ORDER: U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not including the names of the petitioners in the schedule of the Andhra Pradesh Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2016 (for short, ‘The APPU Act, 2016’) as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of the aforesaid Act and for a consequential direction to the respondent to include the names of the writ petitioners in the schedule of the said Act. 2. The petitioners’ case succintly is thus: (a) The 1st petitioner is a Society registered in the year 1986 with an object to promote higher education, particularly technical and professional education. The 1st petitioner already established Physiotherapy, Nursing, Degree and Junior colleges at various places including at Ongole and Sattenapalli. While so, the 1st petitioner made an application dated 07.05.2018 to the respondent seeking permission to establish the 2nd petitioner University under the APPU Act, 2016. The petitioner submitted its proposal and project report in the prescribed format. On perusal of its proposal, the Government have issued G.O.Rt.No.251 dated 02.11.2018 constituting an Expert Committee to evaluate the proposal and give its recommendations as mandated under Section 8 of the AP Private Universities Act, 2016. The Committee have comprehensively evaluated the proposal in its meeting held on 03.11.2018 and made recommendations. Basing on the said recommendations, the respondent issued Letter of Intent (LOI) No.674244/ECE/A2/2018 dated 22.01.2019 to the 1st petitioner for establishing the 2nd petitioner-University. In the said LOI, the respondent has specifically asked the writ petitioners to consider the feasibility of starting classes from the Academic Year 2019-20. As per the APPU Act, 2016, when once the LOI is issued by the respondent, the writ petitioners are entitled to disseminate knowledge as per Section 4 of the said Act. The writ petitioners have written a letter dated 01.02.2019 complying all the provisions of the Act as required by the respondent. As per the APPU Act, 2016, when once the LOI is issued by the respondent, the writ petitioners are entitled to disseminate knowledge as per Section 4 of the said Act. The writ petitioners have written a letter dated 01.02.2019 complying all the provisions of the Act as required by the respondent. (b) While so, respondent issued letter No.674244/EC/HE/2018 dated 07.08.2019 informing the petitioners that in their advertisement for admissions for the Academic Year 2019-20, the writ petitioners have stated as if OSG University is recognized under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, but until the inclusion of the name of the University in the schedule of the Act, the University is not deemed to be recognized by the UGC and thus directed the writ petitioners to withdraw the process of admissions immediately. The 1st petitioner sent a detailed reply dated 14.08.2019 explaining therein as to how its advertisements were in accordance with the provisions of the law and requested to include the name of the writ petitioners in the schedule of the Act. (c) While so, the A.P. Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission also issued a letter dated 20.01.2020 with similar allegation and sought for the explanation of the petitioners. To this letter also, the petitioners submitted a detailed reply dated 12.02.2020. Thereafter, there was no response from the said Commission. (d) While so, basing on the complaint of Smt. Anuradha, the former wife of the Chairman and Director of the 1st petitioner, the respondent addressed a D.O. letter dated 02.03.2020 to the District Collector, Prakasam District, basing on which the Collector stated to have conducted an inquiry through RDO, Ongole behind the back of the writ petitioners which is not an enquiry in the eye of law. The RDO, Ongole submitted report to the District Collector, Prakasam on 03.03.2020. The writ petitioners having come to know about the said fact, addressed a detailed letter dated 18.05.2020 to the RDO, Ongole and the District Collector, Prakasam explaining how the writ petitioners are entitled to make admissions and how the enquiry of RDO is erroneous and requested RDO to send a fresh report to the Government. The petitioners also sent a legal notice dated 17.05.2020 by e-mail and asked the respondents to include their names in the schedule of the Act. However, there was no response. The petitioners also sent a legal notice dated 17.05.2020 by e-mail and asked the respondents to include their names in the schedule of the Act. However, there was no response. As per the provisions of the APPU Act, 2016, when once the Letter of Intent is issued by the Government, the University is eligible to undertake the functions of disseminating knowledge in the relevant field, for which LOI was issued. The respondent has no right to issue letter dated 07.08.2019 asking the writ petitioners to stop admissions. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The 1st respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition contending thus: (a) The 1st petitioner submitted proposals to establish Private University in the State of Andhra Pradesh in May, 2018 and the sponsoring body was invited to be present before the Expert Committee on 03.11.2018. The recommendation of the Expert Committee as recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting reads: “Deferred until following – CAs approval for, balance sheet for sponsoring body, latest audited financial Statement of sponsoring body; After necessary approvals, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of AP to take a call.” As such the Expert Committee had not given unconditional clearance to the petitioner society as contended by the writ petitioner and in fact it was a provisional one given subject to conditions. (b) The Government after verifying financials and obtaining clearance from