JUDGMENT : 1. Nehru College of Educational and Charitable Trust (‘the Trust’ for the sake of brevity) is registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1882. The said Trust is stated to be running numerous educational institutions in the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The 1st petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Trustee whereas the 2nd petitioner is the Principal of the “Nehru Academy of Law” which is one among the educational institutions managed by the Trust. The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 communication dated 18.08.2020 issued by the 1st respondent as per which, the Nehru Academy of Law has been included among the list of Colleges that have been granted affiliation to new programs for the year 2021 and 2022, however, by limiting the intake to 40 seats instead of 60 seats as requested for. 2. Brief facts which are required to narrated for disposal of the writ petition are as under: The Nehru Academy of Law started its functioning from the academic year 2015-2016 after obtaining approval of the Bar Council of India (‘BCI’ for the sake of brevity) and affiliation from the University of Calicut (‘University’ for the sake of brevity). They have been conducting 3-year LL.B. and 5-year Integrated B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) courses. All requisite infrastructural and other facilities are available in the College for the smooth running of the courses. The first batch of students of the 3-year LL.B. course have completed their course of study and had passed out during 2017-2018, whereas, the first batch of students of the integrated 5-year B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) have completed their course and have passed out during 2019-2020. The petitioners assert that the students have displayed exemplary performance during their stint in the College and the institution, as well as the faculty, have performed admirably. 3. The Trust resolved to apply for and obtain necessary approval and affiliation for the conduct of the Integrated course of B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) for the academic year 2019-2020. The petitioners resolved to take such a decision as there were only six colleges in the State which were presently conducting B.Com. LL.B. Course and none of those colleges was situated in the Palakkad District. 4. LL.B. (Hons.) for the academic year 2019-2020. The petitioners resolved to take such a decision as there were only six colleges in the State which were presently conducting B.Com. LL.B. Course and none of those colleges was situated in the Palakkad District. 4. As per the provisions of Law, the petitioners are required to obtain affiliation of the University and approval of the BCI after due inspection to verify that the College had all the necessary facilities and amenities for conducting the course. The inspecting team deputed by the BCI conducted an inspection on 19.09.2018 and satisfaction was expressed about the infrastructural facilities and compliance with all the statutory requirements. Additional faculties and non-teaching staff were identified and they had expressed their willingness to join the College as and when approval was obtained. 5. The 2nd petitioner in the said circumstances issued a letter dated 19.09.2018 to the Secretary, BCI seeking a grant of approval. The 2nd petitioner was advised to apply for additional affiliation/consent for affiliation from the University and obtain NOC from the State Government before seeking a grant of approval of the BCI. Ext.P2 letter dated 18.12.2018 was accordingly issued to the University enclosing the application for additional affiliation of B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) with the requisite fee. Ext.P3 letter dated 21.1.2019 was also addressed to the 3rd respondent requesting that their application be accepted and No Objection Certificate be issued for conducting the B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) course with an intake of 60 seats from the academic year 2019-2020. 6. Immediately thereafter, the assessing team deputed by the University conducted an inspection of the College on 22.05.2019 and they were satisfied with the infrastructural facilities and other amenities including faculty and staff. However, no further action was taken by the University. In the said circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P. (C) No. 21445/2019 seeking directions to the University to consider the application and take a decision. This Court, by judgment dated 22.08.2019, disposed of the writ petition with directions to the University to take a decision within a period of one month. However, in purported compliance with the judgment, communication dated 14.10.2019 was issued to the petitioners by the University informing them that the inspection committee had not recommended the requested program and that the Syndicate had resolved to accept the inspection report. The petitioners were informed that the application for starting B.Com. However, in purported compliance with the judgment, communication dated 14.10.2019 was issued to the petitioners by the University informing them that the inspection committee had not recommended the requested program and that the Syndicate had resolved to accept the inspection report. The petitioners were informed that the application for starting B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) course cannot be processed for the above reason. 7. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioners expressed their great dismay and pointed out by letter dated 17.10.2019 that a copy of the inspection report was not served to them. They also highlighted that the college was having all the facilities to start the course. Later, the petitioners obtained a copy of the inspection report under the Right to Information Act and on perusal of the same, it was realized that the reasons offered for not recommending the program were untenable. In the said circumstances, a letter dated 16.12.2019 was submitted before the University seeking to reconsider the decision and for granting the consent of affiliation after conducting a fresh inspection. They also submitted Ext.P4 application dated 24.12.2019 seeking “additional affiliation/consent for affiliation” to the University after remitting the requisite fee. However, the University did not respond to the said application. 8. In the said circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P. (C) No. 707/2020 and by judgment dated 17.2.2020, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners for grant of consent/conditional affiliation after conducting a surprise inspection, if so warranted. In purported compliance with the directions issued by this Court, an inspection was held on 27.02.2020 and the inspection team submitted Exhibit P10 report stating that the College had all facilities and amenities. On the strength of the said report, the 1st respondent is stated to have issued Exhibit P5 communication dated 18.08.2020 addressed to the 3rd respondent forwarding the list of additional programs duly recommended in the colleges affiliated to the University for the academic years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, in which the Academy of Law was also included, however, the intake was limited to 40 seats. It was further stated that the Syndicate would decide after considering the report of local enquiry and after ascertaining the views of the Government, whether affiliation is to be granted or refused in terms of the provisions of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977. 9. It was further stated that the Syndicate would decide after considering the report of local enquiry and after ascertaining the views of the Government, whether affiliation is to be granted or refused in terms of the provisions of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the stipulations in the “BCI Inspection Manual” the student strength of one section/one stream is 60, for two sections/two streams is 120 and for three sections/three streams is 180. The University was therefore not justified in restricting the intake to 40 particularly when the BCI stipulates that one section/one stream should have 60 students. 10. In the said circumstances, the 2nd petitioner is stated to have issued Exhibit P6 letter dated 29.8.2020 addressed to the 1st respondent requesting for increasing the intake to 60 students as stipulated in the BCI manual. A sum of Rs. 93,715/- was remitted by way of challan towards affiliation fees. On 18.11.2020, the 3rd respondent was addressed and it was requested by Ext.P7 letter that NOC of the State Government be issued for the academic year 2020-2021. Though Exhibit P8 and P9 reminders were issued, the University did not respond. 11. The petitioners state that a perusal of the inspection report dated 27.02.2020 obtained under the RTI Act would reveal that the Nehru Academy of Law had the necessary infrastructural facilities and amenities to admit 60 students. It is contended that due to the inaction of the respondents, the petitioners were deprived of the opportunity to conduct the new course during the academic year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 despite the fact that all arrangements had been made for conducting the new course. 12. When the University did not respond, the 2nd petitioner is stated to have addressed the BCI by issuing Ext.P11 letter on 08.01.2021 and requested for issuing a letter certifying that the application submitted by the 2nd petitioner seeking approval for the five-year B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) course was pending consideration for want of sanction from the University. The BCI was also requested to grant approval to the College to conduct the course during the academic year 2021-2022. The BCI by Exhibit P12 communication dated 16.2.2021 informed the 2nd petitioner that the University could consider the application for the grant of affiliation for the five-year B.Com. LL.B. course for the academic year 2021-2022. 13. The BCI was also requested to grant approval to the College to conduct the course during the academic year 2021-2022. The BCI by Exhibit P12 communication dated 16.2.2021 informed the 2nd petitioner that the University could consider the application for the grant of affiliation for the five-year B.Com. LL.B. course for the academic year 2021-2022. 13. Armed with the letter issued by the BCI, Ext.P13 letter was issued to the University to take urgent measures to increase the intake of students to 60 seats. However, when no action was taken, the petitioners are stated to have submitted Ext.P14 and P15 letters to the 3rd respondent requesting for the issuance of NOC for the conduct of the said course. It is the case of the petitioners that though the First Statute of the University mandates that the views of the State Government must be ascertained, on receipt of the request, the State Government is expected to intimate its views within a reasonable time frame. 