JUDGMENT : 1. The above writ petitions are materially connected in respect of non-consideration of applications seeking affiliation to start new courses and a new College respectively. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petitions are as follows: 2. In W.P.(C) No.18336 of 2017, petitioner College sought for establishment of a new Self Financing Arts and Science College, viz., M.G.M. College of Arts & Science, Kadinamkulam, Thiruvananthapuram. As per consent letter dated 22.05.2015, consent was granted to proceed with the establishment of a new Self Financing Arts and Science College. As per the stipulations contained in the said letter of consent viz., Ext.P1, it is stated that the letter of consent shall not entitle the institution to make admissions, and that as per the prescribed Rules, admissions shall be made only after provisional affiliation as per Statute 12 of Chapter 24 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977. As per Ext.P1(a) dated 27.06.2015, administrative sanction was accorded by the State Government with certain conditions. Thereafter, petitioner submitted application to start additional courses before the 1st respondent. Accordingly, Ext.P2 consent was granted on 07.07.2016 to proceed with starting new Self Financing courses viz., BBA, B.Com. Elective Computer Application and B.Sc. Computer Science, during the academic year 2016-17, however, subject to certain conditions. 3. Thereafter, the College submitted Ext.P3 letter dated 08.07.2016, requesting to accord administrative sanction for starting the new courses for the academic year 2015-16. Thereafter, the Government have issued an order dated 28.08.2016, declaring its policy creating certain restrictions with respect to approval of new courses and Colleges in the Self Financing and Unaided Sector. The said order was challenged before this Court by the petitioner and others, and secured Ext.P5 judgment, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court held the said Government Order unconstitutional, and directed to re-consider all the applications submitted by the respective Colleges. However, as per Ext.P6 dated 13.02.2017, the University has decided that requests for new courses need not be considered during 2016-17, as the inspection reports with respect to new courses did not recommend to grant approval since the first semester classes were almost over. 4. However, as per Ext.P6 dated 13.02.2017, the University has decided that requests for new courses need not be considered during 2016-17, as the inspection reports with respect to new courses did not recommend to grant approval since the first semester classes were almost over. 4. Thereupon, petitioner College has submitted a letter dated 19.05.2017, conveying that it is the time to start admission procedure for the new academic year 2017-18, and therefore, considering the judgment of this Court referred to supra, affiliation may be granted at the earliest for the courses for which the letter of consent was issued by the 1st respondent University. According to the petitioner, in spite of all these earnest efforts, 1st respondent University has not taken any steps to finalize the issue. 5. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18443 of 2017, who is the Chairman of an educational agency, viz., Travancore Educational & Charitable Society, propose to start a Self Financing Arts & Science College. Petitioner applied for affiliation to the University. The University accordingly conducted inspection and recommended the matter to the Government. However, neither the Government nor the University did take any action to attain finality to the application submitted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this Court has passed Ext.P6 interim order dated 08.08.2016 in W.P.(C) No.24872 of 2016, directing the 1st respondent University to issue an order of affiliation, following Ext.P3 for the course mentioned therein, subject to the result of the writ petition. But the same was not granted. 6. Matters being so, as referred to in the other writ petition, Government issued an order declaring its policy, creating certain embargo with respect to the grant of affiliation to new courses, and certain restrictions for starting of new courses in Unaided and Self Financing sector. It was the said order that was under challenge as specified above, and this Court declared the order of the State Government as unconstitutional, and appropriate directions were issued. According to the petitioner, thereafter petitioner has submitted applications requesting the University to grant affiliation since the college has completed all the necessary requisites and provided all infrastructural facilities in accordance with the stipulations contained in the letter of consent, and the parameters and provisions provided under the University Statutes, Rules and other laws. The details were forwarded, evident from Ext.P10 dated 16.02.2017. The details were forwarded, evident from Ext.P10 dated 16.02.2017. However, in spite of the same, respondent University did not take any steps to finalize the proceedings. These are the background facts projected by the petitioners in the writ petitions. 7. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18443 of 2017 has filed a Commission application in order to ascertain the exact position with respect to the building and other infrastructure provided by the petitioner college. Accordingly, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner has submitted a report dated 12.06.2017, apart from an interim report. Several photographs of the building and other infrastructural facilities provided are produced along with the Commission report, which shows that, apparently the construction of the building is complete and the compound is kept clean and tidy. Class rooms are seen provided, necessary comfort facilities are also provided evident from the photographs. It is true, certain constructions are yet to be completed, as is evident from the last photograph contained at page 12 of the Commission Report. But, in my considered opinion, they are only minor aspects which can be completed by the college authorities without any difficulty. 8. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18443 of 2017 and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18336 of 2017, learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the University. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioners. 