the Chartered Accountant, took steps to issue Letter of Intent (LOI) to the petitioner society, In fact Para 6(5) of the LOI (Ltr.No.674244/EC/A2/2018) reads “The Sponsoring Body may consider the feasibility of starting classes from Academic Year 2019-20”. However, the said conditional letter issued by the respondent cannot be deemed as consent by the petitioners herein to start classes without obtaining approval of the compliance report and hence the said letter is not a permit to the petitioners to automatically function without there being a final approval by the respondent. Since the petitioners are not recognized as a University, they cannot exercise rights as a University. Therefore, the Government in its Lr.No.64244/EC-HE/2018, dated 07.08.2019 directed the petitioner to withhold the admissions until their compliance is verified. In spite of such instructions, petitioners refused to comply with the directions of the Government. Petitioners in the advertisement for admissions claimed to have UGC recognition, which has no relevance of compliance of the conditions stipulated by the Government. Therefore, the Government in its Lr.No.64244/EC-HE/2018, dated 07.08.2019 directed the petitioner to withhold the admissions until their compliance is verified. In spite of such instructions, petitioners refused to comply with the directions of the Government. Petitioners in the advertisement for admissions claimed to have UGC recognition, which has no relevance of compliance of the conditions stipulated by the Government. Moreover, it is in the interest of public and students that the Government had directed the petitioner to conduct admissions only after obtaining due approvals. Sponsoring body has indulged in dissemination of wrongful information and misled the public, which is untenable under law. (c) Section-3 of the APPU Act, 2016 reads that the Government may permit the establishment of a University by inclusion of the name and location of the University, the name and address of the Sponsoring body and details of its registration in the Schedule, meaning thereby, only upon inclusion of the name in the Schedule of the Act, an institution will be recognized and referred to as a University. Therefore, mere obtaining LOI will not enable to recognize any institution as University as per the scheme of the Act. The compliance report submitted by the petitioner society needs to be verified and approved by the Expert Committee as per Section 10(5) of the APPU Act, 2016. Further the Expert Committee constituted under G.O.Rt.No.251, H.E [E.C] Department, dated 02.11.2018 was valid for the academic year 2018-19 only. The new Expert Committee has not been constituted till date. (d) It is submitted that all the existing Private Universities have submitted compliance reports and same were verified and approved by the Expert Committee. Hence, the contentions or allegations made out in the Grounds (f) and (g) of the writ petition are not true and same are denied by the respondent. The petitioner’s contention that the inclusion of the name of the writ petitioners in the Schedule of the Act is a consequential and formal ministerial Act is a wrong and misplaced presumption. The State Government cannot sanction and allow a Private University to commence academic operations and make the career and the life of the students vulnerable in the hands of the inexperienced persons or society without verifying their credentials by the Expert Committee. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. The State Government cannot sanction and allow a Private University to commence academic operations and make the career and the life of the students vulnerable in the hands of the inexperienced persons or society without verifying their credentials by the Expert Committee. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder denouncing the counter averments and pleaded that the respondents’ contention that the Expert Committee never recorded and recommended the Government under Section 10(3) of the APPU Act is false. On the other hand, the Government basing on its recommendations, verified the financials and obtained clearance from the Chartered Accountant and finally issued LOI. The issuance of LOI is the statutory decision of the Government and therefore, there is no bar for the petitioner to commence the University. Earlier, the respondents issued several LOIs with similar wordings to other Universities and allowed them to commence classes on the basis of the LOI whose particulars are mentioned in the rejoinder. Basing on the LOI, those Universities have issued admission notifications similar to the notification issued by the petitioner University. The respondents did not raise any objections for such notifications, but surprisingly objected the functioning of the petitioner alone. Further, under Section 4 of the APPU Act, the petitioner is entitled to disseminate knowledge in the fields for which the Government issued LOI and therefore, the petitioner was right in issuing notification for admissions basing on the LOI. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri M.Pitchaiah and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education representing the respondents. 