JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandramenon, J. All these cases are having a common connection, in relation to the right of the Institutions concerned to run "Off Campus Centres" as part of Distant Education Programmes sanctioned by the University even by engaging franchisees; that too, beyond the territory or area of operation of the University within the State, outside the State and beyond the shores of the Country. Some cases have been filed by the Institutions, where as the other cases have been filed by the students concerned. Grievance is common, in so far as such Institutions have been ordered to be closed down, as the sanction given by the University is beyond the power and jurisdiction confined under the relevant enactment and also contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court on the point. 2. Earlier, when the University permitted to run the 'Off Campus Centres', no objection was raised by the UGC in this regard, but for making it clear that it should be subject to relevant provisions of the Statute and also the orders/decisions of the Academic Council/Syndicate. The Government had also made it clear in the year 2004 that the Government did not intend to interfere with the running of such Centres already started and that the University might run such Centres, subject to approval of the competent bodies at the University level and in line with the directions of the University Grants Commission (UGC). However, running of such Centres was sought to be intercepted by some Association of the private college teachers by approaching this Court. Interference was declined by a Division Bench of this Court, observing that the alleged instance of 'commercialisation of education' could be agitated before the appropriate authority or before this Court, if such an instance was properly demonstrated, in the due course. The challenge raised before the Chancellor of the University also came to be repelled and the issue was set at rest, for the time being. 3. Since the basic issue involved in all these cases is almost the same, reference is made to the facts and figures as given in W.A. No. 2257 of 2015; except where it is separately mentioned with reference to the parties and proceedings. 3. Since the basic issue involved in all these cases is almost the same, reference is made to the facts and figures as given in W.A. No. 2257 of 2015; except where it is separately mentioned with reference to the parties and proceedings. Several Universities had decided to conduct Distant Education Programmes (DEP) which was regulated by the Distant Education Council (DEC) of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) constituted under Statute No.28 of the IGNOU Act. Later, the said statute came to be repealed, by virtue of which, the DEC was dissolved and the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India entrusted the matter with the UGC and AICTE to take up the responsibility in running the DECs of the IGNOU as borne by the memorandum dated 16.05.2013 issued by the Govt. of India. 4. As a matter of fact, the MG University had decided to start such Distant Education Programmes through Off Campus Centres within and outside the territory of the State, way back in August 2001. The said decision was sought to be challenged by the All Kerala Private College Teachers Association (Additional respondent No. 3 in W.A. No. 2257/2015) by filing O.P. No. 28403 of 2001. The said Original Petition was considered by a Division Bench of this Court headed by the Chief Justice. It was held that any provision under the MG University Act, prohibiting the University from affiliating the Educational Institutions situated outside the territorial limits prescribed under Section 4 (2) of the Act was not substantiated and as long as consent from the Government and the Vice Chancellor were obtained, even affiliation could be granted to the Institutions outside the territorial limits. It was also observed that the allegation that setting up of the Off Campus Centres would commercialize the field of Education was not properly demonstrated and in such circumstances, interference was declined and the Petition was dismissed. However, it was made clear that, when a situation arose and it was demonstrably brought out that there had been commercialisation of education, the appropriate authorities or else this Court would take notice and do the remedial action. 5. The contentions raised by the appellant in W.A.No. 2257 of 2015 (preferred by the Institution) and W.A.No. 2291 of 2015 (preferred by the students of the said Institution) are almost similar. 