JUDGMENT : S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J. This Intra Court appeal by the appellants is directed against the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 passed in W.P.No. 100377/2022, whereby the said petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, who proceeded further and issued certain directions to the parties. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:- The 1st appellant claims to be a registered Public Charitable Trust and the said Trust is running the 2nd appellant -College on the basis of the permission given by the 1st respondent – State vide order dated 24.07.2010. The said College is an unaided college i.e., running without a grant-in-aid. On the basis of the said Government Order dated 24.07.2010, the 2nd appellant commenced PU college from the academic year 2011-12. The said College was given necessary recognition by the 2nd respondent under Section 38 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the same was successfully renewed by the appellants every year. 2.1 On 09.08.2021, a complaint came to be filed by one Dr. Pradeep Kumar B.N to the 2nd respondent alleging that the 2nd appellant – College was closed for a period of 5 years for want of admissions and requested to take action in accordance with law. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19.08.2021 was issued by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd appellant, to which, a reply dated 23.08.2021 was given by the 2nd appellant – College. The 3rd respondent after consideration of both the complaint and the reply, addressed a letter dated 26.08.2021 to the 2nd respondent seeking its opinion for withdrawal of the approval or otherwise in the matter. 2.2 Thereafter, again the complainant filed another complaint dated 26.08.2021 by reiterating the same allegations made in the first complaint dated 09.08.2021. The 2nd respondent considering both the complaint dated 26.08.2021 and the report of the 3rd respondent, directed the 3rd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding the allegations made in the aforesaid complaints and report the same to its office. The 3rd respondent after conducting a detailed enquiry, recommended to accord permission to approve the admission of the students vide its report dated 30.10.2021. On consideration of the said report by the 2nd respondent, directed the 3rd respondent to levy a fine of Rs.50,000/-to the 2nd appellant – College for violation of the Rules. The 3rd respondent after conducting a detailed enquiry, recommended to accord permission to approve the admission of the students vide its report dated 30.10.2021. On consideration of the said report by the 2nd respondent, directed the 3rd respondent to levy a fine of Rs.50,000/-to the 2nd appellant – College for violation of the Rules. The 2nd respondent on the basis of the report dated 23.11.2021 given by the 3rd respondent, letter of 2nd appellant – College and the complaints referred to supra, by an order dated 01.01.2022 approved the admission of 67 students only for the academic year 2020-21 but refused to accord permission to admit the students for the year 2021-22 and also directed to conduct a separate enquiry. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, they preferred the instant petition seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 01.01.2022 to the aforesaid extent as hereunder:- “i) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order bearing No.PAPUSHIEE/SIBBANDI-3CC-163/DA.AA/2021-22 passed by Respondent No.2 dated: 01.01.2022 vide Annexure-R to an extent of refusing admission for the academic for the year 2021-2022 and conducting a separate enquiry and condition No.15 in the said order. ii) Issue such any order Writ or Direction that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2.3 The said petition having been opposed by the respondents – State, who filed their statement of objections, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the petition by passing the following order:- “(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) The 2nd petitioner shall deposit the above cost of Rs.1,00,000/-with the 2nd respondent within a period of 15 days of this order. (iii) The said sum shall be used by the 2ndrespondent to disseminate information as regards the processes and policies to befollowed by all educational Colleges among the general public so that the general public and more particularly the students and their parents are aware of what are the factors to be checked before seeking for admission in a college. (iv) The 1st respondent -State shall also make necessary arrangements for funding the 2nd respondent so as to disseminate the information for the above purposes. (v) The enquiry which has been initiated in terms of Annexure-R shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) The 1st respondent -State shall also make necessary arrangements for funding the 2nd respondent so as to disseminate the information for the above purposes. (v) The enquiry which has been initiated in terms of Annexure-R shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (vi) The petitioner shall furnish details of all the students said to be admitted with the 2nd petitioner – college for 1st year Pre-University by 12.00 p.m. on 24.03.2022, which shall be considered by the 2nd respondent and necessary arrangements be made for conduct of their examination in the nearest Government College with prior intimation to all the students, the examination to be held irrespective of the subjects being available in that college or not. (vii) The 2nd petitioner shall provide the students’ e-mail-id, mobile number, WhatsApp number as also postal address to the learned Additional Government Advocate along with all the documents, which were required to be collected in terms of the guidelines published by the 2nd respondent for the year 2021-22 by 12.00 p.m. on 24.03.2022. (vii) The petitioners are restrained from admitting any students until the enquiry is completed and until they obtain fresh registration and approval from the authorities concerned. (viii) This Court has not expressed any opinion as regards any claim of the students against the college for they have been misled and misrepresented. The students and/or their parents are free to initiate such action as may be required both civil and criminal against the petitioners and their trustees in an appropriate forum. (x) All pending applications stand dismissed.” 