JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. 1. In issue in these writ petitions are the validity of the two orders issued by the Admission Supervisory Committee ('ASC' in short) constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institution (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006 [herein after referred to as the 'Act']. 2. The sole reason why the ASC has rejected the admissions of the petitioners to the Dental Courses, in these cases is because they suspected and finally concluded that the applications of the petitioners were not made online to the colleges in question. 3. We are proposing to consider these two writ petitions together and to dispose of them jointly since the contentions raised, grounds urged and the relief’s sought are entwined and intrinsically connected to each other, and for goods reason because the facts presented are also essentially the same. 4. We have heard Mr. George Poonthottam and Mr. Roshen D. Alexander, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. D. Sreekumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University of Health Sciences; Smt. Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing Counsel for the ASC and Mr. T.B. Hood, the learned counsel for the Colleges. 5. The two colleges involved in these cases are the Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre and Kannur Dental College. 6. The controversy in these cases relate to the admissions to the BDS Course for the year 2016-17. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 22861 of 2017 are students who have obtained admissions in the Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre; while the petitioners in W.P(C)No.22863 of 2017 are the students who have obtained admissions in the Kannur Dental College. As we already said above, the assertions and the contentions of the petitioners in these two cases are more or less similar, save a minor variation. This is that while the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.22861 of 2017 have, through their pleadings, asserted unequivocally that they have all applied online to the college in question; the petitioners in W.P(C) 22863 OF 2017 say that five among them had applied online, while the others had gone to the college and that the College had offered them to upload their applications online. Apart from this minor variation that we have seen , the factual assertions of the petitioners in both these cases are that they had uploaded their applications online, some on their own and the others with the assistance of the college. 7. We notice from the records available that the colleges in question has been allotted 100 seats each to the BDS course for the year 2016-17. Both of these colleges had entered into a seat sharing arrangement with the Government of Kerala and they have produced the relevant Government Orders on record evidencing this. Therefore, both these colleges had 50 seats to be filled up under the Management quota and NRI quota; while the balance 50 seats were to be filled up under the aegis of the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations. The colleges are ad idem that even though they had 50 seats each at their disposal, they did not obtain sufficient number of applications from candidates, thereby constraining them to fill up only 32 seats each and to surrender the balance of 18 seats each to the Government under the mandate of the applicable regulations. 8. The Colleges also say that they had got their respective prospectus approved by the ASC and the orders of the ASC granting such approval have also been placed on record as Ext.P3 in both these cases. The approved prospectus of the colleges have been appended to the respective writ petitions. The colleges state that as per the stipulations of the prospectus, the last date for receipt of applications online from candidates was 31.08.2016 and that the last date for admission was initially 30.09.2016, which was extended, under the orders of the Dental Council of India, until 07.10.2016. The Dental Council of India had also, as per their directives, required all the colleges under it to upload the details of the students who are admitted to the various courses by the midnight hour of 14.10.2016. 9. The imperative nature of the requirement for students to make online applications have already been answered by this Bench in a judgment delivered in W.P(C)24133 of 2017 dated 04.01.2018. 9. The imperative nature of the requirement for students to make online applications have already been answered by this Bench in a judgment delivered in W.P(C)24133 of 2017 dated 04.01.2018. We had analysed the various judgments and orders of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the directives issued by the ASC from time to time and we were led to the inevitable conclusion that the only mode of application which is legally sanctioned, is through an online process. That being said, it is not necessary for us to labour much on this issue any longer because we find that none of the petitioners in these cases have impelled a contention that they were not required to make online applications or that they could make an application by any other method or mode. In fact, as we have already indicated above, the specific assertion of the petitioners is that they have all made their applications online within the cutoff date. 10. Smt. Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the ASC begins her submissions by saying that with the information and details given to the Committee by the College, there was no other option available to it but to conclude that the applications were not made by the petitioners online. She alleges that all what the Committee was provided, inspite of several opportunities being granted to the Colleges, were the print out of the Registration Pages of the various petitioners herein, which is maintained by the Website of the college and nothing else. She says that all the materials that were placed before the Committee by the College had been submitted before this Court, as directed by this Court in the order dated 19.07.2017 and that such materials would never be sufficient to conclude or to even indicate that the applications were made by individual applicants online. 