14. After moving heaven and earth, Exhibit P16 letter was issued by the University to the petitioners intimating that the University was awaiting the views of the Government of Kerala before granting provisional affiliation as per the statutory provisions. According to the petitioners, though the first statutes of the University envisage that the views of the Government may be ascertained, the Government is also required to intimate its views within a time frame. It is further contended that the University is expected to discharge its duties and functions in accordance with the statutory provisions and function fairly and properly in a timely manner. 15. The petitioners state that they have been making earnest and genuine efforts to conduct the B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) course from the academic year 2019-2020 and their efforts have been denied on very trivial grounds. This is despite the college proving its mettle by conducting two earlier courses and after having garnered a reputation as a well-run college. It is contended that it was after two rounds of inspection that the University had issued Ext.P5 on 18.08.2020 to the 3rd respondent requesting the views of the State Government in permitting the conduct of such recommended course. However, despite the lapse of almost a year, no action has been taken to date. It is contended that the petitioners have been discriminated against and similarly placed colleges have been granted orders of consent/affiliation. 16. However, despite the lapse of almost a year, no action has been taken to date. It is contended that the petitioners have been discriminated against and similarly placed colleges have been granted orders of consent/affiliation. 16. The petitioners further contend that the petitioners have complied with all conditions which have been prescribed for the University to affiliate a centre of legal education. Reliance is placed on Ext.P17 inspection manual of the BCI and it is contended that students strength in one section would be 60 and multiples thereof. However, in total violation of the above requirement, the University has recommended 40 seats in the petitioners’ college despite the fact that the inspection committee had reported that the infrastructure and other amenities would enable the college to have an intake of 60 seats. In order to substantiate that the petitioners have been discriminated against, reliance is placed on Ext.P20 order dated 06.10.2020 issued by the University in favour of KMCT College. According to the petitioners, the University had issued provisional affiliation irrespective of NOC from the State Government. It is contended that if such a stand is taken in favour of KMCT college, there is no reason why the petitioners are called upon to produce NOC from the State Government. The petitioners contend that the refusal on the part of the University in limiting the intake of seats is clearly illegal and arbitrary. It is on these contentions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate order directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue to the petitioners order of “additional Affiliation/consent of affiliation” with intake of 60 seats to enable them to pursue necessary action to obtain “Approval” of the BCI and to conduct the B.Com. LL.B. (Hons) course in their College from the academic year 2021-2022 after complying with all formalities as prescribed, without insisting upon any NOC of the State Government. (ii) To issue a declaration that the respondent University and its officials have no right or authority to require the petitioners to produce NOC of the State Government as a prelude to issuing consent of affiliation/additional affiliation for the B.Com. LL.B. (Hons) course in their College after having found that all requisite amenities and facilities for the new course had been made available and that necessary additional faculty had been identified. LL.B. (Hons) course in their College after having found that all requisite amenities and facilities for the new course had been made available and that necessary additional faculty had been identified. (iii) To issue a declaration that the respondent University has a statutory duty and responsibility to issue “Additional Affiliation/Consent of Affiliation” to the petitioners to enable them to pursue further action to conduct the B.Com. LL.B. (Hons) course with intake of 60 seats in their College after complying with all stipulated formalities. (iv) To issue a declaration that the respondent University has to act fairly in the case of all Colleges including the College of the petitioners in the matter of issuing consent affiliation/additional affiliation as had already been cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. (v) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order setting aside Exhibit P5 Order to the extent recommendation had been made only for an intake of 40 seats in contravention of the prescriptions of the Bar Council of India. 