2.4 As can be seen from the impugned order, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was a change in the Governing Council of the petitioner – College within the meaning of Section 41(5) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short ‘the said Act of 1983’) and since the petitioners did not comply with the requirements contained in Rules 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Change in the Governing Council or Change in the Location of Private Educational Institutions) Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Governing Council Rules’) and obtain fresh recognition as if it was a newly started College, the enquiry initiated pursuant to the impugned order against the petitioners was correct and proper and had to be completed in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that since the petitioners had not admitted students to the petitioner No.2 – College consecutively for the academic years 2018-19 and 201920, the petitioners had violated Rule 3(17) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Control of Private Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘the said Rules of 1999’) as well as Rule 11(4) of the Karnataka Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration and Grant-In-Aid Etc.) Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the PU Education Rules’), on account of which, the petitioners were not entitled to make new admissions to the petitioner No.2 – College for the academic year 2021-22. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the petition, aggrieved by which, appellants are before this Court by way of the present appeal. 3. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-State and perused the material on record. 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged by the appellants and referring to material on record, learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the petition by coming to the erroneous conclusion that there was change in the Governing Council of appellant No.2 – College as contemplated under Section 41(5) of the said Act of 1983 warranting compliance of the said Governing Council Rules by the appellants. In this context, learned Senior counsel pointed out that mere change of the trustees of the appellant No.1 – Trust or change in the members of the Governing Council of appellant No.2 would not have the effect of changing the Governing Council itself as contemplated under Section 41(5) or the Governing Council Rules, which would consequently, not be applicable to the appellants which neither underwent a change of the Trust or the Governing council but merely substituted / changed old trustees / members in the place of outgoing persons and in the absence of any violation of the said provisions, the question of conducting any enquiry against the petitioners in this regard did not arise as incorrectly directed in the impugned order. 4.1 It was also submitted that neither Rule 3(17) of the said Rules of 1999 nor Rule 11(4) of the PU Education Rules applied to the appellant No.2 – College, since it only did not admit students for the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and neither was the College shut down nor did the prescribed students strength get reduced successively for three years as required under the said provisions and as such, the impugned order directing the appellants not to admit students for the academic year 2021-22 is also illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 4.2 It was further submitted that during the pendency of the present appeal, the enquiry directed by the impugned order was completed by the Enquiry officer who submitted a report dated 06.06.2022, wherein it is categorically held that there was no change in the Management of the appellants which justified the stance of the appellants that neither Section 41(5) nor the Governing Council Rules are applicable to the appellants. It was therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and the petition filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the appeal and that the same is liable to be dismissed. So also, learned Senior counsel for the impleading applicant in I.A.7/2022 filed for impleadment would also support the impugned order and seeks dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal:- (i) Whether there was change in the Governing Council of the appellants attracting Section 41(5) of the said Act of 1983 r/w the Governing Council Rules warranting initiation of enquiry against the appellants? (ii) Whether the appellants had violated Rule 3(17) of the said Rules of 1999 r/w Rule 11(4) of the PU Education Rules by not admitting students for the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20? (iii) Whether the appellants had violated other provisions of the said Act of 1983 and Rules as contended by the respondents? (iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is correct and proper? 8. (iii) Whether the appellants had violated other provisions of the said Act of 1983 and Rules as contended by the respondents? (iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is correct and proper? 8. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to state that a perusal of the material on record will indicate that the appellant No.1 is a registered trust which is running the appellant No.2 – College after obtaining necessary, statutory permission, registration and recognition from 2012-13 onwards having renewed its recognition even up to 2021 – 22. It was only on 19.08.2021 that pursuant to a complaint dated 09.08.2021 said to have been given by Dr.Pradeep Kumar -impleading applicant in I.A.7/2022 that a show cause notice was issued to the appellants inter alia alleging that no students had been admitted to appellant No.2 – College for the years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and that 67 students had been admitted for the year 2020-21 without obtaining necessary approval / permission from the authorities. Along with its reply / explanation dated 23.08.2021, appellants also made a request to the 2nd respondent to approve the admission of 67 students for the academic year 2020-21 and sought permission to take fresh admissions to the 1st year PU college. In pursuance of the same, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter dated 26.08.2021 to the 2nd respondent seeking its opinion in the matter regarding withdrawal or otherwise of the approval. 