ORDER : Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner, Regional College of Management, has challenged the legality of the endorsement dated 17-5-2016 issued by Bangalore University, whereby the University has rejected the petitioner's proposal for affiliation. 2. The brief facts of the case are the that petitioner is a registered Trust in the name and style of Regional College of Management, Bangalore, which is represented by the Management Trustee, who is an IIT graduate from Roorkee, and three other member trustees, who have ventured into the development of education in the country, in general, and in the City of Bengaluru, in particular, by investing huge sums of money to start an institution styled as Regional College of Management, Bangalore. Since the petitioner wanted to establish-a new institution along with courses of management studies in accordance with the guidelines notified by the All India Council for Technical Education ("AICTE" for short), on 12-2-2016, the petitioner submitted its application for affiliation to the Bangalore University, the respondent 1. The petitioner sought affiliation for its new program, namely post-graduation in MBA. Subsequently, on 4-3-2016, the petitioner not only submitted the complete application for seeking affiliation but also submitted a Demand Draft for Rs. 3 Lakhs to the University. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner also sought the approval of its MBA Program from AICTE by filing its application on 18-3-2016. However, the AICTE declined to approve the petitioner's MBA program. Therefore, the petitioner challenged AICTE's decision before this Court by filing a writ petition, namely Writ Petition No. 27296 of 2016. By interim order dated 29-4-2016, this Court directed the AICTE to re-inspect the petitioner's college on 30-4-2016. After re-inspecting the petitioner's college, the AICTE granted its approval for the MBA program to the petitioner. 4. Having received the approval from AICTE, the petitioner waited for the affiliation of its program with the respondent-University. However, by endorsement dated 17-5-2016, the University has rejected the petitioner's application ostensibly on the ground that according to the guidelines issued by the University for affiliation of a new post-graduate course, the college must have a continuous affiliation for five years for its graduate program, or have a permanent affiliation. According to the University, since the petitioner did not have a continuous affiliation of five years for its graduate program, the affiliation for its new post-graduate MBA Program could not be granted. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 5. Mr. According to the University, since the petitioner did not have a continuous affiliation of five years for its graduate program, the affiliation for its new post-graduate MBA Program could not be granted. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 5. Mr. M. Nagaprasanna, the learned Counsel for petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the that power of the Syndicate is defined by Sections 29 and 40 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 ("the Act" for short). Section 29(2)(t) of the Act bestows the power upon the Syndicate to enact, amend or repeal statutes. Chapter-V of the Act deals with "Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules". Section 40 of the Act, covered under Chapter-V of the Act, permits that a statute may provide for conditions under which colleges may be affiliated and such affiliation may be withdrawn. Invoking its power under Section 40 the Bangalore University has formulated "The Revised Statutes pertaining to the Affiliation of Colleges or Institutions". Statutes 34.1 to 34.7 prescribes an elaborate procedure and the conditions for affiliations. However, neither Section 29, nor Section 40 of the Act, nor the Statute empower the Syndicate to prescribe any guidelines for affiliation of the Colleges. Secondly, Section 59 of the Act prescribes an elaborate procedure and lays down the conditions which need to be met for affiliation of a College or for affiliation of a new course. However, Section 59 of the Act does not permit the Syndicate to prescribe any guidelines. Moreover, the conditions laid down by Section 59 of the Act do not prescribe the condition that a College should have continuation of affiliation for its graduate program for a period of five years, before a new post-graduate course can be affiliated to the University. Thirdly, therefore the guidelines prescribed by the Syndicate are without any legal basis. Most importantly, the petitioner's application for affiliation could not have been rejected inter alia on the ground the that guidelines require the petitioner to have five years of continuous affiliation for its graduate program, before its post-graduate program is affiliated to the University. Since the said ground for rejection is based upon a guideline without any legal basis, the impugned endorsement is legally unsustainable. Since the said ground for rejection is based upon a guideline without any legal basis, the impugned endorsement is legally unsustainable. Fourthly, even for the sake of argument if it were accepted the that Syndicate does have the power to prescribe the guidelines, the guidelines could not travel beyond the scope and ambit of the Act and the Statute governing the field of affiliation of a College. Thus, the guidelines cannot impose an onerous condition which is unwarranted by the Act and the Statute. Since the guidelines have imposed a condition of five years of continuous affiliation, as mentioned above, the said condition is clearly illegal. Hence, the said condition could not be the foundation for rejecting the petitioner's application for affiliation. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Brijesh Patil, the learned Counsel for respondent-University, has pleaded that Statute 34.3 clearly stipulates that "every affiliated college shall conform to and be bound by the Laws of the University in force which may be introduced from time to time". Therefore, even the petitioner is bound to conform to the guidelines laid down by the University. Secondly, one of the conditions prescribed by the guidelines is that before a new post-graduated course can be affiliated to the University, the graduate course must have a continuous affiliation for five years. Since the petitioner did not fulfil the said condition, the University was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for affiliation. Hence, the learned Counsel has supported the impugned endorsement. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the law, and examined the impugned endorsement. 8. The moot question before this Court is: "Whether the University has the power to prescribe guidelines for affiliation or not? Secondly, whether the guidelines can impose any condition de hors the Act and Statute or not?" 9. The relevant extract of Section 29 of the Act is as under: "29. Powers of the Syndicate.- (1) The Syndicate shall have the power to manage the affairs of the University in particular to administer the funds and properties of the University. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Syndicate shall have the following powers, namely.- (i) to administer and control the colleges, hostels, libraries, laboratories, museums and other Institutions established or maintained by the University; (j) to make recommendations regarding admission of colleges to affiliation. ...." 10. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Syndicate shall have the following powers, namely.- (i) to administer and control the colleges, hostels, libraries, laboratories, museums and other Institutions established or maintained by the University; (j) to make recommendations regarding admission of colleges to affiliation. ...." 10. Section 29(2)(i) of the Act deals with controlling only those colleges which are either established, or managed by the University. However, as a college seeking affiliation for its new course with the University, the petitioner is neither established, nor managed by the University. For, it has been established by the Trust. But Section 29(2)(i) of the Act does not bestow any power upon the University to lay down any guidelines, with regard to those colleges which are seeking affiliation. 11. Even Section 29(2)(j) of the Act merely deals with the power of the syndicate to make recommendations with regard to admission of colleges to affiliation. Since Section 59(9) of the Act imposes a duty upon the State to consider the report of the inquiry committee, and report of the Academic Council and further, records its opinion on a question, whether request for affiliation should be granted in whole or rejected, and the Syndicate is directed to further forward its recommendations through the Registrar of the University, obviously, Section 29(2)(j) of the Act deals with Section 59(9) of the Act. But even Section 29(2)(j) of the Act does not bestow any power upon the syndicate to prescribe any guidelines. 12. Of course, Section 29(2)(t) of the Act empowers the Syndicate to enact, amend or repeal statutes. Moreover, Section 40 of the Act provides that "subject to, the provisions of this Act, the statutes may provide for all or any of the following matters namely, the conditions under which colleges may be affiliated and such affiliation may be withdrawn". A Co-joint reading of this provision clearly reveals that even Section 29(2) merely bestows the power to enact the Statutes, but does not give the power to prescribe any guidelines. It is only through a statute the that Syndicate can lay down the conditions for affiliation. But, by no stretch of imagination can the Syndicate prescribe guidelines laying down the conditions for its affiliation. Therefore, the guidelines prescribed by the University is without any legal basis. 13. It is only through a statute the that Syndicate can lay down the conditions for affiliation. But, by no stretch of imagination can the Syndicate prescribe guidelines laying down the conditions for its affiliation. Therefore, the guidelines prescribed by the University is without any legal basis. 13. Although neither the Act, nor the Statute bestow the power for prescribing guidelines, even if the University claims that it has a preliminary power to prescribe guidelines for affiliation, even then the guidelines can only supplement and not supplant the Act and the Statute. Thus, under the guise of prescribing a guidelines, the University cannot impose a condition beyond the conditions imposed by the Act and the Statutes. Interestingly, neither the Act nor the Statute 34 of the Revised Statute prescribe the condition that a post-graduate program cannot be affiliated to the University until and unless its graduation program has been in continuous affiliation for five years. Hence, the imposition of such a condition by the guidelines is de hors the Act and the Statute. Therefore, such a condition could not be imposed upon the petitioner. Lastly, since the petitioner's application for affiliation has been rejected only on the ground that its graduate program did not have five years of continuous affiliation with the University, its proposed post-graduate program cannot be affiliated, the basis for rejecting the application is absolutely illegal. 14. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The endorsement dated 17-5-2016 is set aside. The University is directed to grant affiliation to the petitioner for post-graduated course in MBA provided it meets the requirement of the Act and the Statute. The affiliation shall be granted as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.