5. The contentions raised by the appellant in W.A.No. 2257 of 2015 (preferred by the Institution) and W.A.No. 2291 of 2015 (preferred by the students of the said Institution) are almost similar. The case projected before this Court is that the aforesaid Institution was permitted to be set up by the University and was continuing to admit students as above. After dismissal of the Original Petition filed by the AKPCTA, vide Ext.P6 judgment, though an attempt was made by the said Association to have it intercepted by filing a petition before the Chancellor of the University, seeking to invoke the revisional powers under Section 7 (4) of the MG University Act, the prayer was declined by the Chancellor as per Ext.P7 order dated 13.12.2001, holding that no violation of any provisions of the Act/Statute was brought about. In response to the letter sent by the University seeking for permission in this regard, the UGC, as per Ext.P8 letter dated 29.1.2002, informed the University that it was having no objection in establishing the Off Campus Centres by the University as per the University Act and Statutes, if approved by the Academic Council and the Syndicate of the University. In reply to the letter dated 24.04.2004 sent by the University, in relation to the Off Campus Centres abroad, the Government informed the University, as per Ext.P9 dated 18.05.2004, that the Government did not intend to interfere with running of the Off Campus Centres already started and that the University might run such centres, subject to approval of the competent bodies at the University level and in line with the directions of the University Grants Commission (UGC). It was accordingly, that the Off Campus Centres were established and were being run, admitting students who were desirous of acquiring learning in different disciplines notified in this regard. 6. While so, the DEC of the IGNOU issued Ext.P10 Notification dated 01.11.2012 alerting all concerned, that in the case of State Universities (both Government funded and private), the territorial jurisdiction will be as per their Acts and Statutes, but not beyond the boundaries of their respective States. It was also let known that no University/Institution would be allowed to franchise study centres and that the Universities/Institutions had to operate the study centres themselves. 7. It was also let known that no University/Institution would be allowed to franchise study centres and that the Universities/Institutions had to operate the study centres themselves. 7. In the course of further proceedings, the UGC issued communication dated 28.05.2013 to the Universities, to ensure that no further affiliation/approval be granted to any new centres to open Distance Learning Programmes/Courses, till the Policy regulations were notified by the UGC. This was followed by another communication dated 23.08.2013; produced as Annexure R4(a) along with the affidavit dated 01.03.2016 filed on behalf of the 4th respondent in W.A. No. 2291/15, which is sought to be adopted in W.A. No. 2257/15 as well (as per memo dated 04.03.2016 filed by the Government Pleader). 8. In the meanwhile, the Syndicate of the MG University, as per the meeting held on 17.01.2013, took up the matter as an 'out of agenda item' and decided to start 77 Off Campus centres inside and outside the State and beyond, without obtaining prior permission of the Government. 9. The University, as per Notification dated 31.5.2012 had invited applications for starting new Off Campus Centres under School of Distance Education within and outside the Country. The applications received were processed and as per the proceedings dated 25.07.2012 of the Director, School of Distance Education, a committee consisting of some of the Syndicate members was constituted to inspect the centres. As per the resolution dated 19.09.2012 of the Syndicate, a committee consisting of four Syndicate members was constituted to discuss the issue regarding the starting of new Off Campus Centres with the Government and also to examine the complaints received in this regard. The said committee, however did not approach the Government to discuss the matter and instead, submitted a report, which came to be considered by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 17.01.2013. As a matter of fact, the Convener of the Syndicate Standing Committee on Self-financing Institutions, vide letter dated 12.11.2012, had requested the Government to accord sanction for starting new Off Campus Centres, but it was turned down by the Government as per the communication dated 21.12.2012 informing the position to the University. As a matter of fact, the Convener of the Syndicate Standing Committee on Self-financing Institutions, vide letter dated 12.11.2012, had requested the Government to accord sanction for starting new Off Campus Centres, but it was turned down by the Government as per the communication dated 21.12.2012 informing the position to the University. It was without any regard to the sanction denied by the Government and it was ignoring the dissent of the Government nominee recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 17.01.2013, that the Syndicate of the University passed the resolution on the 'out of agenda item', sanctioning 77 new Off Campus Centres. 