11. We notice that an affidavit has been filed by the Colleges in these cases wherein they have produced certain documents, which are copies of the registration pages and online applications allegedly made by the petitioners. The counter affidavit filed by the Colleges in these cases may be relevant to understand the course adopted by them and for the such purpose we first refer to the counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.22863 of 2017, which is more or less identical to the counter affidavit filed in the other case. The counter affidavit filed by the Colleges in these cases may be relevant to understand the course adopted by them and for the such purpose we first refer to the counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.22863 of 2017, which is more or less identical to the counter affidavit filed in the other case. The colleges concerned in these cases maintain, without any ambivalence that all the applications that they have received from the petitioners were made by them online. However, along with the counter affidavit, the colleges chose not to produce copies of the online applications or of the registration forms, but only the copy of the letter issued by the Principal to the ASC, forwarding the names of the petitioners along with the other candidates, who were granted admissions to the courses under them. Presumably because none of the information that would be relevant to find out whether the applications were made online or not was not placed on record, the colleges thereafter filed affidavits (both dated 21.07.2017) in these cases, wherein they have made certain very specific averments regarding the online process relating to them and have produced certain documents. Since the statements in these counter affidavits are factual in nature and since that would give an indication as to how the college has dealt with the matter, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the said affidavit as under : “4. It is submitted that the candidates for BDS admission 2016-17 submitted applications through the website of Minority Professional College Management Association (MPCMA). In the website of MPCMA, there were separate links for online submission of application to Kannur Medical College, Kannur Dental College and Century Dental College, which are the institutions under MPCMA. All relevant particulars of the candidates including photograph, signature and demand drafts were uploaded online along with the application. On successful completion of the online application, the system itself assigns registration number to the application. In order to take the print out of the online applications, there is a print option icon on each application which is accessible via the administrator's login. On clicking the said print option, a Portable Document Format file (PDF) gets downloaded. The PDF file so downloaded would contain the course to which the application is submitted, academic year, name of the college in the 1st page and the registration details of the candidate in the subsequent pages. On clicking the said print option, a Portable Document Format file (PDF) gets downloaded. The PDF file so downloaded would contain the course to which the application is submitted, academic year, name of the college in the 1st page and the registration details of the candidate in the subsequent pages. However, this PDF file will not contain images such as photograph, signature and demand draft uploaded by the candidates. True copy of the print out of the PDF file of the online application submitted by the 1st petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R3(b). It is submitted that print outs of the PDF file of the online application submitted by the petitioners were produced before the Admission Supervisory Committee on 30.01.2017. The printout of the PDF file of the online applications submitted by the petitioners contains the date of registration as could be seen from Ext.R3(b). 5. It is submitted that the registered online application of the candidates when printed directly from the webpage using the print web page options available on the browser would show the images uploaded by the candidate such as photograph, signature and demand draft. True copy of the direct printouts of the online applications submitted by the petitioners is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R3(c). The registered application forms in its entirety with full particulars including the signature, the photographs and the demand drafts uploaded by the candidates are still available online and accessible through the administrators login. The date and time of the registration of the applications submitted online by the petitioners can be seen at the end of Ext.R3(c) printouts.” 12. After producing the documents, as are mentioned in the above extracted portions of the affidavits aforementioned, the Colleges further state that the PDF file of the online applications were submitted by them before the ASC on 23.03.2017 and 30.01.2017 respectively. They further assert that pursuant to the directions of the Committee, the deponents of the affidavits, who are the Principal and Vice Principal of the Kannur Dental College and Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre respectively, appeared before the Chairman of the ASC on 14.06.2017 and submitted a reply, allegedly producing along with it copies of the online application forms also, copies of which are placed on record as Exhibit R3(c) series. They further aver in the affidavit that when the deponents, after handing over the said documents to the Chairman, came out of his Chambers, one of the office staff came to them and returned the copies of the said print-outs saying that those documents would not be considered as they were not submitted initially along with the other documents on 23.03.2017 and 30.01.2017. 