JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. These matters have been heard together since the factual underpinning presented and the reliefs pleaded in them are similar, if not identical. 2. All the afore cases have been filed by the Principal of the Kannur Medical College, Anjarakandy, Kannur (“College” for ease), against the orders issued by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala (AFRC), constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (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 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for brevity). 3. These matters have a fair amount of history, but it will not be necessary for this Court to speak about them in detail, since all of them have been concluded by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Breviloquently, on the allegation that the College had collected large amounts of money from each of the students, in excess of the fees payable, matters reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which concluded in an Order in SLP No. 23225/2018 (“SLP Order”) whereby it was directed to repay the fees, along with double amount of the sums collected over and above it, to the students within the time frames fixed therein. 5. It transpires that, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when amounts as ordered were not paid, the students approached the AFRC through independent petitions. 6. In the meanwhile, pending such applications, the College asserts that they had entered into out-of-court settlements with some of the students and that applications were preferred by them or their parents/guardians before the AFRC, to withdraw the complaints. 7. The College alleges that, however, the AFRC disregarded the settlements between the parties - in cases in which they had been arrived at and then proceeded to issue the impugned orders imposing huge amounts on them, without assessing the adequacy and worth of the evidence led by the students or their parents/guardians; and thus contend that each of them are untenable and vitiated. They resultantly pray that the orders impugned in these cases be set aside. 8. I have heard Sri. Abdul Raoof Pallipath - learned counsel for the petitioner in all these cases; Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, Sri. They resultantly pray that the orders impugned in these cases be set aside. 8. I have heard Sri. Abdul Raoof Pallipath - learned counsel for the petitioner in all these cases; Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, Smt. Usha Rani appearing for the party respondents and Smt. Mary Benjamin - learned Standing Counsel for the AFRC. 9. Smt. Mary Benjamin contested the afore submissions of Sri. Abdul Raoof Pallipath, vehemently maintaining that they are edificed on incorrect facts and in an attempt to stymie the rigour of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. She explained that, in the “SLP Order” the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the College to return the fees collected from the students, along with double the amount of the sums which they had illegally obtained in addition to it; but that they, thereafter, appear to have approached some of the students or their parents/guardians directly and to have paid certain amounts, thus forcing them to file applications for withdrawal of their complaints before the AFRC. 10. Smt.Mary Benjamin added that, however, when the Committee did not consider the aforesaid applications, the College approached this Court and obtained an interim stay initially; but that when the matters again reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through Civil Appeal No. 596/2021, a detailed judgment (“Civil Appeal Judgment”) was delivered, directing the AFRC to issue notices to each of the students and to assess the actual amounts paid by them, thus leading to appropriate orders in terms of the directions in the “SLP Order”. She argued that, therefore, the AFRC had no other option, but to consider the matter in such perspective de hors the alleged settlements between the parties; and further explained that, in any event of the matter, the unequivocal evidence led by the students or Parents/Guardians is to the effect that they had paid the proven amounts to the College, in excess of the applicable fee; and that some of them signed the alleged settlement documents without being aware of its contents and being pushed to a corner, being told that no amounts will be given to them, unless they agree to the same. 11. 11. Smt. Mary Benjamin then argued that the petitioner – College did not contest any of the evidence on record, including the testimonies of the witnesses on the side of the students to the afore effect; and therefore, that their challenge to the orders of the AFRC in these cases are not merely untenable, but extremely confutative. She thus prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed. 12. Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj and Smt. Usha Rani - learned counsel appearing for the various contesting party respondents in these cases, adopted the afore submissions of Smt. Mary Benjamin; then supplementing it, predicating that the alleged settlement between their clients and the College was a result of fraud and misrepresentation perpetuated by the latter, on the threat that the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will be complied with only if they sign certain documents. They pointed out that the witnesses on the side of their clients have specifically averred before the AFRC to such effect and that there is nothing on record to show that such depositions were impeached in any manner known to law. They contended that, therefore, the AFRC was wholly justified in having issued the orders impugned in these writ petitions de hors the alleged settlements between the parties; and thus argued that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 13. I have considered the afore submissions with great amount of care. 14. As I