JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent dated 22.06.2004 in No.R/ISTE/2004 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land comprised in T.S.No.2-A, Block No.8, Kottur Village, Chennai and the building constructed thereon by adhering to the terms and conditions of the M.O.U. dated 04.09.1992.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act 21 of 1860) (Central Act) called the Indian Society for Technical Education. The Society entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the first respondent-University, which is formed under the provisions of the Anna University Act, 1978. The Society represented to the University that they have been established for the cause of education in general and it functions with particular reference to Engineering and Allied branches of Science and Technology, including the process of teaching and learning, research, extension services and public relations in particular. The University agreed to assist the Society in establishing a Regional Centre under the name and style “ISTE Professional Centre”, for which the land available with the University was to be allotted. These decisions were recorded in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.09.1992, whereunder the University earmarked about an acre of land at mutually agreed suitable location for the activities of the Society and the Society shall not have any right or interest in the land as assigned and the petitioner-Society shall pay token rent of Rs.1/- per annum towards the land assigned and the Society shall entitle to construct suitable building for carrying out its diverse activities as well as the activities of any other Professional Association to use the Professional Central with the prior concurrence of the University. 2. Further, the Memorandum of Understanding stated that the other Professional Associations are permitted to avail all the facilities at the Professional Centre in a separate agreement to be entered into between the Society and such Professional Association will also be bound to the overall agreement between the Society and Anna University. Further, the Memorandum of Understanding stated that in the event, the Society ceases to function in the premises, the building and the other appurtenance thereto will revert to Anna University without any compensation. Further, the Memorandum of Understanding stated that in the event, the Society ceases to function in the premises, the building and the other appurtenance thereto will revert to Anna University without any compensation. Further, the Professional Centre, which has to be established will be managed by Tamil Nadu Section of Society and the Anna University will be entitled to nominate two representatives of the University, who are members of the Indian Society for Technical Education in the Managing Committee of the Professional Centre. The Schedule appended to the Memorandum of Understanding shows that the land, which was allotted is comprised in R.S.No.T.S.No.2A, Block No.8, measuring an extent of 0.3571 acres. 3. It appears that the Society proposed to make construction, for which the Executive Council Meeting of the Society was called for on 02.09.1995, wherein among other things, the Society decided to approach the Chairman of a private Engineering College to discuss the various ways to raise funds for putting up the construction. It is at that juncture, the impugned communication was sent to the petitioner informing the petitioner-Society that as per the resolution of the 157th Syndicate Meeting of the Anna University, they were directed to handover possession of the land and building to the University at the earliest, preferably before the end of June, 2004. This communication is put to challenge in this writ petition. 4. Heard Mr.K.Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Muthumani Doraisami, learned counsel for the petitioner-Society and Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent-University. 5. The petitioner challenges the communication sent by the Anna University referring to the 157th Syndicate resolution, which has decided that the petitioner-Society should handover the land and building to the University. The petitioner cannot state that the said resolution was not communicated to them especially when, as per the Memorandum of Understanding, two of the representatives of the University formed part of the Society, which manages the Professional Centre at Chennai in the said premises. Even assuming it has not been communicated, the petitioner, being a professional body, ought to have approached the University and obtained the copy of the same. Therefore, to state that they have not been communicated with the resolution of the 157th Syndicate Meeting is no ground to escape from the rigour of the impugned proceedings. 6. Even assuming it has not been communicated, the petitioner, being a professional body, ought to have approached the University and obtained the copy of the same. Therefore, to state that they have not been communicated with the resolution of the 157th Syndicate Meeting is no ground to escape from the rigour of the impugned proceedings. 6. Admittedly, the Society has no right over the land, which is clear from the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.09.1992. As noticed above, the respondent-University was created by the Anna University Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It was enacted to provide for establishment of University of Technology in the State of Tamil Nadu. 7. The “objects of the University” have been set out in Section 4 of the Act. The “powers and functions of the University” have been enumerated in Section 5 of the Act and on a cursory reading of Section 5, it is seen that those powers and functions of the University are to achieve the objects set down in Section 4 of the Act. Nowhere under Section 5, the power to part away with the immovable property of the University has been provided for. 8. Admittedly, the purpose of entering into the Memorandum of Understanding was to enable the petitioner-Society to independently function by establishing a Professional Centre, for which land has been allotted, permission to put up building was also granted. However, Section 5 of the Act does not confer power on the University to part with possession of the land, that too, for putting up of construction. 9. Section 11 of the Act deals with “the Vice Chancellor” and Section 12 deals with “powers and duties of the Vice Chancellor.” In terms of sub- Section (1) of Section 12, the Vice Chancellor shall be principal executive and academic head of the University. In terms of sub-Section (3) of Section 12, the Vice Chancellor shall exercise control over the affairs of the University and shall be responsible for due maintenance of discipline in the University. Sub-Section (4) of Section 12 mandates that the Vice Chancellor shall ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of the Act and the statutes, ordinance and regulations thereon. In terms of sub-Section (3) of Section 12, the Vice Chancellor shall exercise control over the affairs of the University and shall be responsible for due maintenance of discipline in the University. Sub-Section (4) of Section 12 mandates that the Vice Chancellor shall ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of the Act and the statutes, ordinance and regulations thereon. Sub-Section (5) of Section 12 deals with the “emergency powers of the Vice Chancellor.” In terms of sub-section (7), the Vice Chancellor is bound to give effect to the decisions of the Syndicate. Section 16, which falls under Chapter IV of the Act, deals with “authorities of the University” who shall be the Syndicate, Academic Council, the Finance Committee, Faculties of Board of Studies. Thus, under the provisions of the Act, no power has been conferred on the Vice Chancellor to part away the possession of any property of the University, much less an immovable property. The statute of the University framed under Section 30(1) of the Act enumerates powers and duties of the Syndicate in statute no.7. 10. On going through the powers mentioned therein, this Court finds that there is no power for the Syndicate to transfer any property of the University and in fact, it is enjoined with the duty to exercise powers and perform such other duties not in consistent with the provisions of the Act or the statutes. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the then Vice Chancellor had no jurisdiction and no power to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the petitioner-Society in respect of setting apart an immovable property in favour of the Society. In such circumstances, the impugned decision taken in the 157th Meeting of the syndicate is just and proper and the petitioner cannot resist the impugned order on the grounds raised in this writ petition. If the very Memorandum of Understanding entered in the year 1992 itself is without jurisdiction, however, laudable the intention might have been at the relevant time is not of any relevance while testing the correctness of the impugned order. 11. Though the writ petition was entertained and an order of interim stay was granted on 30.06.2004, the Anna University took no steps to file their counter affidavit. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel has been recently nominated and he has also written to the University to give him suitable instructions. 11. Though the writ petition was entertained and an order of interim stay was granted on 30.06.2004, the Anna University took no steps to file their counter affidavit. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel has been recently nominated and he has also written to the University to give him suitable instructions. However, this Court is not expressing anything on the present state of affairs, but wish to record its displeasure as to why the University did not file any counter affidavit, though the writ petition was filed in the year 2004 and was pending till date and interim orders were in force. Should anything be read in between lines. This Court does not propose to express anything more on this. Thus, for the above reasons, this Court finds there is no error in the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed and the order of interim stay is vacated and it is left open to the first respondent-University to take appropriate further action in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.