13. We notice that in refutation of the allegation that Ext.R3 (c) print-out of the documents were returned back to the deponents of the afore noticed affidavits, the ASC has filed a reply on record vehemently saying that these allegations are baseless and without truth. According to them, these statements are only self serving and are intended to cover the lassitude and insouciance of the colleges while dealing with these matters. They assert vehemently that they became aware of Ext.R3(c) print-outs only when they were produced by the colleges in these proceedings. 14. The factual rundown of these cases thus becomes more or less clear. It is indubitable that the Committee could have considered the applications of the College for approval of the admissions only based on the documents presented before them. It is ineluctable, from the extracted portions of the affidavit above, that the colleges produced before the ASC only copies of Ext.R3(b), which are the PDF format documents relating to the registration of the candidates. Of course, we notice the submission of the learned Standing Counsel of the ASC that even the last page of Ext.R3 (b) was not made available to them and that what was given to them was only the first two pages thereof. There is no case even for the college that any other material was placed before the Committee for its approval. The question, therefore, for us to answer is whether the ASC was right in first withholding the admission of the petitioners and thereafter rejecting the same, concluding that from the available records, it is not possible to establish or demonstrate that these applications were online. 15. When these issues were first presented to us, in order to find a scientific resolution to these issues, we had deemed it necessary to send all the relevant documents, materials and electronic access of the web site of the Colleges to the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing(C-DAC), which is a Government of India undertaking, for their opinion and report. When these issues were first presented to us, in order to find a scientific resolution to these issues, we had deemed it necessary to send all the relevant documents, materials and electronic access of the web site of the Colleges to the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing(C-DAC), which is a Government of India undertaking, for their opinion and report. The C-DAC was given DVDs by the colleges relating to their web pages maintained by them with respect to the registration and online applications of the candidates. The materials placed by the ASC before this Court was also handed over to them. The C-DAC was thus directed to make a report on the following questions : “(1) Whether the applications submitted by the students to the respondent Institutions were 'on-line' applications or not? (2) Whether the said applications were preferred within the specific period, ie.. on or after the cut-off date and time? (3) How many applications were received by the Institutions pursuant to the notification?. The position shall be clarified with reference to the particulars in respect of 99 results' spread over in 10 pages of the print outs referred to in Annexure-R1(D), forming part of the statement dated 08.08.2017 filed by the ASC in W.P.(C)No.22863 of 2017. Similar exercise shall be pursued in respect of the respondent-Institution in W.P.(C)No.22861 of 2017 as well, in relation to the statement dated 08.08.2017 filed by the ASC. (4) Whether any 'editing' has taken place at the hands of the Institutions or students with regard to the admissions for BDS Course, 2016-17?. (5) How the difference between the entries in Exts.R3 (b) and R3(c) has taken place (produced along with the affidavit dated 21.07.2017 by the respondent Institutions) and clarify if the version of the Institution is possible/acceptable. 6. Any other points, if found, relevant. 7. The Expert Body shall also scrutinise the particulars in respect of the entry as to the 'Edit Details' and 'Print Details' (at page 5 of Annexure R1(D)- at page 23) and the relevance/sanctity of the entries in this regard. 16. The C-DAC has now placed on record a report, dated 06.12.2017, where they have recorded their opinion on each of the issues referred to them. 16. The C-DAC has now placed on record a report, dated 06.12.2017, where they have recorded their opinion on each of the issues referred to them. They say that the forensic analysis of the DVDs given to them by the colleges reveals that it has two folders and that each of such folders contain two sub-folders which are the online print copy and PDF of the applications and registration respectively of the various candidates. They found, on an analysis of the discs, that the online PDF folder contains a two page registration form and that the documents in the said folder was three page documents without the photograph of the applicants. They have produced, along with the report, a two page registration form as Annexure I and the documents in the PDF folder, with three pages each, as Annexure II. They have opined very clearly that the DVD was written on 17.10.2017 but that the 'timestamps' of the files originally created could not be understood with the provided data. The C-DAC has further stated in the report that even though they requested the college to give them the server details relating to the online applications for analysis, it was denied to them by the college authorities saying that the application's development and management was done by a third party company by name M/s. Etuwa Concepts. The C-DAC says that the College has further told them that the online application is embedded on a “cloud based system” and that they do not have a hard disc wherein these information is stored. 