10. On coming across the course and proceedings pursued by the Syndicate (contrary to the rejection of the proposal as per the orders of the Government), the said resolution was sought to be intercepted by invoking the powers under Section 7(4) of the MG University Act and necessary proceedings were filed in this regard before the Chancellor. In the course of further proceedings, the UGC, with reference to the earlier proceedings/letters dated 21.04.2014 and 16.04.2009, required M.G. University as per Ext.P11 dated 08.04.2014 to close down all the Off Campus Centres outside the State. This was stated as issued in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court on the point, as per the decision reported in Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and others [2005 (5) SCC 420]. The University was also required not to admit any students in the programmes offered through distant mode, for the year 2014-15. The said proceedings issued by the UGC came to be challenged by the aggrieved parties by filing writ petitions, including W.P.(C.) No. 27490/14. The above writ petition and connected cases were considered and dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court as per Ext.P12 judgment dated 13.02.2015, holding that no relief was liable to be granted in view of the dictum rendered by the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal (supra) Rai University v. State of Chhattisgarh [ (2005) 7 SCC 330 ] Kurmanchal Institute of Degree and Diploma and others v. Chancellor, MJP Rohilkhand University and others [ (2007) 6 SCC 35 ] and also by virtue of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Godwin Samraj D.P. (Dr.) and anr. v. Dr. M. Abdul Salam and others. v. Dr. M. Abdul Salam and others. [ (2015) 2 KHC 551 ] (with regard to the affairs of the Calicut University). This was sought to be challenged by filing appeals before a Division Bench of this Court. Interference was declined and the appeals were dismissed as per Ext. P13 judgment dated 23.03.2015. Though the aggrieved parties took up the matter further, by filing an SLP before the Apex Court, it did not turn to be fruitful, as the SLP was dismissed as per Ext. R1 (e) order dated 22.4.2015. 11. On finalisation of the issue as above, the matter was considered by the Chancellor, who directed the University, as per proceedings dated 08.05.2015, to give effect to the said verdicts and to close down all the Off Campus Centres of the University functioning outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University as defined under the Act. This led to Ext.P14 order dated 08.05.2015 (ie. the same day) issued by the University, with copies to the Coordinators of all the Off Campus Centres, to close down the Off Campus Centres situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University. The said proceedings came to be challenged by the petitioners in different writ petitions including W.P.(C.) No. 16565/15 filed by the appellant herein. 12. Almost at the same time, pursuant to the complaint filed by the Government before the Chancellor, to invoke the power under Section 7(4) of the Act and to rescind the resolution taken by the Syndicate of the University on 17.01.2013 sanctioning to start 77 new Off Campus Centres, notice was issued to the University and others concerned. After considering the sequence of events and the materials on record, the Chancellor passed 'Annexure A' order dated 17.06.2015, annulling the decision of the Syndicate of the University taken in the meeting held on 17.01.2013 sanctioning 77 Off Campus Centres, holding that the said Off Campus Centres were functioning without sanction of the Government and hence were not liable to be permitted to be continued. Some of the aggrieved parties sought to challenge the decision of the Chancellor by filing W.P.(C.) No. 15791/15 and connected cases. The writ petitions were segregated as two groups and separate judgments were passed on the same day (ie. on 11.09.2015), declining interference in both the groups. Some of the aggrieved parties sought to challenge the decision of the Chancellor by filing W.P.(C.) No. 15791/15 and connected cases. The writ petitions were segregated as two groups and separate judgments were passed on the same day (ie. on 11.09.2015), declining interference in both the groups. The writ petitions were dismissed accordingly, which led to the appeals filed before this Court; both by the Institution concerned and the Students pursuing their studies. Meanwhile, several other cases also came to be filed before this Court and taking note of the pendency of the writ appeals, the said writ petitions were ordered to be listed/tagged along with the appeals. It is accordingly, that all these matters have been taken up and dealt with together. 13. Heard Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A. Nos. 2257/15 and 2291/15 [arising from W.P.(C.) No. 16565/15 & W.P.(C.) No. 16732/15 respectively]; Mr. T.K. Koshy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Institution in W.A.No. 2377/15 (arising from W.P.(C.) No. 19274/15), Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/Institutions in W.P.(C.) Nos. 33024/15 and 31372/15, Mr. Gopal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/students in W.P.