17. A statement has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is stated that the petitioners had submitted an application for starting B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) program for the academic year 2020-2021. The application was duly processed by the University and the District Level Inspection Committee (DLIC) was deputed to conduct an inspection to verify the physical, institutional, instructional and infrastructural facilities available in the College. The Inspection Committee conducted the inspection and recommended that considering the facility available, affiliation can be granted for admitting 40 students since the infrastructural and other facilities available is sufficient only to meet the admission of 40 students. For further consideration of the matter, the matter was referred to the Government seeking its views. However, the Government of Kerala has not responded with its views. It is further stated that grant of affiliation is not automatic and the University is to satisfy the infrastructural and institutional facility for grant of affiliation for starting a professional course. It is further stated that the college was granted affiliation for the program with an intake of 40 students and it is after the program gets stabilised that the college can apply for an increase of seats up to the maximum intake fixed for that program. It is further stated that the college was granted affiliation for the program with an intake of 40 students and it is after the program gets stabilised that the college can apply for an increase of seats up to the maximum intake fixed for that program. It is further stated that before granting affiliation, the educational needs of the locality and other matters are to be satisfied. 18. I heard Sri. George Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Smt K. Amminikkutty, the learned senior Government Pleader. 19. Sri. George Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been successfully conducting three-year and five-year BBA LL.B. courses for the past few years. In order to refuse affiliation to the new program requested by the petitioners, frivolous reasons are being assigned. None of the provisions governing the grant of affiliation provides for obtaining NOC from the Government. The University was legally bound to consider the grant of consent for additional affiliation for the intake of 60 seats without unnecessarily insisting on NOC from the State Government. Referring to the sequence of events, it is contended that the provisional affiliation for the proposed course was not granted for the reason that the State Government has not expressed his views though more than 6 months have elapsed after the issuance of Exhibit P5 recommendation. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the case of KMCT College, consent of affiliation was refused by citing an inspection report. Their Lordships of the Division Bench of this Court relying on the report of the Commissioner Advocate ordered the grant of affiliation finding that the inspection report prepared by the inspection team did not reveal the correct views. The judgment was challenged by the University before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by order dated 18.6.2020 the Apex Court had held that this Court had rightly interfered and set aside the reports of the University and the University was cautioned, to be fair with all applicant colleges in the future. 20. It is contended that the right of the petitioners to conduct an additional course in Law in an existing law college is being flagrantly violated by the respondents. 20. It is contended that the right of the petitioners to conduct an additional course in Law in an existing law college is being flagrantly violated by the respondents. The learned counsel would also refer to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 and it was argued that the provisions mandate only that a copy of the NOC of the State Government should be attached if required. As it is not required as per the Calicut University Act and the First Statutes which governs affiliation, the University was not justified in insisting on the same. Finally, the learned counsel would refer to Exhibit P20 order granting additional affiliation to the KMCT, College and it was pointed out that affiliation was granted irrespective of NOC from the Government of Kerala, subject to ratification by the Syndicate and a different view cannot be taken for the petitioner college. 21. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the University, submitted that a grant of affiliation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Referring to Clauses 9, 19 and 26 of the 23rd Chapter in the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977, he submitted that a college has to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the Statute. It is further submitted that the views of the State Government is not an empty formality and only after obtaining the views can the University proceed to grant additional affiliation for the proposed new course. Finally, it is submitted that the intake can be hiked up to 60 seats only on stabilizing the course/program. 22. I have anxiously considered the submissions and have perused the records made available. 23. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the University was justified in limiting the intake to 40 seats instead of 60 seats as requested while recommending the ‘additional affiliation/consent of affiliation’ to commence B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) Course. The second question is whether the University could have insisted that the petitioners should produce a NOC from the State Government, for “additional affiliation/consent of affiliation.” The incidental question would be whether the University could refuse additional affiliation for the new programme on the ground that the Government has not responded with their views. 