8.1 Meanwhile, the aforesaid complainant / impleading applicant submitted one more complaint dated 26.08.2021 reiterating the very same allegations and called upon the 1st respondent to take necessary action in the matter. Subsequently, on 05.10.2021, the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit a report in this regard, pursuant to which, an enquiry was conducted and the 3rd respondent submitted a report recommending according of permission to approve the admission of the students for the academic year 2020-21 as sought for by the appellants and the same was accepted by the 2nd respondent, who directed the appellants to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-which was paid on 20.11.2021 by the appellants. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent visited the College premises and submitted a report with a recommendation that permission can be accorded to admit students for the year 2021-22. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent visited the College premises and submitted a report with a recommendation that permission can be accorded to admit students for the year 2021-22. In pursuance of the said report, the 2nd respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 01.01.2022 approving the admission of 67 students for the academic year 2020-21; however, the impugned order refused permission in favour of the appellants to admit students for the year 2021-22 and directed a separate enquiry to be conducted against the appellants for the alleged violations. 8.2 As stated supra, the impugned order having been challenged by the appellants, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, aggrieved by which, the appellants preferred the present appeal, in which, the directions issued in the impugned order dated 01.01.2022 to conduct an enquiry against the appellants were not stayed by this Court. During the pendency of the present appeal, the enquiry was concluded and an inquiry report dated 06.06.2022 was submitted to this Court addressing all the complaints against the appellants including the allegation of change of Governing Council which was answered in favour of the appellants as can be seen from the said report. In fact, the inquiry officer specifically stated that a warning had already been issued to the appellants and appellant No.2 – College can be permitted to resume classes for 2022-23 by imposing maximum penalty and the said report is binding upon the respondents. Re-Point No.1: 9. The respondents contended that the Governing Council of the appellant No.2 – College contained certain members who were removed and new members were inducted into the Governing Council which amounts to change in the Governing Council within the meaning of Section 41(5) of the said Act of 1983 r/w the Governing Council Rules which required fresh application for recognition to be made by the appellants, as if appellant No.2 was a newly started College and since no such application was made by the appellants, it was necessary to conduct an enquiry against the appellants. In this context, it would be profitable to extract Section 2(17) and Section 41(5) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, which read as under:- “2. Definitions. In this context, it would be profitable to extract Section 2(17) and Section 41(5) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, which read as under:- “2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.- (17) “ Governing Council” means any person or body of persons permitted or deemed to be permitted or deemed to be permitted under this Act to establish or maintain a private educational institution; or commerce institution or tutorial institution and includes the governing body, by whatever name called, to which the affairs of the said educational institution are entrusted; 41. Management of recognised Educational Institutions. (1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) xxxxx (4) xxxx (5) If there is a change in the Governing Council of the institution or change in the location of the institution a fresh application for recognition shall be made as if it were a newly started institution.” 9.1 Section 41(5) supra contemplates that a fresh application for recognition is required only if there is a change in the Governing Council of the Institution or a change in its location. The procedure for such change is provided in Rules 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Change in the Governing Council or Change in the Location of Private Educational Institutions) Rules, 2006, which read as under:- “3. Procedure for change in the governing council or change in the location of private educational institutions . – (1) Applications seeking change in the governing council or change in the location of private educational institutions shall be filed in person or through registered post acknowledgement due, before the competent authority, every year in the month of October only ; Provided that in case of extreme urgency such applications may be filed any time in the academic year. (2) Every such application for change in the governing council or change in the location of a private educational institution specified in column (2) of the table below shall be accompanied by proof of having paid the application fee as specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) there of. The fee shall be paid in the form of demand draft drawn not earlier than one month prior to the date of application and in favour of the competent authority. The demand draft shall be made payable at the branch of the Bank located in the headquarters of the said authority or in the surrounding locality. Sl. The fee shall be paid in the form of demand draft drawn not earlier than one month prior to the date of application and in favour of the competent authority. The demand draft shall be made payable at the branch of the Bank located in the