(C.) No.32228/15, Mr. M.R. Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/students in W.P.(C.) No.29815/15 and the Institution in W.P.(C.) No. 34035/15, Mr. E.K. Nandakumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.2324/2015 (arising from W.P.(C.) No.16732/15) Mr. Johnson Manayani, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/Institutions in W.A. No. 2375/15 (arising from W.P.(C.) No.15791/15) and W.A. No. 2314/15 (arising from W.P.(C.) No.19339/15), Mr. M.M. Monayi, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/student in W.A. No. 2376/15 (arising from W.P.(C.) No.19244/15), Mr. Parthasarathy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/students in W.P.(C.) No. 35008/15, Mr. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/Institution in W.P.(C.) No. 32965/15, Mr. Ashok Cheriyan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the MG University, Mr. Jaju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Chancellor of the University and Sri. S.U. Nazar, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State/Department, besides Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the UGC; besides others concerned, at length. 14. The crux of the submissions made across the Bar from the part of the appellants/writ petitioners is that the judgments rendered by this Court by way of Exts. S.U. Nazar, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State/Department, besides Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the UGC; besides others concerned, at length. 14. The crux of the submissions made across the Bar from the part of the appellants/writ petitioners is that the judgments rendered by this Court by way of Exts. P12/P13 or the order filed by the Chancellor on 08.05.2015 and Annexure A order dated 17.06.2015 are not at all attracted to the case on hand. Some of the appellants/petitioners contend that their Institutions were permitted to be set up more than a decade ago, that too based on the "no-objection"-expressed from the part of the UGC (as borne out from Ext.P8), the non interference declared by the Government (vide Ext.P4) with regard to the Institutions already started [by virtue of Ext.P6 judgment passed by this Court and Ext.P7 order passed by the Chancellor in the year 2001] as put forth by Mr.Deepu Thankan, the learned Counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos. 2257/15 and 2291/15. 15. It is pointed out that the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Prof.Yashpal (supra) only prohibits the starting/running of the Off Campus Centres beyond the boundaries of the State and that the Institutions run 'within the State' was not a subject matter of consideration in the said case. It is stated that there was no complaint whatsoever, with regard to the Institutions, which were running the Off Campus Centres set up earlier. Dispute was raised for the first time only in the year 2013, when the Syndicate of the University passed a resolution on 17.01.2013 granting sanction to set up 77 new Institutions, which alone was sought to be challenged by the Government by filing petition before the Chancellor, invoking the power under Section 7(4) of the Act. This being the position, it is contended that, Annexure A order dated 17.06.2015 can never have any application to the Institutions which were already set up and running as per the proceedings finalized earlier. It is also pointed out that the Government, having expressed 'no-objection' in running the said Institutions (expressing that the Government did not want to interfere with the Institutions already set up, as borne out from Ext.P9 dated 18.05.2005), it cannot be said that such Institutions were being run without any approval of the Government. 16. Mr. It is also pointed out that the Government, having expressed 'no-objection' in running the said Institutions (expressing that the Government did not want to interfere with the Institutions already set up, as borne out from Ext.P9 dated 18.05.2005), it cannot be said that such Institutions were being run without any approval of the Government. 16. Mr. Kurian George Kannanthanam, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner/Institution in W.P.(C.)No.31372/15 submits that, though the said Institution was started originally in Thrissur (outside the territory of the University), it got shifted to Ernakulam in the year 2005, pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 25.08.2005 issued by the University and hence it is now well within the area of jurisdiction of the University. In the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C.)No.31024/15, some are within the territorial limits of the University, some are outside the said area, but within the State and some Institutions are abroad as well. It is stated that, for starting such centres, no approval of the Government is necessary. The order passed by the Chancellor on 08.05.2015 has not been referred to in Ext.P15 dated 09.07.2015, wherein the reason for interference is stated as want of sanction of the