24. Section 56(1) of the Calicut University Act, 1975 provides for affiliation of colleges. 24. Section 56(1) of the Calicut University Act, 1975 provides for affiliation of colleges. The said provision reads as follows: Section 56: Affiliation of Colleges: (1) An application for affiliation to the University of any college or for affiliation in new course in any affiliated college shall be sent by the educational agency to the Registrar within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by the statutes. (2) The terms and conditions of affiliation of a college or of affiliation in new courses in an affiliated college and the procedure to be followed by the Syndicate in granting such affiliation, including the period within which the Syndicate shall consider an application under sub-section (1), shall be prescribed by the statutes: Provided that the chancellor may, by notification in the gazette, for reasons to be specified in the notification, extend the period within which the Syndicate shall consider any application under sub-section (1), whether such period has already expired or not, by such further period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in such notification. (3) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (2) such Statutes may provide for the pattern of staff, scales of pay and terms and conditions of service of members of the Staff and admission and selection of students for course and examinations. 25. The provision details the manner in which an educational institution should proceed to secure affiliation to the University of any college or for affiliation in new courses in any affiliated college. 26. Chapter 23 of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977 deals with the procedure to be adopted in granting affiliation of a new college and for new courses. The procedure for filing of the application, the form in which the application is to be filed, the manner in which application for additional affiliation is to be filed and the procedure to be adopted by the Syndicate on receipt of an application for affiliation etc. are stated therein. Clause (6) in Chapter 23 says that all applications seeking affiliation shall be considered by the Syndicate not later than 31st March preceding the Academic year in which the college/courses are proposed to be started. are stated therein. Clause (6) in Chapter 23 says that all applications seeking affiliation shall be considered by the Syndicate not later than 31st March preceding the Academic year in which the college/courses are proposed to be started. As per clause (9), the University is required to appoint a Commission to visit the proposed site of a new college/or to make physical verification of the facilities that may exist for starting the new college/course. The Commission is required to inspect the suitability of the proposed site, verify the title deeds as regards the proprietary right of the management and all other infrastructural requirements and amenities. As per sub-clause (g) of clause 9, the Syndicate, after considering the report of the local enquiry, if any, and after making such further enquiry as it may deem necessary and also after ascertaining the views of the Government, shall decide whether the affiliation be granted or refused, either in whole or in part. In other words, the provisions of the Act, as well as the First Statute, clearly places a responsibility upon the University to act diligently and within a time frame. The provisions only say that the views of the Government shall be ascertained. 27. It would also be relevant to have a glance through the relevant provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Act No. 25 of 1961 was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of the Bar Councils and an All-India Bar. Section 4 of the Act says that there shall be a Bar Council for the territories to which this Act extends to be known as the Bar Council of India. Section 6 provides for the functions of the State Bar Councils and Section 7 details the functions of the Bar Council of India. Section 7(h) states that it is the function of the Bar Council of India to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. Section 7(h) states that it is the function of the Bar Council of India to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. Section 7(i) confers authority on the Bar Council of India to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State Bar Councils to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with such directions as it may give in this behalf. Section 49 of the Act grants general power to the Bar Council of India to make rules. Section 49(d) says that the Bar Council will have powers to frame rules which may prescribe the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose. It is in the exercise of such functions that the Bar Council of India has framed the Rules of Legal Education. 28. Chapter II of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 deals with standards of Professional Legal Education. Rule 3 speaks about Recognized Universities and Rule 4 details the courses of Law leading to Bachelors Degree. Rule 16 provides for the conditions for a University to affiliate a Centre of Legal Education. 