6. While severely fulminating the letter dated 07.08.2019 of the respondents, learned counsel for petitioner Sri M.Pitchaiah would argue that on the recommendations of the Expert Committee only the respondents have issued LOI to the petitioner on 22.01.2019, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the Sponsoring Body may consider the feasibility of starting classes from the Academic Year 2019-20. Referring the letter dated 22.01.2019, learned counsel would strenuously argue that the respondent only mentioned the general conditions that the petitioner shall adhere to all the norms and conditions as stipulated in the APPU Act, 2016 and except that no other specific conditions were imposed. Referring the letter dated 22.01.2019, learned counsel would strenuously argue that the respondent only mentioned the general conditions that the petitioner shall adhere to all the norms and conditions as stipulated in the APPU Act, 2016 and except that no other specific conditions were imposed. The petitioner has submitted its compliance letter dated 01.02.2019 stating that the petitioners have decided to start classes from the Academic Year 2019-20 as they have established the required infrastructure and were recruiting the qualified faculty etc. Further, in the said letter dated 01.02.2019, the petitioners have clearly mentioned that admission notification would be issued for various courses for the Academic Year 2019-2020. Through the above letter, the petitioners have submitted their readiness to perform all the obligations and reported that they were ready to commence the classes from the Academic Year 2019-2020. In that view, there was nothing left on their part to fulfill. Basing on the said compliance report, instead of including the petitioners’ name in the Schedule of the APPU Act, 2016, surprisingly the respondents issued a letter dated 07.08.2019 alleging as if the petitioners have committed a grave mistake by issuing admission notifications by referring them as OSG University even before including their name in the Schedule as a University. Learned counsel would submit that inclusion of the name of the petitioners’ University in the Schedule is only a consequential act. When once the LOI was issued, it would signify that the respondent authorities were satisfied with the capability of the petitioners to establish and administer the University and impart education in the relevant field. He would further submit that under similar circumstances, the respondent after issuing LOI to some sponsoring bodies, permitted them to commence the classes on the basis of said LOI and later their names were included in the Schedule of the Act. He quoted the names of SRM University, VIT University, Saveetha University, VelTech University and Best University in this regard. Learned counsel would thus conclude, it is not just on the part of the respondents to send a letter dated 07.08.2019 taking objection against the petitioners’ issuing admission notification. He prayed to allow the writ petition. 7. He quoted the names of SRM University, VIT University, Saveetha University, VelTech University and Best University in this regard. Learned counsel would thus conclude, it is not just on the part of the respondents to send a letter dated 07.08.2019 taking objection against the petitioners’ issuing admission notification. He prayed to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader would argue that mere issuance of LOI is not the be-all and end-all of the matter and the petitioners cannot take the LOI as a fool-proof permission of the respondent to commence the University and to issue admission notification. The compliance submitted by the petitioners shall be thoroughly examined by the respondent authority and thereafter permission has to be issued. Above all, the petitioners’ name has to be included in the Schedule recognizing it as a University. Without undertaking this exercise, the petitioners cannot go ahead on the strength of mere LOI. Learned Government Pleader would argue that the petitioner cannot draw analogy with other sponsoring bodies, who were permitted to issue admission notifications on the strength of LOI, inasmuch as, they fulfilled all the conditions required to establish a University. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The point for consideration is whether the issuance of LOI under Section 10 of the APPU Act, 2016 can be regarded as be-all and end-all for a sponsoring body to commence the admissions and start functioning and whether inclusion of its name in the schedule as University is only a consequential Act ? 9. POINT: As can be seen, the contention of the petitioner is that the Expert Committee having been satisfied with the proposal and project report, issued its recommendations in favour of the petitioner and the respondent also on being satisfied with the recommendation, issued LOI with a specific enquiry as to whether the petitioner can commence admissions from the next academic year. Therefore, the LOI can be safely construed as like a concluded contract between the parties. The conditions mentioned in the LOI are only repetition of the qualifications most of which were already covered by the project report. Therefore, the LOI can be safely construed as like a concluded contract between the parties. The conditions mentioned in the LOI are only repetition of the qualifications most of which were already covered by the project report. On the other hand the contention of the respondent is that LOI cannot be treated as a permission or a concluded contract and on the other hand the application submitted by the petitioner after receiving LOI should be examined and thereafter the petitioner’s name has to be included in the schedule and till then the petitioner cannot start admissions. 10. In the light of these diverse contentions, the relevant provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2016 [the APPU Act, 2016] have to be verified in the light of judicial pronouncements to know whether the LOI in this case can be construed as the be-all and end-all of the matter / permission / concluded contract between the parties. 11. The Andhra Pradesh Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2016 was enacted with the object to provide high quality, research oriented and industry relevant higher education leading to international standards and to improve access and equity in higher education in order to enhance the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER). The Statement of objects and reasons would depict that the intended Act is unique in nature and aims at creating world class centers of learning with a core objective to establish universities to achieve the goals of quality higher education and to bestow attention to research of global standards. 