Government. Sanction of the Government was not the subject matter of consideration before this Court or the Supreme Court and hence the issue is stated as not covered and it required detailed deliberation by this Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants adopts similar contentions/submissions, to the extent they are applicable to their case. It is added that there is absolutely no financial assistance from the part of the Government and that out of the total fees collected, only 50% comes to the Institution, which has to run the show providing all the infrastructure and paying salary to the Teachers and Staff; whereas the remaining 50% goes to the University. It is also contended that, absence of approval from the Government is only a curable defect and that there is no rationale in ordering all the Institutions to be closed down, as now ordered by the University, after having entered into an 'MOU' to run the Off Campus Centres. The serious prejudice and hardship resulted to the students, who were at no fault, is also projected as an issue of considerable magnitude. 17. The serious prejudice and hardship resulted to the students, who were at no fault, is also projected as an issue of considerable magnitude. 17. It is brought to the notice of this Court that an interim order was passed in the pending proceedings, whereby the students undergoing various courses, have been permitted to continue their studies for the time being. At the same time, no interference was made with regard to the ban on fresh admissions ordered to be stopped from the year 2014-15 and the said position continues. 18. Mushrooming of Off Campus Centres, sanctioned by the State/University without even meeting the minimum requirements as to infrastructure or such other facilities, involving huge extent of 'Commercialisation of Education', detrimental to the rights and interests of the student community at large, was sought to be projected before the Apex Court by Prof. Yashpal, who is an eminent Scientist and former Chairman of the UGC by way of a 'Public Interest Litigation' filed as Writ Petition No. 19/2004 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. As per the disputed provisions of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshethra Vishwavidhyalaya (Sthapana aur Vinyaman) Adhiniyam 2002, the State was authorised to establish various Universities by issuing Notification in this regard, as per Section 5 of the Act. By virtue of Section 6, such Universities could permit any College or other Institution, to be affiliated or to set up more than one campus, with the prior approval of the State Government. 19. According to the petitioner, after the commencement of the Act, the State Government had been simply issuing Notifications in the Gazette establishing Universities in an indiscriminate and mechanical manner, without having the slightest regard to the availability of any infrastructure, teaching faculty or their financial resources. As many as 112' Universities were established in a short span of about 'one year' and many of them were not having even the minimum infrastructure/building/classrooms to run the show. The guidelines issued by the UGC to have the courses started and for issuance of the Degrees were thrown to wind. Various Degrees/Post Graduate Degrees bearing cosmetic labels were being advertised by the Institutions attracting students, thus undermining the imparting of quality education. No steps for verification or remedial measures were being resorted to by the State Government. The guidelines issued by the UGC to have the courses started and for issuance of the Degrees were thrown to wind. Various Degrees/Post Graduate Degrees bearing cosmetic labels were being advertised by the Institutions attracting students, thus undermining the imparting of quality education. No steps for verification or remedial measures were being resorted to by the State Government. As observed by the Apex Court, the Private Universities were offering 'unheard of' Courses and Degrees, which was totally alien to the schedule to the UGC Act, in turn misleading the student community at large. This was sought to be interfered by the Apex Court, also seeking to declare Section 5 and 6 of the impugned Act as ultra vires to the Constitution of India. 20. After detailed deliberation on the issue, the Apex Court allowed the Writ Petition, whereby Section 5 and 6 of the impugned Act were declared as ultra vires and were struck down. The operative portion of the said verdict, as contained in para 65, is extracted below : "65. In view of the discussions made above, Writ petition (C) No.19 of 2004 (Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh) and Writ Petition (C) No.565 of 2003 (Gopalji Agarwal v. Union of India) are allowed and provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidhyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 are declared to be ultra vires and are struck down. As a consequence of such declaration, all notifications issued by the State Government in the gazette in the