29. Rule 4 and 16 are of some relevance and the same is extracted below for convenience: “4. Law Courses: There shall be two courses of law leading to Bachelors Degree in Law as hereunder: (a) A three year degree course in law undertaken after obtaining a Bachelors’ Degree in any discipline of studies from a University or any other qualification considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India. Provided that admission to such a course of study for a degree in law is obtained from a University whose degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment. (b) A double degree integrated course combining Bachelors’ Degree course as designed by the University concerned in any discipline of study together with the Bachelors’ degree course in law, which shall be of not less than five years’ duration leading to the integrated degree in the respective discipline of knowledge and Law together. (b) A double degree integrated course combining Bachelors’ Degree course as designed by the University concerned in any discipline of study together with the Bachelors’ degree course in law, which shall be of not less than five years’ duration leading to the integrated degree in the respective discipline of knowledge and Law together. Provided that such an integrated degree program in law of the University is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment. Provided further that in the case of integrated double degree course the entire double degree course can be completed in one year less than the total time for regularly completing the two courses one after the other in regular and immediate succession, meaning thereby, that if the degree course in the basic discipline, such as in Arts, Science, Social Science, Commerce, Management, Fine Arts, Engineering, Technology or medicine etc. is of three years’ duration of studies, integrated course in law with the basic degree in the discipline could be completed in five years’ time but where the degree course in basic discipline takes four or five years, the integrated degree in law with such degree course in the discipline would take one year less for completing in regular time than the total time taken for the two degrees taken separately if completed back to back. Explanation 1: Double degree integrated course such as B.A. and LL.B. can be completed within (3+3 –1) i.e. 5 years. But if one intends to do B.Tech. and LL.B. it can be done in (4+3-1) i.e. 6 years. Explanation 2: Suppose in a University one can have a two years’ graduation in any social science leading to B.A. degree, in that case also the composite double degree integrated course leading to B.A. LL.B. would be of five years duration because double degree integrated course cannot be of less than five years’ duration.” 30. Thus, there can be two courses of Law - a three-year degree course in Law undertaken after obtaining a Bachelor's Degree in any discipline of studies from a University or any other qualification considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India and the other is a double degree integrated course combining Bachelors Degree course as designed by the University concerned in any discipline of study together with the Bachelors Degree course and law which shall be less than 5 years duration. 31. 31. Rule 16 of the Rules prescribes the conditions for a University to affiliate a Centre of Legal Education. The said Rule reads as follows: 16. Conditions for a University to affiliate a Centre of Legal Education: (1) When a University receives an application for affiliation of a Centre of Legal Education to provide legal education by running professional degree program in law under either or both the streams, the University may before deciding whether it is fit case for seeking inspection from the Bar Council of India, shall ensure that: (i) the applicant organization proposing to run the institution is either already a non-profit organization of trust or registered society or a nonprofit company or any other such legal entity or has taken all legal formalities to be as such. (ii) the institution has in its name either in freehold or leasehold, adequate land and buildings, to provide for Centre of Legal Education building, library, halls of residences separately for male and female and sports complex both indoor and outdoor, so that it can effectively run professional law courses provided that in case of leasehold the lease is not less than ten years. Provided that sufficient and adequate floor space area specially and completely devoted for a Centre of Legal Education, based on the size of its student population, faculty requirement, adequate space required for infrastructure facilities can be considered sufficient accommodation for the purpose in a multifaculty building on land possessed by the Management of a Society/Trust running multi-faculty institutions. (iii) recruited or taken steps to recruit adequate number of full time and visiting faculty members to teach each subjects of studies, each faculty having at least a Master Degree in the respective subject as required under the UGC Rules. (iv) there is the separate Centres of Legal Education for the study of law under a separate Principal who should be qualified in Law to be a Professor of Law as stipulated under UGC and Bar Council of India rules. (v) there is adequate space for reading in the library and there are required number of books and journals and adequate number of computers and computer terminals under a qualified librarian. (vi) if the prior permission of the State Government is necessary, a no-objection certificate is obtained to apply for affiliation. (v) there is adequate space for reading in the library and there are required number of books and journals and adequate number of computers and computer terminals under a qualified librarian. (vi) if the prior permission of the State Government is necessary, a no-objection certificate is obtained to apply for affiliation. (vii) a minimum Capital Fund as may be required under Schedule III from time to time by the Bar Council of India, and put into a Bank Account in the name of the proposed Centre of Legal Education sponsored by any private sponsor or sponsors. (viii) all other conditions of affiliation under the University rules as well as the Bar Council of India Rules are complied with. (2) After affiliation order is received from the University the Centres of Legal Education may only then apply for inspection by the Bar Council of India. 