, 2015 to look into the affairs of the two colleges and to consider the report of the fact finding committee in presence of the authorized representatives of the petitioners. An attempt to have such order modified by way of the second writ petition by the petitioners had failed. The executive committee had proceeded to act in terms of the order dated June 2, 2015 passed in the first writ petition read with the Order dated June 17, 2015 passed in the second writ petition. An attempt to have such order modified by way of the second writ petition by the petitioners had failed. The executive committee had proceeded to act in terms of the order dated June 2, 2015 passed in the first writ petition read with the Order dated June 17, 2015 passed in the second writ petition. The executive committee had come to a particular finding as recorded in its minutes. The executive committee had proceeded to impose three punitive measures. Out of the three punitive measures imposed the petitioner has accepted two of them. The petitioner had filed a suit for defamation against the Vice Chancellor and the Inspector of the colleges of the respondent no. 1 before the learned Court at Barasat. The petitioners had filed three writ petitions challenging the authority of the respondent no. 1 to look into the affairs of the two colleges. The suit for defamation and the present writ petition are abuse of the process of Court. The petitioners have sought to misutilize the process of Court in seeking to assail legitimate actions of the respondent no. 1 in looking into the affairs of the affiliated colleges. The correspondence exchanged between the parties and as placed on record in the present writ petition, with the two earlier writ petitions being annexures to the present writ petition, does not prompt one to find that the respondent no. 1 or any of its officials are guilty of any defamatory statement. In fact, there has been a consistent refusal on the part of the petitioners to give the requisite details of the functioning of the two colleges of the petitioners. In particular, by a letter dated September 11, 2014 the respondent no. 1 had sought for financial details. In response thereto by a letter dated October 4, 2014 the college authorities had sought to provide details which were not in conformity with the requisition made. This fact had been pointed out on behalf of the respondent no. 1 subsequently by its writing dated October 22, 2014. The colleges took no steps to provide such details. The fact scenario depicts that the college authorities had proceeded to appoint faculty members without reference to the respondent no. 1. The college authorities are obliged to have a nominee of the respondent no. 1 in the selection process for the appointment of the faculty. The colleges took no steps to provide such details. The fact scenario depicts that the college authorities had proceeded to appoint faculty members without reference to the respondent no. 1. The college authorities are obliged to have a nominee of the respondent no. 1 in the selection process for the appointment of the faculty. The colleges have arranged their affairs in such a manner that the respondent no. 1 could not send its representative to be present in the selection process of the faculty. The colleges have deliberately ensured such a course of action so as to present a fait accompli to the respondent no. 1 so far as the faculty strength and appointment are concerned. Such purported appointments of faculty will not prevent the respondent no. 1 in considering such appointment as irregular and the respondent no. 1 taking suitable measures against the colleges with regard thereto. During the pendency of the writ petition the Court had passed an order dated March 29, 2016 asking for financial details. The petitioners had preferred an appeal from the Order dated March 29, 2016. The appeal was dismissed by the judgment and order dated April 12, 2016. Even before the Appeal Court, the petitioners had continued with a stand that is wholly unacceptable. In the Order dated April 12, 2016 the Appeal Court has observed as follows:- “At the very outset we find that paragraph 33 of the stay application is not at all happily worded. Mr. Saptansu Basu and Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned senior advocates appearing on behalf of the applicants pray for unconditional apology for the statements made therein. Though we accept such submission we deprecate the practice. Let the said paragraph be treated as expunged from the records.” During the pendency of the appeal a prayer for adjournment of the hearing of the writ petition was made in view of the pendency of the appeal. Such prayer was allowed. Subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the writ petition was taken up for hearing on April 20, 2016. On such date on the prayer of the petitioners they were allowed time to comply with the Order dated March 29, 2016. The petitioners did not submit the requisite details in terms of the Order dated March 29, 2016 despite the extension of time. The set up of the colleges as also their financial dealings have not been disclosed. On such date on the prayer of the petitioners they were allowed time to comply with the Order dated March 29, 2016. The petitioners did not submit the requisite details in terms of the Order dated March 29, 2016 despite the extension of time. The set up of the colleges as also their financial dealings have not been disclosed. An University granting an affiliation to the colleges is entitled to know the set up of the colleges as also its financial dealings. The narration of events establishes the persistent attempts of the petitioners to thwart any scrutiny of the University with regard to the affairs of the two colleges. The present writ petition is one of such attempts by the petitioners. In such circumstances, the present writ petition has to be held to be an abuse of the process of the Court initiated at the instance of the petitioners. Grant of relief in a writ petition is discretionary. The petitioners conduct, inter alia, in not