12. Provisions of APPU Act, 2016: a) Section 2(13) defines ‘Green Field’. The terms Green Field means starting of a university fresh for the first time from scratch without any consideration to any existing educational institution(s) or anything related to such institution(s). b) Section 2(22) defines Private University which means a University established under Section 3 of this Act and referred to as “University”. The terms Green Field means starting of a university fresh for the first time from scratch without any consideration to any existing educational institution(s) or anything related to such institution(s). b) Section 2(22) defines Private University which means a University established under Section 3 of this Act and referred to as “University”. c) Section 2(29) defines Sponsoring body in relation to a University established under this Act means: (i) a society “not for profit” registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act No.21 of 1860) or the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (Act No.35 of 2001) ; or (ii) a public trust “not for profit” registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882(Central Act No.2 of 1882); or (iii) any other society or trust “not for profit” registered as above and formed by consortia of academic institution(s), industry and/or educational societies; or (iv) any company registered under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Central Act No.13 of 2013); or (v) any company other than the company mentioned in item (iv), with such limitations as specified by the Government from time to time. d) Section 3 of the Act deals with the Establishment of University which reads thus: “3. Establishment of University -(1) The Government may permit the establishment of a University by inclusion of the name and location of the University, the name and address of the Sponsoring body and details of its registration in The Schedule. (2) The location of the University shall be within the State of Andhra Pradesh and shall be notified by the Government. (3) The University shall be a Green Field one and unitary in nature and shall not have power or provision to affiliate and recognize any college or institution to it, unless expressly permitted by the Government after a minimum period of five (5) years after commencement of the university. (4) xxxx (5) xxxx (6) xxxx (7) xxxx (8) xxxx (9) xxxxx” e) Section 4 deals with the goals and objects of the University and Section 5 deals with its powers and functions. f) Then Section 6 deals with application for establishment of University which reads thus: “6. (4) xxxx (5) xxxx (6) xxxx (7) xxxx (8) xxxx (9) xxxxx” e) Section 4 deals with the goals and objects of the University and Section 5 deals with its powers and functions. f) Then Section 6 deals with application for establishment of University which reads thus: “6. Application for establishment of a University -Any Sponsoring body desirous of establishing a Private University shall make an application to the Government, containing, among other things, an outline of the purpose and vision of the proposed Private University, the proposal, and the Project Report in such manner, with such particulars and along with such fee as may be prescribed.” g) Section 7 deals with the contents of the project report. h) Section 8 deals with the power of the Government to constitute Expert Committee. It lays down that the Government shall constitute an Expert Committee to examine the application submitted by the sponsoring body under Section 6 and 7. The Expert Committee shall consider the proposal and the project report based on the information given under Section 6 and 7 and recommend or otherwise, whether the proposal to set up a private University is acceptable and whether the sponsoring body is competent to set up and manage the University. The Expert Committee shall consider several factors such as financial soundness and assets of the sponsoring body and its ability to set up infrastructure; background of the sponsoring body i.e., experience in the field of education; its credibility and general reputation; potentiality of the programmes and courses to be offered in tune with the contemporary requirements of emerging branches of learning and relevant to various development sectors etc. While considering the proposal and project report, Expert Committee may call for additional information from the sponsoring body. The Expert Committee shall make endeavor to present its recommendations to the Government within 60 days of its receipt of the application. i) Section-10 is an important Section. It deals with the issuance of LOI. Section-10 reads thus: “10. While considering the proposal and project report, Expert Committee may call for additional information from the sponsoring body. The Expert Committee shall make endeavor to present its recommendations to the Government within 60 days of its receipt of the application. i) Section-10 is an important Section. It deals with the issuance of LOI. Section-10 reads thus: “10. Letter of intent:-(1) After receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Committee under section 8, the Government shall, as far as possible within a period of 30 days, take a decision on accepting, rejecting, or seeking modifications in the proposal and project report; Provided that Government may consider the additional measures as recommended by the Expert Committee under section 9; (2) The Government shall inform the Sponsoring Body about it’s decision within 10 days of taking such decision, through a Letter of Intent, a Letter of Regret, or a letter seeking additional clarifications; (3) The Government, while issuing the Letter of