purported exercise of power under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act notifying the universities (including Respondents 3 to 94) are quashed and such universities shall cease to exist. If any institutions have been established by such universities, steps may be taken for their affiliation to already existing State universities in accordance with the direction contained in para 64 above. Parties would be at liberty to approach the High Court if any dispute arises in implementation of this direction. All writ petitions, civil appeals and transferred cases filed by the private universities are dismissed." The crux of the above verdict/relevant portion has already been extracted by a learned Judge of this Court in Ext.P12 verdict passed in W.P(C.) No. 27490/14 and connected cases, while dismissing the petitions. 21. As obvious from Ext. All writ petitions, civil appeals and transferred cases filed by the private universities are dismissed." The crux of the above verdict/relevant portion has already been extracted by a learned Judge of this Court in Ext.P12 verdict passed in W.P(C.) No. 27490/14 and connected cases, while dismissing the petitions. 21. As obvious from Ext. P12 (forming part of W.A.No.2257/15), the specific question considered by the learned Judge was whether a University constituted by the State Legislature has the authority to commence and continue Off Campus Centres beyond the shores of the country. Reliance was sought to be placed on Ext. P6 verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The learned Single Judge observed that no positive declaration was made by the Division Bench in the said verdict, enabling the University to set up Off Campus Centres even beyond its territory under the MG University Act. The territorial jurisdiction of the University as defined under Section 4 of the Act was also referred to in Paragraph 20 of the verdict. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Ext.P12, the Division Bench of this Court did not give any positive declaration in Ext. P6 judgment, as to any enabling provision conferring power upon the University, to start Off Campus Centres beyond its territorial limits. On the other hand, the legal position declared by the Apex Court in Yashpal's case (supra) and the subsequent one in Rai University (supra) and a still further one in Kurmanchal Institute (supra) was specifically taken note of and a finding was rendered to the effect that, such Centres could be started by the University, only if any enabling provision was there, which was conspicuously absent in the Statute. Reliance was also placed on the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.(C.) No. 9779/04 Godwin Samraj D.P. (Dr.) and Anr. v. Dr. M. Abdul Salam and Others. [ 2015 (2) KHC 551 ]. The challenge raised against Ext.P12 judgment was repelled by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext. P13 and it has become final, by virtue of the interference declined by the Apex Court as per Annexure R1(e), while dismissing the SLP preferred therefrom. 22. v. Dr. M. Abdul Salam and Others. [ 2015 (2) KHC 551 ]. The challenge raised against Ext.P12 judgment was repelled by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext. P13 and it has become final, by virtue of the interference declined by the Apex Court as per Annexure R1(e), while dismissing the SLP preferred therefrom. 22. In view of the declaration of law by the Apex Court and also by this Court, the position as on date is that, no Off Campus Centres can be started outside the State or even beyond the territorial limits of the University, unless an enabling provision is there in the Statute. In so far as the MG University is concerned, the territorial jurisdiction is prescribed under Section 4 of the Act, which is reproduced below: "(4) Territorial limits (1) The jurisdiction of the University shall extend to the Kottayam, Ernakulam, and Idukki revenue districts, the Kuttanad taluk of the Alleppey revenue district and the Kozhencherry, Mallappally, Thiruvalla and Ranni taluks of the Pathanamthitta revenue districts of the State. (2) No education institutions constituted beyond the territorial limits of the University shall, save with the sanction of the Chancellor and the Government, be affiliated to the University and no educational institution within the territorial limits of the University shall, save with the sanction of the Chancellor and the Government, seek or continue affiliation to any other University established by law." 23. The field of DEP is now taken over by the UGC, who have issued strict directions to all the Universities, vide proceedings No.F.No DEB/QMC/2013 dated 23.08.2013, copy of which has been produced as Annexure R4(a) in W.A. No.2257/15. The contents of the said Notification are relevant and hence it is reproduced below: "1. The University Grants Commissions has from time to time been notifying its policy on territorial jurisdiction and offering of programmes through off Campuses/Centres/Study Centres by Universities/Institutions. The