32. It would be relevant to note at this juncture that Rule 16(1)(vi) says that if the prior permission of the State Government is necessary, a no-objection certificate is required to be obtained to apply for affiliation. As discussed earlier, the Syndicate is required to obtain the views of the Government and no prior permission of the State Government is necessary as provided under Rule 16. 33. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that the BCI has come out with a comprehensive inspection manual laying down the guidelines for the purpose of inspection of Universities/Institutions which had applied for starting colleges/courses in law. As per the Bar Council of India Inspection Manual, 2010, the structural requirement for the first year is as below: For one stream One section/one stream Two section/one stream Three section/one stream Students' strength 60 120 180 Total Classes per week 30 60 90 Additional Class per option 6 12 18 General Classroom required 1 2 3 Special classroom for each additional option 1 2 3 Moot Court 1 1 1 Faculty requirement Principal/Head/Dean 1 1 1 English 1 1 1 Social Science Faculty: for each option of subsidiary subjects 1 1 1 Over three minimum subjects in social science/science/management etc. Faculty requirement for three subject 3* 3* 3* Faculty for Law 2 2* 2* Faculty in English 1 1* 1* Lab assistant/tutorial faculty 1 1 2 Total faculty (including Principal) 8+ 8+ 9+ (Annual) Bar Council of India *For more than one stream and section, multiply with number of streams and section. Other infrastructure facilities shall be as usual as mentioned in Program I, such as Construction facilities, library service, moot court, Wi-Fi connectivity, computer facility, games facility-halls of residence facility etc. 34. As per the inspection manual, the number of seats permitted for one section/one stream is 60 and that was what was sought by the petitioner. 35. The sequence of events would reveal that the first application for additional affiliation for a new programme with an intake of 60 seats was initially submitted on 18.12.2018 as is evidenced by Ext.P2. It was by communication dated 14.10.2019 that the University rejected the request on the ground that the inspection commission had not recommended the requested programme. Later, Ext.P4 application was submitted for additional affiliation on 24.12.2019. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, an inspection was conducted and the inspection team submitted Ext.P10 report on 27.2.2020 stating that the institution had the necessary infrastructure and other amenities for the new programme with an intake of 60 students. This report stands undisputed. However, despite the same, the application for affiliation was not considered. Later, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P5 communication to the 3rd respondent recommending the petitioner institute as one of the Colleges for the additional programme with a proposed intake of 40 students. As to how the respondents arrived at this number is not known. The learned standing counsel submitted that the University would increase the intake only once the Course run by the petitioner gets stabilised and only thereafter can the college apply for a permanent increase of seats. The learned standing counsel was not in a position to point out any provisions in the Act or in the Statute enabling the University to cut down the intake for ensuring that the course gets stabilised. At this juncture, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioner college had been conducting the 3-year LL.B. and 5-year Integrated BBA LL.B. courses with the approval of the BCI from the academic year 2015-2016. At this juncture, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioner college had been conducting the 3-year LL.B. and 5-year Integrated BBA LL.B. courses with the approval of the BCI from the academic year 2015-2016. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 was not able to substantiate the reasons for limiting the intake of students to 40, particularly when the BCI manual speaks of students strength in one section/one stream as 60. By conducting the existing courses successfully, the petitioners have proven their mettle and there appears to be no justification in limiting the intake to 40 seats. I am of the considered opinion that the University ought to have considered the application for additional affiliation/consent of affiliation only as per the provisions of the Statute as well as the Rules and they could not have limited intake to 40. 