17. The college authorities, as is clear from the report itself, gave the user name and password for the web site by their letter dated 31.10.2017 and copy of the said letter has been attached to the report as Annexure III. We see that the C-DAC has accessed the web site with such credentials and that on opening the web site, the C-DAC has seen that the home page contains a 'Menu' with four tabs viz. “Registration', “Change Password” , “Log Out” and “Report”. According to them when they hit the “Registration” tab, a page opened, showing the registration of the various candidates in the site maintained by the Minority Professional College Management Association. “Registration', “Change Password” , “Log Out” and “Report”. According to them when they hit the “Registration” tab, a page opened, showing the registration of the various candidates in the site maintained by the Minority Professional College Management Association. They have, in fact, scanned a copy of the screen shot that was seen by them and in the said screen shot, there are four sub-headings: the first being the reference number, the second being the full name of the candidates, the third being the college and the fourth being the registration time and date. The C-DAC, we notice from the report, tried to click on the name of the particular candidate and on doing so, a third page opened without the photograph and that the edit details showed the web page view of the contents. 18. According to them, the available credentials with them would only go to the extent of saying that the registration details of the petitioners were available on the web site, but that it cannot be said with certainty that such registration details were entered on the system on the basis of online applications. In other words, the report of the C-DAC is that even though there are registration details available on the web site, the details of the online applications could not be accessed by them since the credentials of the third party service provider viz., M/s Etuwa Concept were not made available to them. We notice that the specific assertion of the colleges, in their affidavit dated 14.01.2018 is that they could not provide such credentials to the C-DAC because the third party service provider M/s. Etuwa Concepts would not share with them such credentials, since their site contains various other information which they would not allow anyone else to access. 19. The sum total of what we have stated above, which is the simplified version of what has been stated by the C-DAC in their report, is that even though their analysis of the web site showed that the details of the registration of the candidates were available, they could not get access to the actual online applications that were stated to have been made in the said site, since they were not provided with the requisite administration credentials for getting such access. 20. 20. The colleges have, through their affidavits dated 21.07.2017, produced, as Annexure R3(b), the registration details of the candidates and as Annexure R3(c), the applications of the petitioners which they claim was made online. As we have already said above, the analysis by the C-DAC can only tell us that the registration details are available online but it does not even indicate that the applications which led to such registrations were made by the candidates online. However, we are certainly cognizant of the fact that the registration details, as provided by the C-DAC in their report, contains the specific registration time and date. We take particular notice of this fact because there is no suspicion even for the C-DAC that the registration information contained online has been tampered or varied in any manner subsequently. 21. Therefore, going by what is available in the report, it becomes obvious that the registrations were made on behalf of the candidates on certain days and certain time, as are recorded in the report itself. We have examined whether the names of the candidates are available in the screen shots shown in the report and we see that most of their names are shown therein and that all of them are shown to have applied within the cutoff date of 19.09.2016. Of course, there are one or two entries therein showing the date as 05.04.2017 ad 12.05.2017, but it is conceded by all parties appearing before us that these two have not been taken into account at all and the candidates who made such applications have not been granted admissions along with the petitioners. Shri Hood, the learned counsel appearing for the colleges at this time submits that he has reasons to suspect that these two applications seen to have been made much after the cut-off date are not made by genuine persons because their names are not clearly shown and that it appears to have been made by certain vested interests for suspicious reasons. 22. In the compendium of the aforementioned facts, we are now to consider whether it would be possible for us even to infer that the applications of the petitioners were made online. 22. In the compendium of the aforementioned facts, we are now to consider whether it would be possible for us even to infer that the applications of the petitioners were made online. As we have already said in the opening paragraphs of this judgment, while the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.22861 of 2017 assert without any doubt that they have all made applications online, the petitioners in W.P.(C)22863 of 2017 concede that save five among them, others did not make their applications on their own but that they relied on the college itself to make such applications. The pleadings on record is rather amorphous as to whether such applications were thereafter made online by the college or by the candidates. 23. That being said, we have no other option but to confine our consideration of these issues in the backdrop of the observations and opinion made by the C-DAC in their report. 24. Smt. Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing Counsel for the ASC submits before us that it may not bet proper for this Court to take into account or rely on the report of the C-DAC and then enter into a conclusion because, according to her, unless and until the ASC was given all the relevant documents, which would have led to a view to be taken by them one way or other, it would not be proper for this Court while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , to enter into areas which are in the domain of facts. Her specific submission is that when this Court is called upon to consider the validity of the orders of the ASC, this Court can only look into the materials placed before the ASC by the colleges and taking note of the background in which they had taken the decisions which are impugned herein. 25. We find considerable force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the ASC. It is only if the colleges had made available all the relevant materials before it, could the ASC have taken a view effectively. In the pleaded facts and materials before us, it is virtually conceded by the colleges that they have only placed copies of Ext.R3(b) before the Committee on 30.01.2017 and 23.03.2017 with respect to the Kannur Dental College and Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre respectively. In the pleaded facts and materials before us, it is virtually conceded by the colleges that they have only placed copies of Ext.R3(b) before the Committee on 30.01.2017 and 23.03.2017 with respect to the Kannur Dental College and Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre respectively. As we have indicted above, there is an enervated submission in the affidavit filed by the colleges that the copies of Ext.R3(c) were handed over to the Chairman of the ASC on a later date, but that was returned by another official. This particular submission, we must say, does not appeal to us at all especially because the ASC has refuted it vehemently in their reply affidavit and since this becomes a disputation of facts, it would not be possible for us to take cognizance of any such submission or pleading while we act under writ jurisdiction. Therefore, what is available before us is the conceded stand of the parties that Ext.R3(b) alone was placed before the ASC which led to the impugned orders. We are also aware that the stand of the ASC is that even Ext.R3(b) documents were incomplete and its last page was not given to them. In normal circumstances, therefore, the only area of inquiry open to us would be whether the ASC was right in entering into their conclusions, as has been recorded by it in the impugned orders. 26. The orders impugned in these cases are Exts.P5 and P6 in W.P.(C) 22861 OF 2017 and Exts.P8 and P9 in W.P.(C) 22863 of 2017. By the first among the orders above, the ASC had ordered the admissions of the petitioners to be withheld, whereas by the second of the above referred orders, the ASC had cancelled their admissions on the ground that their applications were not made online. The basis on which the ASC had proceeded, as we have already said above, are the materials that were placed before them by the Colleges, which were only, admittedly, copies of Ext.R3(b) with or without the last page. The issue before us is whether the ASC was right in rejecting the admissions of the petitioners holding that their applications could not be seen to be made online. 27. If one goes exclusively by Ext.R3(b), we are sure that the stand of the ASC is completely proper. The issue before us is whether the ASC was right in rejecting the admissions of the petitioners holding that their applications could not be seen to be made online. 27. If one goes exclusively by Ext.R3(b), we are sure that the stand of the ASC is completely proper. We cannot blame the ASC for concluding in the manner it has done in the impugned orders because any prudent person served only with the registration details and copies of Ext.R3(b) documents would not be justified in entering into a conclusion that the applications which led to such registrations, were made online. This is pertinent because the college did not even deem it necessary to place on record the copies of the allegedly online applications, copies of which have been produced before us as Ext.R3(c), before the ASC, when they had made a request for approval initially on 23.03.2017 and 30.01.2017 respectively. In the absence of any such information being offered to the ASC, we are certain that it had acted well within its powers in concluding that the registration details and copies of Ext.R3(b) alone would not justify a conclusion, contrary to what they have said, viz., that the applications were not made online. 28. In usual circumstances, this would have been the end and this would have sealed the fate of the petitioners. However, the one redeeming factor that the petitioners can now look upto in these cases is the report of the C-DAC, which was obtained by this Court, as already mentioned ut supra. 29. Eventhough Smt. Mary Benjamin fervently contends before us that the report of the C-DAC is not a justifiable cause for this Court to enter into a further adjudication in the matter, we deem it appropriate to do so because we are acting under the jurisdiction of equity and it thus becomes incumbent on us to consider every material and to find out whether the students could be given the benefit of doubt. 30. As we have already seen, on an attentive reading of the report of the C-DAC, it concludes rather affirmatively that while the information relating to the registration of the students are available online, the question whether such registration was made on the basis of online applications cannot be conclusively said. 30. As we have already seen, on an attentive reading of the report of the C-DAC, it concludes rather affirmatively that while the information relating to the registration of the students are available online, the question whether such registration was made on the basis of online applications cannot be conclusively said. This is because without the administration credentials of the service provider being available to them, they could not access anything more than the web page and the registration details with the password and user name, which alone were given to them by the colleges. As is commonly known, the pass word and the user name would give access only to the web page, but the information available, on the server can be accessed only by the administrator on the basis of his electronic credentials. In the absence of such credentials being made available to the CDAC, it could only report what it saw by accessing the web page using the user name and password and nothing more. Such examination by the C-DAC discloses the registration of certain candidates along with the date and time shown therein. 