have already said above, the issues in these cases are governed by at least two sets of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. These directions have become final and they are binding on them, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 15. By the first set of directions - issued in the “SLP Order” the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered the petitioner - College to return the fee to the students, along with double the amount of the sums which they had collected in addition to it; and when this was not fully complied with, the students filed applications before the AFRC. 16. Interestingly, pending such applications, the College appears to have directly contacted the students or their parents/guardians who are the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 16. Interestingly, pending such applications, the College appears to have directly contacted the students or their parents/guardians who are the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 18975/2022, 19110/2022, 19136/2022, 19283/2022, 19470/2022, 19476/2022, 19794/2022, 20072/2022, 20343/2022, 21507/2022 and to have ‘settled’ the matter and obtained certain documents from them, including affidavits, then persuading them to move the AFRC for withdrawing their complaints. However, the AFRC did not accede to the same and the matter came before this Court, which stayed the proceedings for some time; but finally culminating in the second set of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 596/2021, affirmatively declaring that the AFRC ought to have issued notices to all the students and ascertained the actual amounts of money paid by them, thus obtaining full compliance of its directions earlier. 17. Obviously, therefore, as rightly argued by Smt. Mary Benjamin, the AFRC could have only acted in the manner it has done, by issuing notices to the students and asking them to lead evidence in support of their contentions, that they had paid amounts to the College in addition to the fees. 18. Pertinently, even though Sri. Abdul Raoof Pallipath - learned counsel for the petitioner, asserts that the evidence led by the students or their parents/guardians were not commensurate or sufficient, no attempt was made by the College to controvert it, by impelling contra evidence or by offering a witness on their side to depose before it. On the contrary, they made attempts to cross-examine the witnesses on the side of the students; but, as rightly found by the AFRC, this did not, in any manner, reputate or impeach the worth of the testimonies offered by them. 19. This is all the more pertinent because the afore said witnesses specifically explained in what manner some of them were forced into a settlement by the College and their depositions bear little doubt that the students or their parents/guardians were given to understand that unless they agree to sign certain documents, the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the “SLP Order” could not be complied with, which persuaded many of them to agree to do so, being under extreme requirement for financial resources at the relevant time. 20. 20. When the depositions of the witnesses on the side of the students have not been, in any cogent manner, traversed by the College by offering contra - evidence or by examining witnesses on their side, I am certain that this Court cannot accede to the argument of Sri. Abdul Raoof Pallipath that such evidence should not have been considered by the AFRC. 21. To paraphrase, if the College had a case that the evidence and the depositions led and offered by the students or their witnesses - both in cases where there were alleged settlements, or otherwise - were unworthy, then they had a duty to lead rebutting contra - evidence, or to offer oral evidence through their witnesses, which they refused to do, indicating their knowledge that if they do so, they would be put in greater trouble. As said above, mere cross examination of the witnesses on the side of the students, without the worth of their testimonies being impinged at all, would only add to its value. 22. One, therefore, fails to gather how the petitioner has now come forward to assert that the evidence given by the students was improper or insufficient and that the depositions of their witnesses are unworthy, when they remain without any contest or impeachment even as on today. 23. That being so said, this Court cannot countenance the “settlements” entered into at the instance of the petitioner - College with the students or their parents/guardians, paying them a much lower figure, subsequent to the specific directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the “SLP Order” - which was incontestably that they must refund not only the fees, but double the amount of money collected in excess - without having obtained the leave of the Hon'ble Court for such purpose. Their actions in not having done so, but still pursuing the students to obtain a settlement of the nature which they are relying upon, can only be seen to be grossly confutative and intended to subvert the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 24. In any case, the alleged “settlements” lost its relevance or worth - even if any - on the Hon'ble Supreme Court issuing the “Civil Appeal Judgment” subsequently. 25. 24. In any case, the alleged “settlements” lost its relevance or worth - even if any - on the Hon'ble Supreme Court issuing the “Civil Appeal Judgment” subsequently. 25. In the afore circumstances, it is incontestable that the AFRC has acted well within its jurisdiction and in the manner it was expected to do, under the orders/directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, that the proceedings impugned in these cases are irreproachable and must obtain the imprimatur of this Court. 26. Axiomatically, I dismiss all these writ petitions and confirm the orders of the AFRC impugned therein. 27. All consequences resultant to this will follow without any further delay.