headquarters of the said authority or in the surrounding locality. Sl. No. Class of Private Educational institutions Application fee to be paid For change in the location of a private educational institution Application fee to be paid for change in the governing council of a private educational institution (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. Primary Schools 20,000 40,000 2. Secondary Schools 30,000 60,000 3. Pre-University Colleges 40,000 80,000 4. Vocational Courses 10,000 20,000 (3) The fee received under sub-rule (2) shall not be refunded under any circumstances and it shall be credited to the consolidated fund of the State by the competent authority. (4) Every such application shall also be accompanied by the following documents, namely:- (a) Certified copy of the resolutions passed by the present governing council and the one intending take over the private educational institution with regard to the change in the governing council ; (b)Certified copy of the agreement entered into between the present Governing council and the one intending to take over the private educational institution, inter alia, agreeing to the transfer of the private educational institution with its assets, liabilities and staff and take over the same ; (c) An undertaking by the governing council intending to take over the private educational institution to the effect that it shall provide and maintain the infrastructure and other facilities prescribed; and (d) Such others documents etc., as may be specified by Government by orders and instructions issued in this behalf from time to time. (5) The competent authority shall verify the suitability and eligibility of each application in accordance with the provisions of section 41(5) of the Act and the rules made there under including the provisions of these rules. He shall grant permission to the governing council for the change sought the refusal order ,as the case may be, with in a period of 60days from the date of receipt of the application. (6) The refusal order shall indicate the reasons for refusal. 4. He shall grant permission to the governing council for the change sought the refusal order ,as the case may be, with in a period of 60days from the date of receipt of the application. (6) The refusal order shall indicate the reasons for refusal. 4. Conditions for change in the governing council of private educational institutions: -(1) Every application seeking change in the governing council shall contain specific reasons in support thereof, which shall be in the public interest and in the interest of the students in providing good education and facilities. (2) No change in the governing council shall be permitted, if the same is sought with commercial motives: Provided that if the existing governing council is not able to provide the infrastructure and other prescribed facilities, it may seek change in the governing council, if the governing council intending to take over the private educational institution undertakes to provide and maintain the same. (3) The governing Council intending to take over the private educational institution should be financially good enough to be able to run the College and it should or Pre-University College. (4) If the competent authority permits change in the governing council, a fresh application for registration and recognition shall be made as if it were a newly started institution. (5) No change of governing council shall be permissible more than once. (6) The governing council taking over the College shall continue with the students existing under the governing council transferring the institution. (5) No change of governing council shall be permissible more than once. (6) The governing council taking over the College shall continue with the students existing under the governing council transferring the institution. The staff appointed as per the staffing pattern, who are existing under the governing council transferring the institution, shall be continued by the governing council taking over the institution.” 9.2 A conjoint reading of Section 41(5) and Rules 3 and 4 supra, clearly indicate that the words “change in Governing Council” necessarily mean existence of two different Councils viz., one the existing Governing Council and another Governing Council which intends to take over the Educational Institution, as is clear from Rules 3 and 4 of the said Governing Council Rules; it is also clear that mere change in the composition of the Governing Council or its members from time to time would not tantamount to change in the Governing Council, especially when two separate, independent and distinct Governing Councils / entities do not exist and there is no transfer from one Governing Council to another; in other words, for Section 41(5) and Rules 3 and 4 to apply, existence of two separate, independent and distinct Governing Councils and transfer from one Governing Council to another is a sine-qua-non and a mandatory precondition, in the absence of which, the said provisions would not apply; it follows therefrom that mere change of the members or composition of the existing Governing Council simpliciter without there being any change in the name of the Governing Council or a transfer of the Governing Council to a totally / completely different Governing Council would not attract the requirements of Section 41(5) and Rules 3 and 4 so as to make it necessary for the appellants to file a fresh application for recognition, as if the appellant No.2 was a newly started College. 9.3 In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that no new Governing Council / entity took over the Governing Council of appellant No.2 – College nor was there a transfer of the Governing Council to another Governing Council; it is trite law that the appellant No.1 – Trust and appellant No.2 – Educational College are both independent, juristic and legal entities, having a Governing council which maintains and manages the affairs of the appellant No.2 – College and in the absence of any transfer of the Governing Council to a different Governing Council, merely because some of the members were discontinued and new persons became members of the Governing Council, which would only indicate change in the composition of the Council, it cannot be said that Section 41(5) or Rules 3 and 4 are applicable, particularly when there is no material produced by the respondents to establish that the said provisions were applicable to the appellants or that they had violated the same, thereby requiring obtaining of fresh recognition. 