contents of the said Notification are relevant and hence it is reproduced below: "1. The University Grants Commissions has from time to time been notifying its policy on territorial jurisdiction and offering of programmes through off Campuses/Centres/Study Centres by Universities/Institutions. Recently vide its Public Notice No. F 27-1/2012(CPP-II) dated 27th June 2013 (copy enclosed), UGC has notified its policy on territorial jurisdiction to be followed by all Universities/Institutions including Open and Distance Learning Institutions, which is as under: (i) a Central or State Government University can conduct courses on its own departments, its constituent colleges and/or through its affiliated colleges; (ii) a University established or incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in no case beyond the territory of the state of its location. (iii) the private universities and deemed universities cannot affiliate any college or institution for conducting courses leading to award of its diplomas, degrees or other qualifications. (iv) no University, whether central, state, private or deemed, can offer its programmes through franchising arrangement with private coaching institutions even for the purpose of conducting courses through distance mode. (v) all Universities shall award only such degrees as are specified by the UGC and published in the official gazette. (vi) the Universities shall conduct their first degrees and Master's degree programmes in accordance with the regulations notified by the UGC in this regard. 2. The UGC has also issued regulations relating to Private Universities and deemed Universities which should be strictly followed by the concerned University. A copy of these regulations are hosted on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in. 3. However it has come to the UGC that some Universities are offering programmes through distance mode without approval of UGC/erstwhile DEC and several Universities/Institutions have opened their Study centres in violation of the policy of UGC and erstwhile DEC on territorial jurisdiction. Some institutions are giving misleading advertisements in newspapers and other public media that the programmes offered by these institutions are approved by the UGC. The same is not permissible by UGC and should be immediately stopped. 4. Therefore, all Universities/Institutions are hereby requested to offer only those programmes which are approved by UGC/erstwhile DEC and follow the policy of UGC on territorial jurisdiction, Study centres, and non-franchising of Study centres for offering programmes through distance mode. The same is not permissible by UGC and should be immediately stopped. 4. Therefore, all Universities/Institutions are hereby requested to offer only those programmes which are approved by UGC/erstwhile DEC and follow the policy of UGC on territorial jurisdiction, Study centres, and non-franchising of Study centres for offering programmes through distance mode. The activities at the Study centre such as admission, examination, conduct of Personal Conduct Programmes (PCPs) etc. should be operated by the concerned University. Study centres cannot conduct examinations in their own nor can they award degree/diploma etc. No sub-letting of study centres should be allowed and any such centre opened by any University/institution would be in violation of the UGC policy. 5. The UGC/erstwhile DEC has not given approval to any University for opening of ODL study centres outside India. Thus, any such centre opened by any University must be immediately closed. Universities/Institutions are also requested to close down any Study centre opened in violation of above policy. Also any programme not recognised by the UGC/erstwhile DEC and wherever necessary by other Apex regulatory bodies should not be offered through distance mode. This issues with the approval of the competent authority." It remains a fact that the said notification of the UGC has not been subjected to challenge by any of the petitioners/appellants and as such the petitioners/appellants are not entitled to get any relief; in so far as it still holds the field. 24. With regard to the 'prior approval' of the Government, the power of the Syndicate is only to recommend, as to the necessity to sanction commencement of DEP with reference to a 'particular locality' which is evident from Section 23 (xxxiii) of the M.G. University Act, 1985, as extracted below: "(xxxiii) to recommend to Government the recognition of any local area within the University area as a University Centre." On getting the recommendation, it is for the Government to grant sanction, based on the need of the locality and such 'decision making power' cannot be assumed by the Syndicate of the University, to have passed the resolution on 17.01.2013, which hence was sought to be intercepted by the Government, by filing a petition before the Chancellor seeking to invoke the revisional powers under Section 7 (4) of the Act. Proposal moved by the University, as per the letter dated 01.11.12, had already been considered by the Government and it was rejected then and there, as per the communication issued in the same month. Neither the University, nor the Institutions/Students has/have sought to challenge the order of rejection issued by the Government. In so far as the said order/proceeding of the Government rejecting the sanction stands, Annexure -A order dated 17.06.2015 passed by the Chancellor is not liable to be intercepted on any ground. All the relevant facts and figures have been considered and analysed meticulously by the Chancellor. As such, 'Annexure A' order passed by the Chancellor is well within the four walls of law and is not assailable under any circumstances. 