Intent, shall require the Sponsoring body to fulfill such terms and conditions as recommended by the Expert Committee. If the letter from the Government seeks additional clarifications, the Sponsoring Body may provide the same and that shall be considered as a re-submission of the Application; (4) The Sponsoring body shall fulfill the terms and conditions and report compliance to the Government within a period as prescribed from the date of issue of Letter of Intent.; Provided that Government may further extend the term for a maximum period of one year not exceeding six months at a time if it is satisfied that the sponsoring body has taken substantial steps towards setting up of the University; (5) On receipt of compliance report, the Government shall, within a period of one month, request the Expert Committee, constituted under Section 8 or constitute another similar Committee, to verify the compliance report within a period of 30 days.” j) Section-11 deals with establishment of University by amending Schedule. It reads thus: “11. Establishment of University by amending Schedule:-If the Government is satisfied that the Sponsoring body has complied by amending with the conditions of Letter of Intent and on the specific recommendations of the Expert Committee, it shall endeavor within a maximum period of seven months for inclusion of the name of the University in Schedule with details of its location(s) by way of amendment of Schedule.” 13. So, when the scheme of the Act as provided under Sections 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 is scrutinized, it will give an understanding that every sponsoring body which is desirous of establishing a private University shall, make an application under Section 6 of the Act wherein it has to submit its proposal and also project report to the Government. Under Section-7 the project report shall inter alia contain the particulars of the sponsoring body; its financial resources coupled with audited financial statements for the previous five years; the location and headquarters of the proposed University; track record; experience and expertise of the sponsoring body in specific disciplines; plan for pre-commencement activities including academic and non-academic areas; projected detailed financial statements etc. Upon submission of application by the sponsoring body, the Government has to constitute an Expert Committee to whet and examine the application to consider the proposal and project report submitted along with application and make its recommendations either approving or rejecting the proposal to the Government. Such recommendation shall be made as far as possible within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application from the Government. 14. Then Section-10 is relevant. It deals with the issuance of the LOI by the Government. On receiving recommendations of the Expert Committee, the Government shall within thirty days thereafter, take a decision as to either accept, reject or seek modifications in the proposal and project report submitted by the sponsoring body. After taking a decision, within ten days thereafter, the Government shall inform the sponsoring body through a Letter Of Intent or Letter of Regret or a Letter seeking additional clarification. While issuing LOI, the Government shall require the sponsoring body to fulfill such terms and conditions as required by the Expert Committee. The sponsoring body shall fulfill the terms and conditions and report compliance to the Government within the time prescribed in the LOI. The Government have power to extend time to a maximum extent of one year for compliance. On receipt of the compliance report the Government shall again request the Expert Committee to verify the compliance report. The sponsoring body shall fulfill the terms and conditions and report compliance to the Government within the time prescribed in the LOI. The Government have power to extend time to a maximum extent of one year for compliance. On receipt of the compliance report the Government shall again request the Expert Committee to verify the compliance report. After this exercise is over, if the Government is satisfied that the sponsoring body has complied with the conditions of the LOI, it shall, within a maximum period of seven months, make an endeavour for inclusion of the name of the University in the schedule by amending the schedule. 15. So, a close analysis of the above provisions would show that a LOI issued by the Government basing on the recommendations of the Expert Committee, only signifies its formal approval of the proposal and project report submitted by the sponsoring body. However, the LOI per se cannot be treated as final approval of the proposal and project report submitted by the sponsoring body. The LOI may contain certain conditions which the sponsoring body has to fulfill within the time stipulated by the Government. As per Rule-4 of APPU Rules, 2017, the sponsoring body shall ordinarily fulfill the terms & conditions specified in LOI within 2 years or the time further extended by the Government. It should be noted that the word “permit” is not used in Section-10 but the same is used in Section-3 only. Section-3 says that the Government may permit establishment of the University by inclusion of the name and location of the University, the name and address of the sponsoring body and details of its registration in the schedule. When Section-3 is studied in conjunction with Section-11, we will know that the Government after being satisfied that the sponsoring body has complied with the conditions of the LOI, shall make an endeavour within seven months to include the name of the University in the schedule and after inclusion of its name in the schedule, it can be said that the private University has been established. Viewing in that angle, issuance of LOI can only be treated as “in principle approval” of the proposal and