JUDGMENT : The St.Albert’s College, Ernakulam, which is an autonomous College as per the provisions of the “University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures of Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2018” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ for short), has approached this Court impugning certain demands made upon them by the Mahatma Gandhi University (‘M.G. University’ for short). 2. Since both these writ petitions involve assessment of the same Regulations of the UGC and since the issues impelled are also concatenated, I deem it appropriate to dispose of them jointly through this judgment. 3. Among the two writ petitions, W.P(C)No.20687 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner – College, impugning Ext.P5 order of the University demanding an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards ‘syllabus approval fee’ for each Course they are running; while, in the latter case, namely W.P(C)No.2685 of 2021, they assail Ext.P3 demand made by the University, asking them to remit an amount of Rs.27,80,026/-under various heads. 4. Sri.Sherry J.Thomas – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – College, relied upon the “UGC Regulations 2018”, to assert that the only amount that can be charged from his client is a One Time Fee, already collected at the time of conferment of their autonomous status. He, however, conceded that his client is willing to pay the Student Affiliation fees, Annual Admission fee, Sports Affiliation fee, University Union fees, Students Welfare Fund fee and the Students Insurance Premium and that the break up of the same, for the period in question, has been declared by themselves in Ext.P4 in W.P(C)No.2685 of 2021, and paid. He asserted that every other charge in addition to this, is incapable of being imposed upon his client; and therefore, that Ext.P3 in W.P(C)No.2685 of 2021, to such extent, is illegal and unlawful. 5. Sri. Sherry J.Thomas, thereafter, adverted to Ext.P5 in W.P(C)No.20687 of 2019 demand of the M.G.University, to argue that the syllabus of the various Courses run by his client need not be approved by the University, since they are an Autonomous Institution; and hence, that the demand of Rs.50,000/-for such purpose for each Course, is untenable and liable to be set aside. Sherry J.Thomas, thereafter, adverted to Ext.P5 in W.P(C)No.20687 of 2019 demand of the M.G.University, to argue that the syllabus of the various Courses run by his client need not be approved by the University, since they are an Autonomous Institution; and hence, that the demand of Rs.50,000/-for such purpose for each Course, is untenable and liable to be set aside. He then explained that his client has already paid the said amounts under duress and that it has been clarified by this Court that such payments will be subject to the final decision of the writ petition. He argued that since the University could not have charged his client as afore, the amounts already paid by them must be directed to be refunded without any further delay. 6. In response, Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the M.G. University, submitted that, as per Section 118 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act (‘M.G.University Act’ for short), the University has all powers over autonomous Colleges, as are applicable to any affiliated College; and that the petitioner is, therefore, liable to pay all the fees as are applicable. He argued that the demand made on the College through Ext.P3 in W.P(C)No.2685 of 2021 is on firm basis; while the demand for the “syllabus approval fees”, as reflected in Ext.P5 in W.P(C)No.20687 of 2019, is fully justified on the edifice of Section 118 of the M.G.University Act, particularly Sub Clause 2 thereof. He argued that the afore statutory provision mandates that where the Governing Council of an Autonomous College has approved and recommended any Academic Programme to the University, the Vice-Chancellor shall cause the proposal to be placed before the relevant Board of Studies for approval. He submitted that, therefore, the necessary fees for approval of such syllabus can certainly be charged by his client. 7. Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy – learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed by his client in W.P(C)No.2685 of 2021, explaining the manner in which an Autonomous Institution is to function under the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’. He pointed out that an Autonomous Institution can review, restructure, redesign and prescribe its own courses/programmes of study and syllabi, as also to formulate new courses/programmes within the nomenclature specified by the UGC. He pointed out that an Autonomous Institution can review, restructure, redesign and prescribe its own courses/programmes of study and syllabi, as also to formulate new courses/programmes within the nomenclature specified by the UGC. He added that Autonomous Colleges need not pay affiliation fee to the parent University every year, though a One Time Fee can be demanded from them at the time of conferment of the Autonomous status. As regards the syllabus, Sri.Krishnamoorthy submitted that, going by Clause 10.3 of the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’, an autonomous college, after restructuring or redesigning the course with the approval of their Academic Council, is only required to intimate the University of such proceedings. He submitted that, therefore, no fees can be charged by the parent University for approving the syllabus and clarified that the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ do not provide for any such. Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy concluded his submissions saying that since the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ came after the M.G.University Act, the latter cannot be used to fix fees by the University and that they will have to implicitly follow the former Regulations. 8. When I consider and evaluate the afore submissions, it is evident that charge of fees on the petitioner – College can be done by the University only within the ambit of the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’, read with the M.G.University Act. Unless the various heads under which such fees are charged, find sanction and justification under either of the afore statutory schemes, the demand made by the University will have to fail. 9. As seen above, it is the specific stand of the UGC that an Autonomous College need to pay a One Time Fee only at the time of conferment of their status and not on a recurring basis. However, the M.G.University takes the stand that they are entitled to charge the Autonomous Colleges akin to ordinary affiliated Colleges and that this applies even to “affiliation fees” and “syllabus approval fees”. 10. I must say that I cannot find favour with the afore stand of the M.G.University without further evaluation, because, as I have already said above, unless the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ provide for it, charge of a fee would become untenable. 11. 10. I must say that I cannot find favour with the afore stand of the M.G.University without further evaluation, because, as I have already said above, unless the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ provide for it, charge of a fee would become untenable. 11. This is more so because, even the M.G.University Act does not provide for the heads under which fees can be charged, assuming that the provisions of Section 118(2) of the said Act would require the syllabus of an Autonomous College to be approved by it. The said Act does not say that fees can be charged for this; and this is pertinent because Clause 10.3 of the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ only stipulates that change of the syllabus or its restructuring as an Autonomous College need to be only informed by them to the University and nothing more. 12. That said, when one reads Clause 3.5 of the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’, conjointly with clause 10.3 thereof, it becomes evident that an Autonomous College need to pay “affiliation fee” only as a one time measure, at the time when they are conferred with such status. Therefore, a recurring “affiliation fees” is impossible; while the charge of a “syllabus approval fee” is extremely suspect. 13. However, the University has proceeded as if an Autonomous College is like any other affiliated College and has then issued the impugned demands on the petitioner – College. 14. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the entire matter will require to be reconsidered by the University, after hearing the College and adverting to the specific contentions/submissions made on behalf of the UGC before this Court, particularly the averments in their counter affidavit, filed in W.P(C)No.2685 of 2021. Resultantly, I order this writ petition with the following directions: (a) The University will hear the competent Authority of the petitioner – College and then decide the heads under which fees can be charged upon them and proceed to quantify the amounts as are legally permissible; thus culminating in an appropriate fresh order as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (b) While proceeding to do as afore, the University will not charge the College under the head of ‘affiliation fee’; and as regards the ‘syllabus approval fee’ they will hear them and decide if any such can be charged, assessing the specific averments of the UGC in their counter affidavit in W.P(C)No.2685 of 2021 and adverting specifically to Clauses 3.5 and 10.3 of the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’. Needless to say, my observations above will also be kept in mind during such. (c) Depending upon the afore exercise, the petitioner – College can be asked to pay any additional amounts, if they are so liable; but if it is found that the amounts already collected from them are impermissible under the M.G.University Act and the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’, steps will be taken to refund the same within a period of two months after the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to them. (d) It goes without saying that if any further demand is to be made by the University on the College resultant to the afore exercise, they will be at liberty to challenge the same appropriately; for which purpose, their contentions in that regard are left open. After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.Surin George Ipe intervened to say that there is a difference between ‘affiliation fee’ and ‘student affiliation fee’, conceding that the former cannot be charged annually on an Autonomous College. Shri.Sherry J. Thomas submitted that his client is also aware of this and that, as has been stated in Ext.P4 along with W.P(C)No.2685 of 2021, they have agreed to pay the “student affiliation fees”, but that under the guise of this, the annual “affiliation fee” cannot be charged. Even though I have recorded the rival submissions of the parties on this issue it is needless to say that, going by the stand of the UGC, an annual “affiliation fee” can never be charged, except at the time when the institution is conferred with the Autonomous status. This shall be specifically kept in mind by the University while complying with the directions ut supra.