31. As we have said above, the dates recorded in the registration page are all seen to be before the cut off date, which perhaps would guide us to an inference that the applications were also made by the applicants before such cutoff date. We do not find any compelling reason to think otherwise because, even though Mrs. Mary Benjamin argues vehemently that the chances of such tampering cannot be ruled out, there is nothing on record to show that the web page has been modified or varied subsequently. Once we thus infer that the registrations were made on the basis of the applications made before the cutoff date, the only surviving issue is whether such applications were made online or otherwise. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to affirmatively say or to conclude on this because even the experts viz., C-DAC could not say whether the applications were made online or otherwise. 32. That leads us to the corollary syllogism that since the registrations appear to have been made by the petitioners prior to the cutoff date, why should not the candidates have applied online since that was the only method under which the applications were permitted. 32. That leads us to the corollary syllogism that since the registrations appear to have been made by the petitioners prior to the cutoff date, why should not the candidates have applied online since that was the only method under which the applications were permitted. The question is, in the absence of specific evidence to show that the online applications were made, whether we are justified in entering an inference that such applications were so made because the registration details demonstrate that such details were entered prior to the cutoff date. 33. We have given an anxious consideration to the above factual factors and we are of the view that as long as a doubt lingers and as long as we are unable to conclusively conclude that the applications by the petitioners were not made online, the benefit of doubt would have to be given to the students. That being said, we must record in the strongest terms that we disapprove and deprecate the attitude of the colleges exhibited in these cases from the very beginning till this point. We fail to understand why the colleges chose to keep the ASC in the dark; we fail to understand why the colleges did not upload the online applications onto the site of the ASC, as was required by the interim order of this Court in a batch of cases and we see no cogent reason forthcoming from them as to why they did not place copies of Ext.R3(c) before the ASC, at the time when they made their applications for approval, along with copies of Ext.R3(b). We are at a loss to understand why they have acted in such a cavalier and lackadaisical attitude imperiling the lives and career of so many students. We are at loss of words to accurately deprecate the attitude of the colleges because this has led to unnecessary litigations, which has consumed valuable judicial time and which could have been easily avoided had they placed the relevant documents before the ASC. We therefore feel that this is a fit case where we are enjoined by the Rule of Law to impose exemplary costs on the colleges both as a deterrent and as punishment for having adopted this kind of attitude. 34. We therefore feel that this is a fit case where we are enjoined by the Rule of Law to impose exemplary costs on the colleges both as a deterrent and as punishment for having adopted this kind of attitude. 34. Before we conclude, we must also record that we are cognizant that a line of legal attack was launched before us by Shri George Poonthottam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases, relating to the validity of the ASC itself. He was relying on various orders issued by the Government from time to time and on the provisions of the Act (Act 15 of 2017), to say that the ASC did not have the competence to issue the impugned orders at the time when they did so. We do not deem it necessary to answer these questions at this time because we find that the students are entitled to get the benefit of doubt relating to the question whether they have made the applications online and if such a benefit of doubt is granted to them, obviously, the impugned orders would have to be set aside on such ground alone. We do not, therefore, deem it necessary to consider the validity or competence of the ASC at this point of time. We do not think that it is an issue that arises directly in the pleadings or submissions made before us except that it was raised as a collateral attack to the very constitution of the ASC itself. We leave this to be answered in a better case in a future time. 35. In the summation of what we have recorded above, we order this writ petition, granting the students the benefit of doubt and set aside and quash Exts.P5 and P6 in W.P.(C) 22861 OF 2017 and Exts.P8 and P9 in W.P.(C)No.22863 of 2017. 36. With respect to the colleges we are of the view that they are liable to be mulcted with costs which we quantify at an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs each in these cases, which shall be paid by them to the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ernakulam, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. Consequentially, the University is directed to value the answer scripts of the petitioners in these cases and to treat them as legitimate students under the colleges with all consequential benefits flowing to them.