25. Coming to the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Chancellor and Ext.P14 order issued by the University to close down all the Institutions, in compliance with the verdict passed by this Court with the Single Bench and Division Bench for want of 'Government approval', do not suffer from any infirmity. The said proceedings of the Chancellor/University are of course, in tune with the mandate issued by the UGC in this regard, as borne out from R4(a) dated 23.08.2013, clearly pointing out that the Distance Education Centre have to be confined to the territorial jurisdiction of the University and never beyond. In so far as the proceedings issued by the UGC in the year 2013, prescribing strict norms as to the necessity to provide 'quality education' and to see that no commercialisation of Education is resulted, have not been subjected to challenge and further since no 'approval' given by the State of Kerala is produced in any of these cases [but for the Ext.P9 communication issued by the Government on 18.05.2004 stating that the Government did not want to interfere with the running of the Institutions already set up, subject to approval of the competent bodies at the University level and in line with the directions of the UGC], it goes without saying, that the University as well as the petitioners/appellants are bound by the directions issued by the UGC. 26. As pointed out by Mr. Jaju Babu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Chancellor, 79 Institutions are situated outside the territory of the MG University. In fact, 66 Institutions are outside the 'University area', defined under Section 4 of the MG University Act. 26. As pointed out by Mr. Jaju Babu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Chancellor, 79 Institutions are situated outside the territory of the MG University. In fact, 66 Institutions are outside the 'University area', defined under Section 4 of the MG University Act. Seven Institutions are outside the State; while six Institutions are situated abroad. Out of the 66 Institutions situated outside the 'University area', 14 Institutions were set up prior to 2013. The remaining 52 Institutions were started pursuant to the resolution taken by the Syndicate on 17.01.2013 and the consequential proceedings of the University. 52 Institutions were beyond the limits, while 25 Institutions were within limits. Since all these Institutions were set up without approval of the Government, these Institutions are liable to be closed down. This is more so, since the power of the Syndicate under Section 23 (xxxiii) of the Act is only to make 'recommendation' as to the 'need of the area', where the Institution is proposed to be set up and the power to take 'decision' stands vested only with the Government and nobody else. As a matter of fact, the proposal submitted by the University in this regard was considered and rejected by the Government as per the communication issued on 21.12.2012, which was totally ignored by the Syndicate who passed the resolution on 17.02.2013, as an "out of agenda item", without any regard to the dissent expressed by the nominee of the Government. 27. The Chancellor had, in fact, sought for clarification as to the 'approval', if any, granted by the Government, as evident from para 4 and 30 of Annexure A order. The Government had never given any 'approval', either at the time of setting up of the Institutions in 2001 or in 2005 or even in 2013. It was in the said circumstances, that the matter was considered by the Chancellor, also in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in 2007 (6) SCC 35 (cited supra) and other relevant decisions, while passing the impugned orders. 28. This Court does not find any merit in any of the appeals/writ petitions and they are dismissed accordingly. 28. This Court does not find any merit in any of the appeals/writ petitions and they are dismissed accordingly. However, we find it fit, just and proper to make the limited benefit granted by the learned Single Judge absolute, enabling the students who got admitted to various courses upto the academic year concerned, to complete their studies and get the Degrees/Certificates from the University, on coming out successful in the Examinations conducted by the University. It will be for the respondent University to take all necessary steps in this regard.