36. The next contention is whether the University was justified in not granting additional affiliation/consent of affiliation for the failure of the Government to express their views within a reasonable time. As per sub-clause (g) of clause 9 of Chapter 23 of the Calicut University First Statute, 1977, the Syndicate, after considering the report of the local enquiry, if any, and after making such further enquiry as it may deem necessary and also after ascertaining the views of the Government, could either grant or refuse affiliation, either in whole or in part. In other words, the provisions of the Act, as well as the First Statute, clearly places a responsibility upon the University to act diligently and within a time frame. The Syndicate is also required to obtain the views of the State Government. As held by the Apex Court in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, (2000) 5 SCC 231 obtaining the views of the Government cannot be taken to mean as requiring the approval of the State Government. 37. In the case on hand, right from 18.12.2018, the petitioners have been knocking on the doors of the University seeking additional affiliation/consent of affiliation. They have remitted the requisite fees seeking affiliation from the academic year 2019-2020 onwards. Later, Ext.P4 application was submitted on 24.12.2019 after remitting the requisite charges for the academic year 2020-2021. 37. In the case on hand, right from 18.12.2018, the petitioners have been knocking on the doors of the University seeking additional affiliation/consent of affiliation. They have remitted the requisite fees seeking affiliation from the academic year 2019-2020 onwards. Later, Ext.P4 application was submitted on 24.12.2019 after remitting the requisite charges for the academic year 2020-2021. The 1st respondent had also issued a communication dated 18.8.2020 recommending the petitioner college for additional programmes for the academic years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, albeit with an intake of 40 seats. Later, by Ext.P7 letter dated 18.11.2020, the 2nd petitioner had addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent seeking to express their views. The petitioners have also produced Ext.P14 letter dated 27.2.2021 requesting the 3rd respondent to consider their request and to express the views of the Government of the proposed course with an intake of 60 seats. To date, the 3rd respondent has not cared to respond to the requests made by the petitioners. Even before this Court, the 3rd respondent has not filed any counter/statement opposing any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. 38. Rule 16 (1) (vi) of the Rules of Legal Education says that if the prior permission of the State Government is necessary, the institution is required to obtain a no-objection certificate to apply for affiliation. However, as per the First Statute, only the views of the Government has to be ascertained. Going by the sequence of events, the only conclusion possible is that the Government has no objection to granting affiliation as they have not responded to the requests of the petitioner or the University. 39. There is yet another matter. The petitioners have produced Exhibit P20 copy of the order issued by the 1st respondent on 6.10.2020 to the KMCT Law College, Kuttipuram, which had also applied for starting B.Com. LL.B. programme for the academic years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. The University fought tooth and nail to deny affiliation and the matter reached up to the Apex Court. The Apex Court while rejecting their SLP had cautioned the University in adopting questionable tactics to deny affiliation. Finally, the University had to grant additional affiliation to the said college with an intake of 120 seats. In the case of KMCT college, additional affiliation was granted irrespective of the NOC from the Govt. of Kerala subject to ratification by the Syndicate. Finally, the University had to grant additional affiliation to the said college with an intake of 120 seats. In the case of KMCT college, additional affiliation was granted irrespective of the NOC from the Govt. of Kerala subject to ratification by the Syndicate. There is no explanation in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents as to why a different criterion was adopted in the case of the petitioners herein and in insisting that affiliation cannot be granted without obtaining the views of the Government. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the University was not justified in refusing additional affiliation/consent of affiliation to commence the new course solely on the ground that the Government had not expressed its views. 40. Having considered the entire facts, I have no doubt in my mind that the denial of additional affiliation/consent for affiliation to the Nehru Academy of Law is clearly arbitrary and unsustainable. Ext.P5 order to the extent, the recommendation had been issued only for an intake of 40 seats will stand quashed and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue fresh recommendation permitting an intake of 60 seats. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue to the petitioners an order of additional affiliation/consent of affiliation with the intake of 60 seats to enable the petitioners to pursue necessary action to obtain approval of the BCI and to conduct B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) course without insisting for the views of the State Government. Orders shall be passed within one month of the date of production of a copy of the judgment. 41. This Writ Petition will stand allowed as above.