complying with the directions of the university and orders of the Court should not be countenanced. Discretion of the Writ Court ought not to be exercised in favour of such petitioners. The petitioners therefore are not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the writ petition. The issue as to the jurisdiction, if any of the university to reduce the sanctioned intake is kept open to be decided in an appropriate matter. An interim order dated July 2, 2015 was passed in the present writ petition. The executive council of the respondent no. 1 was restrained from giving effect to the resolution adopted on June 18, 2015. This interim order was extended from time to time. The interim order dated July 2, 2015 was modified on February 5, 2016. Since I have found the present writ petition to be an abuse of the process of Court and the petitioners not being entitled to any relief therein, the interim order as modified stands vacated. However, by virtue of the interim order dated July 2, 2015 the colleges have admitted students beyond the reduced sanctioned strength of the student intake as resolved by the executive committee of the respondent no. 1 in its resolution dated June 18, 2015. However, by virtue of the interim order dated July 2, 2015 the colleges have admitted students beyond the reduced sanctioned strength of the student intake as resolved by the executive committee of the respondent no. 1 in its resolution dated June 18, 2015. The interim order dated July 2, 2015 had required the college authorities to make the candidates aware of the pendency of the instant writ petition and the interim order dated July 2, 2015. No student has come forward in the present writ petition. Since I have not interfered with the decision of the executive committee as I have held that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief by way of writ petition, the interim order dated July 2, 2015 stands vacated. The respondent no. 1 will ensure that the students admitted by the colleges beyond the limits prescribed by the executive committee of the respondent no. 1 are accommodated at any other suitable colleges under the respondent no. 1. The colleges will refund all fees and charges taken from such students under every head including for hostel facilities to the students within a fortnight from date. In default, the petitioners shall pay interest at the rate applicable in respect of credit card defaults commencing from the date of receipt of payment from the students until its refund. The conduct of the two colleges is such that the respondent no. 1 would be justified in considering deaffiliation of the two colleges. The respondent no. 1 is at liberty to do so notwithstanding the pendency of the defamation suit. The suit for defamation is an abuse of the process of Court. The defamation suit should not impede the respondent no. 1 and its officials from exercising their powers under the relevant regulations and the Act of the University. The AICTE has undertaken an investigation pursuant to an order of Court. The AICTE will conduct its own investigations under its Act. It will take into account the reports of the University which are part of the present writ petition. It is expected that the AICTE acts expeditiously in relation to the two colleges. The AICTE has undertaken an investigation pursuant to an order of Court. The AICTE will conduct its own investigations under its Act. It will take into account the reports of the University which are part of the present writ petition. It is expected that the AICTE acts expeditiously in relation to the two colleges. The AICTE will not grant any sanction for intake of any students for any academic year to any of the two colleges till such time the issues raised by the university are resolved between the university and the colleges and till such time the defamation suit is pending. It would be open to both the university as well as the AICTE to refer the petitioners to the appropriate authority established under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for the failure of the colleges to provide the financial details as sought for by the university. The university and the AICTE will consider whether the persistent refusal of the management of the two colleges to give the financial details sought for raises reasonable apprehension that management of the two colleges are guilty of money laundering requiring the appropriate authorities to investigate such aspect. If the university or the AICTE finds reasons to arrive at such a finding it would be open to any of them to refer to the authorities under such Act. Although I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners, the directions issued to the respondents are necessary for the interest of the students community and healthier academic atmosphere in the State. With the State allowing private operators in the field of education, it has developed itself to an industry. As in the Jute and Tea industry where the management always cite the plight of the workers to emotionally persuade a Court to be over indulgent, these private operators are citing the plight of the students as their shields and swords to obtain orders from Courts for the benefit of the management. Jute and Tea industries continue to languish notwithstanding the indulgences showed. However, it is the labour component of such industries that languishes, not the management. The directions contained herein are necessary to prevent a repeat of such scenario, if possible. W.P. No. 14161 (W) of 2015 is disposed of. Jute and Tea industries continue to languish notwithstanding the indulgences showed. However, it is the labour component of such industries that languishes, not the management. The directions contained herein are necessary to prevent a repeat of such scenario, if possible. W.P. No. 14161 (W) of 2015 is disposed of. The petitioner will pay costs assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- to the West Bengal Legal Aid Services Authority, Kolkata within a fortnight from date. Later:- The prayer for stay is considered and refused.