JUDGMENT Sanjay Yadav, J. - WP-21488-2015, WP-103-2016, WP-227-2016 & WP-10800-2016 1. These writ petitions are directed against the Notification dated 01.07.2015 and the consequential Notification dated 25.07.2015 whereby, the colleges situated at Panna, Chhattarpur, Tikamgarh, Sagar and Damoh have been directed to seek affiliation from Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundelkhand Vishwavidyalaya on the anvil of amendment to Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 vide Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2011. 2 . It is informed that the said Notification dated 25.07.2015 was subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No.14027/2015, Writ Petition No.14536/2015 and Writ Petition No.15070/2015 and has been set aside by order dated 07.10.2015 passed therein. 3 . The said order is brought on record, wherein it is held : 'This petition, essentially, takes exception to the Circular dated 25.7.2015 issued under the signature of Dy. Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of M.P. The circular calls upon the petitioner-college to seek affiliation of Respondent No.5/University consequent to coming into force of the Central Universities Act 2009. Section 4(f) of the said Act of 2009 saves the affiliation of the petitioner-college. The same reads thus :- '4(a) On and from the date of commencement of this Act :- (f) all Colleges, Institutions, Schools or Faculties, and Departments affiliated to, or admitted to the privileges of, or maintained by, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyala, Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya and Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University shall stand affiliated to, or admitted to the privileges of, or maintained by Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Doctor Harishgh Gour Vishwavidyalaya and Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, respectively, established under this Act. " (Emphasis supplied) The circular makes no reference to this mandatory provision contained in the Central enactment. Reliance placed on the schedule as amended by the State amendment, will not and cannot undermine the Central Legislation and in the teeth of Section 4(f) of the Act. Since these and other legal questions have not been specifically noticed before issuing the impugned Circular dated 25.7.2015, in our opinion, appropriate course is to set aside the said circular and call upon the State Authority to re-examine the matter in the light of Section 4 (f) of the Act. Suffice it to observe that by amending the schedule the efficacy of Section 4(f) cannot be undermined or diluted in any manner whatsoever. We place on record that the Respondent No.5/University has serious objection to show any indulgence to the writ petitioner. Suffice it to observe that by amending the schedule the efficacy of Section 4(f) cannot be undermined or diluted in any manner whatsoever. We place on record that the Respondent No.5/University has serious objection to show any indulgence to the writ petitioner. We fail to understand as to why the Respondent No.5/University has expressed its anxiety for a formal affiliation of the petitioner-college with it, notwithstanding the mandate of Section 4 (f) of the Act. For the present, we do not wish to express any opinion about the appropriateness of the claim of Respondent No.5. The University is free to take such decision as may be advised which can be examined on its own merits, if challenged by the writ petitioner. We re-state the position already noted earlier that by virtue of Section 4 (f) of the Act of 2009 the affiliation of the petitioner-college is deemed to be affiliated with Respondent No.4/University and all the proposals of the petitioner-college must be processed accordingly. " 4 . Previous order-sheets reflect that on the anvil of the statement made on behalf of the State that the order dated 07.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.14027/2015, Writ Petition No.14536/2015 and Writ Petition No.15070/2015 has been subjected to challenge before Honble the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No.8393/2016, the matter was deferred from time to time. When the matter is taken up today again, again a stand is taken by learned Additional Advocate General that the matter is still pending before the Supreme Court; however, when asked for as to whether there is any stay of operation of order passed in Writ Petition No.14027/2015 and connected petitions, learned Additional Advocate General has fairly submitted that there is no stay. Since the Notification in question has been set aside vide order dated 07.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.14027/2015 and connected petitions and there is no stay of operation of order by the Supreme Court, we perceive no good ground to keep these petitions pending. 5 . In view whereof, the writ petitions are disposed of in the same terms as in Writ Petition No.14027/2015, Writ Petition No.14536/2015 and Writ Petition No.15070/2015. However, it goes without saying that in case if the order dated 07.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.14027/2015, Writ Petition No.14536/2015 and Writ Petition No.15070/2015 is set aside and the Notification dated 25.07.2015 is revived, the parties would be bound by same. However, it goes without saying that in case if the order dated 07.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.14027/2015, Writ Petition No.14536/2015 and Writ Petition No.15070/2015 is set aside and the Notification dated 25.07.2015 is revived, the parties would be bound by same. RP-99-2016, RP-100-2016, RP-101-2016 & RP-102-2016 6 . By these review petitions, the petitioners seek review of the order dated 07.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.14027/2015, Writ Petition No.14536/2015 and Writ Petition No.15070/2015. 7 . Evidently, the order passed in said writ petitions is under challenge before Honble the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.8393/2016. 8 . In view whereof, presently, we are not inclined to entertain these review petitions. The same are, accordingly, dismissed . However, the petitioners are set at liberty to revive the same subject to final order in SLP (Civil) No.8393/2016 and if the cause for review survives.