9.4 A perusal of the impugned order will clearly indicate that the learned Single Judge fell in error in straightaway accepting the contention of the respondents that there was a change in the Governing Council of the appellants without appreciating that there was absolutely no legal or acceptable evidence to establish the said contention so as to attract or make applicable Section 41(5) or Rules 3 and 4 as contended by the respondents, who were clearly not justified in directing enquiry to be conducted against the appellants in this regard and consequently, the said finding recorded by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. As stated supra, the contention of the appellants that there has not been any change in the Governing Council has been upheld by the respondents themselves in the inquiry report dated 06.06.2022 submitted to this Court and on this ground also, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the directions issued in the impugned order dated 01.01.2022 deserve to be set aside. Point No.1 is accordingly answered by holding that there was no change in the Governing Council of appellant No.2 – College so as to attract Section 41(5) of the said Act of 1983 or the Governing Council Rules which were clearly not applicable to the facts of the instant case and the direction issued by the respondents in the impugned order dated 01.01.2022 directing enquiry to be conducted against the appellants was clearly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction of authority of law and the same deserves to be set aside. Re-Point No.2:- 10. A perusal of the impugned order dated 01.01.2022 will indicate that it was the specific contention of the respondents that since the appellants had not admitted the students for the year 2018-19 and 2019-20, as a result of which, no permission can be granted in favour of appellant No.2 to make new admissions for the academic year 2021-22 on account of alleged violation of Rule 3(17) of the said Rules of 1999 and Rule 11(4) of the PU Education Rules relied upon by the respondents. In order to appreciate the said contention, it would be necessary to extract Rule 3(17) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Control of Private Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999, which reads as under:- 3. The duties and the code of conduct for the Governing Council. – (17) not to close down the institutions run by them without prior and proper intimation to and approval of the State Government; Rule 11(4) of the Karnataka Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration and Grant-In-Aid Etc.) Rules, 2006, reads as under:- 11. Minimum student strength and sections;(1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) xxxx (4) A minimum of ten students shall be necessary in each of the languages taught in Part I. If the student strength in any of the approved languages or optional subjects gets reduced below the prescribed student strength successively for three years then the college shall not admit students to the said language or optional subjects in the next academic year. Any admission made in violation of these rules shall be void, ab initio and the students shall not be eligible to appear for the annual examinations. Any admission made in violation of these rules shall be void, ab initio and the students shall not be eligible to appear for the annual examinations. 10.1 A perusal of Rule 3(17) supra will indicate that it merely prescribes the duty cast upon the Governing Council not to close down the appellant No.2 – College without proper and prior intimation to and approval of the State Government. So also, Rule 11(4) provides that if the student strength in any of the approved languages or optional subjects gets reduced below the prescribed student strength successfully for three years, the College cannot make admission to the said language or optional subjects in the next academic year. The respondents contend that non-admission of students to the appellant No.2 – College for the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20 was violative of Rule 3(17) and Rule 11(4) supra, as a result of which, the impugned order dated 01.01.2022 was passed refusing to grant permission in favour of the appellant No.2 – College to admit students for the subsequent academic year 2020-21. The said contention urged by the respondents is clearly fallacious, inasmuch as violation of Rule 11(4) supra, would undisputedly arise only if students strength get reduced for three successive years and the non-admission of students for two would not attract Rule 11(4) as wrongly / incorrectly / erroneously stated in the impugned order and upheld by the learned Single Judge; in other words, in order to attract Rule 11(4), the minimum period is three years and in the light of the undisputed fact that the appellant No.2 – College had not admitted students only for two years, i.e., 2018-19 and 2019-20, Rule 11(4) supra, was clearly not applicable and consequently, the learned Single Judge clearly misdirected himself in coming to the erroneous conclusion that the appellants had violated Rule 11(4) for the purpose of upholding the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside. 10.2 Insofar as applicability of Rule 3(17) of the said Rules of 1999 is concerned, the said provision directs the appellant No.2 – College not to close down without prior and proper approval and intimation to the State Government. 