project report submitted by the sponsoring body and it is only a formal approval but ipso facto, LOI cannot be treated as an authoritative permission/ binding contract. Jurimetrical Jurisprudence: 16. Viewing in that angle, issuance of LOI can only be treated as “in principle approval” of the proposal and project report submitted by the sponsoring body and it is only a formal approval but ipso facto, LOI cannot be treated as an authoritative permission/ binding contract. Jurimetrical Jurisprudence: 16. The scope and amplitude of the term LOI in the realm of contracts has been explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following decisions: (1) In Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd v. Shri Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Pvt Ltd, AIR 1997 SC 66 = MANU/SC/0024/1997., the facts are that the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, issued advertisement inviting applications for selling agents for its various products and on receiving applications, it issued LOI in favour of respondent appointing as its selling agent for marketing its products on certain terms, one of which was that the goods would be supplied to respondent on submitting irrevocable bank guarantee through schedule bank and it was also stipulated that the respondent shall attend for execution of agreement on 12.06.1990. However, the respondent did not sign the agreement and submit irrevocable bank guarantee. Hence the appellant cancelled the LOI by its letter dated 16.07.1990. The respondent filed Writ Petition challenging the revocation of LOI. The High Court allowed the writ petition. However the Apex Court while allowing the appeal filed by the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd held that the LOI was merely an expression of intention to enter into a contract and since the respondent has not fulfilled the terms of LOI, the appellant was right in revoking the LOI. (2) In Dresser Rand S.A v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd, AIR 2006 SC 871 = MANU/SC/0151/2006 the Apex Court while referring its earlier decision in Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd (supra 1) observed as follows: “34. It is now well-settled that a Letter of Intent merely indicates a party's intention to enter into a contract with the other party in future. A Letter of Intent is not intended to bind either party ultimately to enter into any contract. This Court while considering the nature of a Letter of Intent, observed thus in Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. v. Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. MANU/SC/0024/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 66 : .....The Letter of Intent merely expressed an intention to enter into a contract. This Court while considering the nature of a Letter of Intent, observed thus in Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. v. Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. MANU/SC/0024/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 66 : .....The Letter of Intent merely expressed an intention to enter into a contract. There was no binding legal relationship between the appellant and Respondent 1 at this stage and the appellant was entitled to look at the totality of circumstances in deciding whether to enter into a binding contract with Respondent 1 or not. It is no doubt true that a Letter of Intent may be construed as a letter of acceptance if such intention is evident from its terms. It is not uncommon in contracts involving detailed procedure, in order to save time, to issue a letter of intent communicating the acceptance of the offer and asking the contractor to start the work with a stipulation that the detailed contract would be drawn up later. If such a letter is issued to the contractor, though it may be termed as a Letter of Intent, it may amount to acceptance of the offer resulting in a concluded contract between the parties. But the question whether the letter of intent is merely an expression of an intention to place an order in future or whether is a final acceptance of the offer thereby leading to a contract, is a matter that has to be decided with reference to the terms of the letter. Chitty on Contracts (Para 2.115 in Volume 1-28th Edition) observes that where parties to a transaction exchanged letters of intent, the terms of such letters may, of course, negative contractual intention; but, on the other hand, where the language does not negative contractual intention, it is open to the courts to hold the parties are bound by the document; and the courts will, in particular, be inclined to do so where the parties have acted on the document for a long period of time or have expended considerable sums of money in reliance on it. Be that as it may.” (3) In Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v. S.L. Seal, (2017) 2 SCC 125 = MANU/SC/1594/2016 the Apex Court has reiterated its earlier view and observed thus: “23. Be that as it may.” (3) In Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v. S.L. Seal, (2017) 2 SCC 125 = MANU/SC/1594/2016 the Apex Court has reiterated its earlier view and observed thus: “23. Here, the Petitioner seeks to cover its case under the third category with the plea that insofar as the State Government is concerned, it had issued 'Letter of Intent'. The Petitioner is treating letter dated May 24, 2014, which was sent by the State Government to the Central Government with a request to the Central Government to give its approval for grant of mineral concessions, as the 'Letter of Intent'. It is in this hue, submission is that the intention behind the said letter is to be seen even if it is not termed as 'Letter of Intent' and this argument is predicated on the words 'by whatever name called'. 