9. Even though Government have issued an order declaring its policy, as per its order dated 22.08.2016, creating certain embargo in starting new Colleges in Self Financing and Unaided sector, the same was quashed by this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment, declaring that the said Government Order as unconstitutional. It is pointed out that an appeal is pending before this Court against Ext.P5 judgment. Ext.P5 judgment makes it clear that the 1st respondent University is the authority which is to take an ultimate decision in an application for affiliation of new Colleges and new courses which are proposed to be started. The respondent University has no case that suitable applications are not filed by the respective Colleges. It is also seen that a letter of consent is issued by the University, enabling the petitioners to proceed with the construction and other activities to provide necessary infrastructure facilities so as to commence the courses. The respondent University has no case that suitable applications are not filed by the respective Colleges. It is also seen that a letter of consent is issued by the University, enabling the petitioners to proceed with the construction and other activities to provide necessary infrastructure facilities so as to commence the courses. According to the petitioners, in every sense, and in letter and spirit, the stipulations are carried out by the petitioners and the infrastructure facilities are absolutely in terms of the stipulations as well as in terms of the University Statutes, Rules and other laws, and therefore, the attitude of the University by unnecessarily protracting the proceedings cannot be legally sustained, and therefore, appropriate directions may be issued to finalize the proceedings in accordance with law. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that what is given by the University is only a letter of consent to proceed with the construction activities. It is true, the applications once lodged will be valid for the next succeeding year also, and therefore, the applications submitted by the petitioners are also valid for the purpose of the academic year 2017-18 also. It is also stated that requisite application fee is also remitted by the petitioners in accordance with the decision made by the Syndicate. Learned Standing Counsel has invited my attention to the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 and specifically to the procedures that are to be undertaken on receipt of an application. The Syndicate is vested with powers as per Statutes 6, 7 and 8 to call for any details from the management, conduct local enquiry, and then grant affiliation as per Statute 9. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the consideration of application is not an empty formality. Therefore, even if a consent is issued to proceed with the construction and other activities, before grant of affiliation, an elaborate procedure is to be undertaken by the Syndicate of the University. Therefore, reasonable time is required for the University to attain finality to the proceedings. 11. Therefore, even if a consent is issued to proceed with the construction and other activities, before grant of affiliation, an elaborate procedure is to be undertaken by the Syndicate of the University. Therefore, reasonable time is required for the University to attain finality to the proceedings. 11. After evaluating the respective submissions made across the Bar and appreciating the provisions of the Statutes, one thing that has come to my immediate attention is the stipulations contained under Statute 6 of Chapter 24, which states that all the applications seeking affiliation shall be considered by the Syndicate not later than 31st December preceding the academic year during which the colleges or courses are proposed to be started. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the University to ensure that the stipulation contained under Statute 6 specified above is scrupulously followed. Apparently, the period so provided imperatively under Statute 6 is over. There is no case for the University that the Syndicate of the University has conducted the inspection, local enquiry and other obligations that are to be discharged by it, in order to provide affiliation to the petitioner colleges. Therefore, even if belated, the University is to take steps on a war-footing basis to consider the applications to start new courses and the new college during the academic year 2017-18 itself. 12. In my considered opinion, if there are sufficient qualified students in accordance with the stipulations of the University Statutes, Act and Rules entitled to secure admissions for various courses, I do not find any reason for the University to restrain itself from granting affiliation to new colleges or new courses, if such management is ready and willing to provide necessary infrastructure for starting the college or new courses. There is no doubt that the University need not show any laxity or relaxation with respect to the infrastructure and other facilities to be provided by the colleges. But, if any institution, Trust or other organizations or individuals come forward, expressing their intention to start colleges/courses with all infrastructural facilities, in my considered opinion, the University should welcome the said approach and in order to provide maximum admission to students for various courses, in accordance with the Rules and other provisions of law. 13. But, if any institution, Trust or other organizations or individuals come forward, expressing their intention to start colleges/courses with all infrastructural facilities, in my considered opinion, the University should welcome the said approach and in order to provide maximum admission to students for various courses, in accordance with the Rules and other provisions of law. 13. Taking note of the factual situations and reckoning the law involved in the subject matter, I have no hesitation to direct the 1st respondent University to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners for the respective affiliations, at the earliest possible, and at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Every endeavour shall be made by the University to include these colleges in the Centralized Allotment Process available, for providing admission for the ensuing academic year 2017-18. The writ petitions are allowed as above.