10.2 Insofar as applicability of Rule 3(17) of the said Rules of 1999 is concerned, the said provision directs the appellant No.2 – College not to close down without prior and proper approval and intimation to the State Government. In the instant case, it is the specific contention of the appellants that appellant No.2 – College had not been shut down but students were not admitted for the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and 67 students were in fact admitted for the academic year 2020-21, which had been approved by the respondents themselves in the impugned order. Further, absolutely no material had been placed by the respondents to establish that the appellant No.2 – College was actually / factually shut down; at any rate, even assuming the appellant No.2 – College had been shut down during the academic years 2018-19 and 201920, the said circumstance would merely be contrary to Rule 3(17) and in the absence of any provision under the Act or Rules, which enable the respondents to refuse permission / approval to admit students for the next academic year 2020-21, the impugned order refusing to grant permission and to hold an enquiry is clearly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law and deserves to be set aside. 10.3 As stated supra, all irregularities, if any, committed by the appellants have been condoned and approval / permission has been granted to the appellants to resume classes from the year 2022-23 onwards by imposing certain conditions as can be seen in the inquiry report dated 06.06.2022 submitted by the respondents themselves. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the said directions issued in the impugned order dated 01.01.2022 refusing to grant permission to admit students for the academic year 2021-22 and to conduct an enquiry against the appellants which was incorrectly and erroneously upheld by the learned Single Judge and the same deserve to be set aside. Point No.2 is accordingly answered in favour of the appellants by holding that the appellants did not violate Rule 3(17) of the said Rules of 1999 or Rule 11(4) of the PU Education Rules so as to refuse permission / approval in favour of the appellant No.2 – College to admit students for the academic year 2021-22. Re-Point No.3: 11. Point No.2 is accordingly answered in favour of the appellants by holding that the appellants did not violate Rule 3(17) of the said Rules of 1999 or Rule 11(4) of the PU Education Rules so as to refuse permission / approval in favour of the appellant No.2 – College to admit students for the academic year 2021-22. Re-Point No.3: 11. A perusal the material on record including the impugned order dated 01.01.2022 and the statement of objections filed to the writ petition will indicate that apart from the contentions as regards the alleged violations / irregularities said to have been committed by the appellants which have been considered while dealing with Point Nos.1 and 2 supra, no other allegations had been urged against the appellants in the writ petition. However, in the statement of objections filed in the present appeal, the respondents have attempted to point out other alleged violations / irregularities against the appellants. In this context, it is needless to state that these allegations which were neither the subject matter of the impugned order nor the writ petition cannot be permitted to be urged for the first time in the present appeal. Further, in the absence of any material to establish the said allegations, the same cannot be accepted. In any event, all the allegations made against the appellants have been considered and dealt with by the Inquiry officer who has submitted a report dated 06.06.2022 as directed by this Court in the present appeal. The operative portion of the said report dated 06.06.2022 is as under:- “Sri Veerabhadreshwara Education Trust (R), Kottur, Vijayanagara District, has been warned in connection with these complaints and I opine that the college can be permitted to resume classes for 2022-23 by imposing maximum penalty. In order to curb unhealthy competition, the subject combination in the said college (Kannada-01, Sanskrit-09, History-21, Sociology-28, Political Science-29 and Education-52) can be introduced in the Government College at Hoovinahadagali. The report is submitted to you for your kind attention and further needful action”. 11.1 As is clear from the findings recorded by the respondents themselves in the Inquiry report submitted to this Court, except giving a warning to the appellants, the respondents have permitted the appellants to resume classes for 2022-23 by imposing penalty and issuing certain directions. The report is submitted to you for your kind attention and further needful action”. 11.1 As is clear from the findings recorded by the respondents themselves in the Inquiry report submitted to this Court, except giving a warning to the appellants, the respondents have permitted the appellants to resume classes for 2022-23 by imposing penalty and issuing certain directions. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the various other allegations and contentions urged by the respondents against the appellants are liable to be rejected. Point No.3 is accordingly answered in favour of the appellants by holding that they had not violated any of the provisions of the said Act fo 1983 or the Rules as contended by the respondents. Re-Point No.4: 12. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the learned Single Judge has not only failed to consider and appreciate the material on record but have also misconstrued the relevant statutory provisions and has recorded various erroneous findings, which are contrary to law and facts as discussed hereinbefore while dealing with Point Nos. 1 to 3 supra. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge being perverse and capricious, the same deserves to be set aside and the writ petition preferred by the appellants deserves to be allowed. 13. Insofar as application No. I.A.No.7/2022 for impleadment filed by the applicant – Dr.Pradeep Kumar B.M. is concerned, in view of disposal of the present appeal, the said application does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of. 14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following :- ORDER (i) Writ Appeal stands allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 23.03.2022 passed in W.P. No.100377/2022 is hereby set aside. (iii) W.P.No.100377/2022 is hereby allowed. (iv) The impugned order at Annexure-R dated 01.01.2022 passed by respondents-State insofar as it relates to refusing admission in favour of the appellants / writ petitioners for the academic year 2021-22 and directing the respondents to conduct a separate enquiry in terms of Condition No.15 of the impugned order are hereby set-aside.