ORDER : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. In this intra-court appeal, unsuccessful writ applicant lay challenge to the order dated 11.1.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.452 of 2018, where-under Special Civil Application, filed questioning the resolution No.22 dated 31.8.2017 passed by the Syndicate of respondent University was not entertained and at the threshold, petition has been dismissed by assigning the following reasons:- “4. When the impugned resolution is seen, it is manifested from the resolution that in the meeting of Syndicate held on 31.08.2017 in which the impugned resolution was passed, the petitioner was present in the meeting and participated in the decision making process. When the impugned resolution is passed by the Syndicate of which the petitioner is a member, the petition cannot be said to have locus standi in law to challenge the resolution. He is a participatory in the meeting in which the collective decision was taken by the Syndicate. As a member of the Syndicate, the petition is bound by the said decision and cannot be permitted to resile therefrom so as to acquire any locus standi to raise challenge there against. The petitioner stands divested of locus in law to file the petition to challenge the decision of the Syndicate-the resolution in question.” 2. We have heard Mr. I.H. Syed, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. A.D. Oza, learned counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the case papers. 3. Appellant, who is the writ applicant before learned Single Judge assailed the resolution No.22 dated 31.8.2017 passed by the Syndicate of respondent University, whereby it was resolved thereunder by the University to impose fine of Rs.2 lakh from the concerned colleges in the event of students’ admission sought in Sardar Patel University affiliated colleges get their admissions cancelled and in the event of University receiving applications in writing for return of original documents and fee is not returned being proved. The learned Single Judge has refused to entertain the petition on the ground that petitioner is a member of the Syndicate and he had participated in the meeting of the syndicate and is bound by the said decision and cannot be permitted to resile therefrom so as to acquire any locus standi to raise the challenge against the said resolution. 4. It is the contention of Mr. 4. It is the contention of Mr. I.H. Syed, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that said finding of learned Single Judge is contrary to the minutes of the meeting, whereunder it is recorded that there was an objection raised by the appellant and as such, the finding of learned Single Judge to the effect that it was a collective decision is contrary to the records. He would further elaborate his submission by contending that UGC notification dated nil of December 2012 (Annexure-C) would provide mechanism for redressal of the grievances, if any, and it is in this background, petitioner as a member of the syndicate had objected to for said resolution being passed where-under Syndicate resolved to impose penalty on colleges and on account of UGC regulation having been given complete go-bye, the resolution would not stand the test of law and as such, he has prayed for order of the learned Single Judge being set aside and Special Civil Application being allowed. 5. Per contra, Shri A.D. Oza, learned counsel appearing for respondents would support the impugned order. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we notice that petitioner is an advocate by occupation as indicated in the cause title of the appeal memorandum itself and he was elected to the syndicate of first respondent University and in that capacity, undisputedly he participated in the deliberations of the meeting of University Syndicate held on 31.8.2017 which culminated in resolution No.22, being passed, where-under it was resolved by the syndicate to impose fine of Rs.2 lakh on such of the affiliated colleges which refused to return the original documents to the students if their admissions are being cancelled and documents are not returned even after it is sought for by them. Even assuming for a moment, accepting the proposition made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant namely writ applicant had objected to the resolution dated 31.8.2017, yet writ applicant cannot be held or construed to be a person aggrieved by the said resolution. Imposition of fine as per the resolution is on the colleges for not complying with the direction issued to them. As to how writ applicant can be said to be aggrieved by said resolution, is the moot question which has remained unanswered. Imposition of fine as per the resolution is on the colleges for not complying with the direction issued to them. As to how writ applicant can be said to be aggrieved by said resolution, is the moot question which has remained unanswered. At the most, objection of appellant can be taken note of by the syndicate, as has been done in the instant case before passing the resolution. However, mere raising of the objection would not clothe the petitioner with a right to challenge the imposition of fine by the syndicate on such of the erring colleges for the simple reason that appellant would not be an “Aggrieved Person”. It is only the aggrieved person who can challenge said order of imposition of fine, inasmuch as imposition of fine would be on such erring colleges and it is for the college to challenge the same as it would be aggrieved by such imposition of fine, if at all if any. The records on hand do not disclose on which of the colleges on whom fine has been imposed and/or collected. Averments made in the Special Civil Application is as vague, vagueness could be and it is bereft of material particulars, namely as the details of colleges on whom fine has been levied and collected. Be that as it may. Petitioner does not have locus to challenge the levy of fine on such of those colleges and he would not be an aggrieved person as already noticed hereinabove and records also not disclose that resolution dated 31.8.2017 having culminated in imposition of fine on such of those colleges which might have not complied with the directions issued by the University. Hence, petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he would have a right to espouse the cause of those colleges on whom fine has been ordered to be imposed by resolution of the Syndicate. 7. Mr. Syed, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would also contend that petitioner is incidently the President of the college run under the name and style of ‘Anand Peoples Medicare Society’ - APMS. If it is so, it was for the said institution to challenge the resolution of the Syndicate in the event of any fine having been imposed on said college, if at all, if there is any such fine imposed on the said college. If it is so, it was for the said institution to challenge the resolution of the Syndicate in the event of any fine having been imposed on said college, if at all, if there is any such fine imposed on the said college. Even list of colleges produced at Annexure-G does not disclose APMS college having been imposed with the fine. Even otherwise, the institutions which have been visited with fine having not challenged the resolution of Syndicate imposing fine, petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he is an ‘aggrieved person’. For the reasons afore-stated and also for the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, which we affirm, present appeal stands DISMISSED. Notice is discharged. All pending Civil Application stands consigned to record.