24. No doubt, having regard to the words 'by whatever name called', the expression 'Letter of Intent' is to be given wider connotation. It means that nomenclature of the letter would not be the determinative factor. It is the substantive nature of the letter in question that would determine as to whether it can be treated as the Letter of Intent. For this purpose, it is first necessary to find the meaning that has to be attributed to the term 'Letter of Intent'. As per the legal dictionary, Letter of Intent is a document that described the preliminary understanding between the parties who intend to make a contract or join together in another action. This term has come up for interpretation on few occasions before this Court. In Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and Ors. MANU/SC/0370/2014 : (2015) 13 SCC 233 , relying upon an earlier decision, this Court held that a Letter of Intent merely indicates a party's intention to enter into a contract with other party in future.” (4) In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. S Kumar’s Associates, (2021) 9 SCC 166 = MANU/SC/0473/2021 while referring to the earlier decisions on the subject, the Supreme Court has observed thus: “20. We would like to state the issue whether a concluded contract had been arrived at inter se the parties is in turn dependent on the terms and conditions of the NIT (Notice Inviting Tenders), the LoI and the conduct of the parties. We would like to state the issue whether a concluded contract had been arrived at inter se the parties is in turn dependent on the terms and conditions of the NIT (Notice Inviting Tenders), the LoI and the conduct of the parties. The judicial views before us leave little doubt over the proposition that an LoI merely indicates a party's intention to enter into a contract with the other party in future. No binding relationship between the parties at this stage emerges and the totality of the circumstances have to be considered in each case. It is no doubt possible to construe a letter of intent as a binding contract if such an intention is evident from its terms. But then the intention to do so must be clear and unambiguous as it takes a deviation from how normally a letter of intent has to be understood. This Court did consider in Dresser Rand S.A. case that there are cases where a detailed contract is drawn up later on account of anxiety to start work on an urgent basis. In that case it was clearly stated that the contract will come into force upon receipt of letter by the supplier, and yet on a holistic analysis-it was held that the LoI could not be interpreted as a work order.” 17. Thus from the scheme of the APPU Act, 2016 and judicial pronouncements discussed supra, it is evident that LOI merely indicates the party’s intention to enter into a contract with other party in future but LOI ipso facto, will not create a binding contract. However, sometimes by nature of the terms employed in LOI coupled with other attending circumstances, it can be inferred that LOI has created a binding contract. With this jurisprudence, it has now to be seen whether in the instant case the LOI dated 22.01.2019 issued by the respondent can be inferred as an authoritative permission / binding contract between the parties to enable the petitioners to assume that the University has been commenced and entering its name in the schedule is a mere consequential formality. The respondent issued LOI dated 22.01.2019 and this fact has been reiterated in para-7 of the counter by the respondent stating that Government after verifying the financials and obtaining clearance from the Chartered Accountant, took steps to issue LOI to the petitioner society i.e., sponsoring body. The respondent issued LOI dated 22.01.2019 and this fact has been reiterated in para-7 of the counter by the respondent stating that Government after verifying the financials and obtaining clearance from the Chartered Accountant, took steps to issue LOI to the petitioner society i.e., sponsoring body. It is also admitted in the counter that in LOI the respondent enquired whether the sponsoring body can consider the feasibility of starting classes from the academic year 2019-20. The relevant portion of LOI is extracted below for convenience. “5. The proposal was evaluated by the Expert Committee in their meetings held on 3rd November, 2018. As per the recommendation of the Expert Committee, the Sponsoring Body submitted a project report which was reviewed by the Expert Committee in their meeting held on 03.11.2018. Based on the proposal and the project report, the Expert Committee recorded the following information and recommended that a Letter of Intent may be issued to the Sponsoring Body for establishing the proposed Greenfield Private University. Name of Sponsoring Body Number of Students (10 years) Investment (10 Years) (Rs.Cr) Preferred Location Vignan Educational Development Society 34200 2702.73 Edugundlapadu, Ongole, Prakasam District 6. After careful consideration of the matter, under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2016, the Government hereby issues a Letter of Intent to the Sponsoring Body for establishing the proposed Greenfield Private University at their preferred location at Om Sri Gayatryviswakarma University, Edugundlapadu, Ongole, Prakasam District or Anywhere else, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1.The Sponsoring Body shall adhere to all the norms/conditions as stipulated in the Andhra Pradesh Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act 2016, including the following: 1.1 As per Section 3(2) : Location 1.2 As per Section 3(3) : Greenfield and unitary in nature and without powers to affiliate any colleges 1.3 As per Section 3(4) : One campus and under exceptional circumstances, two additional campuses (if Government intend to) 1.4 As per Chapter VI of the said Act, Regulation and Accreditation of University. 2. The objectives of the University shall be aligned with the overall objectives and vision of the State, as stated in the preamble of the said Act, 2016. 3. 2. The objectives of the University shall be aligned with the overall objectives and vision of the State, as stated in the preamble of the said Act, 2016. 3. As per Section 10 (4) of the said Act 2016, the Sponsoring Body shall invariably fulfill all its commitments as contained in its project report submitted to the Government, including the information recorded above, as per the timeframe fixed in the project report. The Sponsoring Body shall also conform to the financial projections made in the project report. 4. The Sponsoring Body shall report compliance to the Government within a period of one year from the receipt of the Letter of Intent. 5. The Sponsoring Body may consider the feasibility of starting classes from the academic year 2019-20. 7. Letter of Intent to the Sponsoring Body is issued subject to the condition that they will procure their own land. 8. The Sponsoring Body is requested to furnish a response to the Letter of Intent within 15 days of receipt of this communication. Yours faithfully, Sd/- For PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT” 18. On meticulous perusal of the LOI, it is obvious that while issuing LOI, the Government has reminded the Sponsoring Body to fulfill certain terms and also enquired whether it can consider the feasibility of starting classes from the academic year 2019-20. The terms are that: i. The Sponsoring Body shall establish University with the name and at the location mentioned in its proposal and project report. ii. It shall procure its own land for the University. iii. The Greenfield University must be unitary in nature and without power to affiliate any colleges. iv. It shall invariably fulfill all its commitments as contained in its project report submitted to the Government. The Government sought the response from the petitioners within 15 days. 19. Thus the LOI, in my considered view, cannot be treated as a full-fledged permission. On the other hand, after receiving response from the petitioners, the Government shall take a decision. In the instant case the petitioners submitted response-cum-compliance through its letter dated 01.02.2019. Relevant portion of the said letter reads thus: “In compliance with Government Letter of Intent, I am to state that our educational society have considered and decided to start classes from the Academic Year 2019-20, as have established required infrastructure and recruiting qualified faculty etc. In the instant case the petitioners submitted response-cum-compliance through its letter dated 01.02.2019. Relevant portion of the said letter reads thus: “In compliance with Government Letter of Intent, I am to state that our educational society have considered and decided to start classes from the Academic Year 2019-20, as have established required infrastructure and recruiting qualified faculty etc. An admission notification will be issued for admission to various courses for the Academic year 2019-20” 20. Thus the above letter would indicate as if the petitioners were ready to start classes from the academic year 2019-20 as they have already established required infrastructure and were recruiting qualified faculty. It was also made clear that an admission notification would be issued for various courses for the academic year 2019-20. Instead of making an objective assessment of the compliance submitted by the petitioners and also their readiness to commence the classes from the academic year 2019-20, the Government kept silent and sent a letter dated 07.08.2019 finding fault with the petitioners in giving advertisement for admission of students. In the considered view of this Court, if the Government found that the compliance submitted by the petitioners with regard to its possessing infrastructural facilities, recruiting faculty and other staff etc., as satisfactory, it ought to have sent a letter to that effect and allowed the petitioners to commence the classes from the academic year 2019-20 and also ought to have included its name in the schedule within the stipulated time. Without undertaking this exercise, it only sent a dissent letter dated 07.08.2019. It appears even by now also, the Government have not made it clear whether the petitioners have complied with all the terms and conditions as per the statute to its satisfaction or whether any shortcomings were there so as to comply with the same. Therefore, I am constrained to observe that the respondent Government has left the matter in the fluid stage for considerable period causing hardship to the petitioners. Therefore, a direction has to be issued to the respondent Government to act upon within the stipulated time. 21. Therefore, I am constrained to observe that the respondent Government has left the matter in the fluid stage for considerable period causing hardship to the petitioners. Therefore, a direction has to be issued to the respondent Government to act upon within the stipulated time. 21. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction (i) That the respondent shall, if satisfied with the compliance shown by the petitioners, issue permission within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the petitioner to start classes from the academic year 2022-23 and include the name of the 2nd petitioner University in the schedule within the statutory period. (ii) If the respondent is not satisfied with the compliance shown by the petitioners, it shall intimate by a letter within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order indicating therein, the particulars of the compliance to be made by the petitioners and shall grant the time stipulated in the APPU Act, 2016 for compliance. On such compliance, it shall permit the petitioners to start classes and include the name of the 2nd petitioner University in the schedule of the Act. No costs. As a sequel interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.