JUDGMENT DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. - The present writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order, dtd. 1/8/2022 passed in W.P.No.9218 of 2020. 2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: 2.1 The Andhra Pradesh State legislative assembly, enacted The Andhra Pradesh Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2016 (for short "the Act"), with the object of providing high quality, research oriented and industry relevant higher education. Sec. 3 (1) of the said Act, vested the Government with the power to permit the establishment of a University by inclusion of a name and location of a University, the name and address of the sponsoring body and the details of its registration in the Schedule to the Act. 2.2 Sec. 3 (8) of the Act envisages that each such University shall be a body corporate by the name included in the Schedule and shall have perpetual succession and common seal with power, subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire and hold property, to contract and shall, by the said name, sue or be sued. 2.3 Sec. 6 of the Act envisages that a body desirous of establishment of 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 a fee as may be prescribed. 2.4 Sec. 7 of the Act further envisages the submission of additional information such as the financial resources of the sponsoring body, the name, the location and headquarters of the proposed University, the track record experience and expertise of the sponsoring body in specific disciplines, plan for precommencement activities, including in academic and non-academic areas, the proposed fee structure and the concessions or rebates in fee and scholarships to the core students from economically poor or socially backward families, including Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, other backward classes and physically challenged students etc., as also proposed approach and initial plan for academic and research excellence, including accreditations to be sought. 2.5 Sec. 8 (1) envisages the constitution of an expert committee by the Government consisting of such persons as may be prescribed, to examine the application received under Sec. 6 and 7. 2.5 Sec. 8 (1) envisages the constitution of an expert committee by the Government consisting of such persons as may be prescribed, to examine the application received under Sec. 6 and 7. Sec. 8 (2) further envisages that the expert committee shall consider the proposal and project report based on the information given under Sec. 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. 2.6 Sec. 10 (1) envisages that, after the receipt of recommendations of the expert committee, 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. While the proviso to Sec. 10 (1) envisages that the Government may consider the additional measures as recommended by the expert committee under Sec. 9. 2.7 Sec. 10 (2) envisages that the Government shall inform the sponsoring body about its decision within 10 days of taking such decision, through a Letter of Intent, a Letter of Regret, or a letter seeking additional clarifications. 2.8 Ss. 10 and 11 of the Act, for facility of reference are reproduced here under: "10. Letter of Intent - (1) After receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Committee under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 resubmission 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 Sec. 8 or constitute another similar Committee, to verify the compliance report within a period of 30 days. 11. Establishment of University by amending Schedule - If the Government is satisfied that the Sponsoring body has complied 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) 1["issuing a notification amending the schedule"]." 3. In the backdrop of the aforementioned legal provisions, the petitioners filed an application for setting up a University. The application along with relevant material was referred for consideration of the expert committee as envisaged in terms of Sec. 8 of the Act. The expert committee after having considered the application, the object and the purpose mentioned in the application, recommended to the Government that a Letter of Intent may be issued to the sponsoring body for establishing a proposed Greenfield Private University. 4. The Government vide communication dtd. 22/1/2019, issued a Letter of Intent for establishing the proposed Greenfield Private University and their preferred location at Om Sri Gayatryviswakarma University, Edugundlapadu, Ongole, Prakasam District or anywhere else subject to the following terms and conditions: "6.1. 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 Sec. 3 (2): Location 1.2. As per Sec. 3 (3)Greenfield and unitary in nature and without powers to affiliate any colleges 1.3. As per Sec. 3 (4)One campus and under exceptional circumstances, two additional campuses (if Government intend to) 1.4. As per Sec. 3 (2): Location 1.2. As per Sec. 3 (3)Greenfield and unitary in nature and without powers to affiliate any colleges 1.3. As per Sec. 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. As per Sec. 10 (4) of the said Act 2016the 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. The 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." 5. The petitioners immediately, thereafter, addressed a communication dtd. 1/2/2019 in the following terms: "Government are also pleased to inform us there in, that the Sponsoring Body may consider the feasibility of starting classes from the academic year 2019-20. In this connection we are expressing our gratitude to Government for issuing Letter of Intent. 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." 6. It appears that based simply upon the Letter of Intent and pursuant to the communication dtd. 1/2/2019, the petitioners initiated the process of issuing advertisements for admission to the University. In the advertisements, the petitioners reflected that the University was recognised under Sec. 2 (f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. It appears that based simply upon the Letter of Intent and pursuant to the communication dtd. 1/2/2019, the petitioners initiated the process of issuing advertisements for admission to the University. In the advertisements, the petitioners reflected that the University was recognised under Sec. 2 (f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The Government of Andhra Pradesh immediately on coming to know about this fact addressed a communication dtd. 7/8/2019, to the Founder Chairman and Director of Vignan Educational Development Society/petitioner, informing them that the advertisements issued by the University contained wrong information and also informed the petitioner/Society that such an Act was unlawful. The petitioner/Society was therefore directed to withdraw the process of admissions immediately as also to withdraw the advertisements that have been issued, the petitioner/Society was also informed that failure to do so would entail serious consequences. 7. It is in that backdrop that the appellants preferred W.P.No.9218 of 2020 before the learned Single Judge, challenging the said communication. 8. The learned Single Judge in the judgment and order impugned held that the Letter of Intent could not be treated as a full-fledged permission and that a decision ought to have been taken by the Government based upon the communication dtd. 1/2/2019, addressed by the petitioners to the Government and that, if the Government did find that the University possessed all the infrastructure and wherewithal to start the classes from the academic year 2019-20 and had complied with the terms and conditions prescribed in the Letter of Intent, the petitioners ought to have been informed accordingly. 9. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Government/respondent i) That the Government shall if satisfied that the compliance was shown by the petitioners, permission be granted within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to the petitioners to start classes for academic session 2022-23 and include the name of the 2nd petitioner/University and the schedule within the statutory period. ii) If the respondent was 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 the order indicating therein, particulars of the compliance to be made by the petitioners and shall grant time for such compliance. ii) If the respondent was 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 the order indicating therein, particulars of the compliance to be made by the petitioners and shall grant time for such compliance. Further on that 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. 10. Counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge was not sustainable inasmuch as once the Letter of Intent had been issued in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners having been permitted to start classes from the academic year 2019-20, there was no question of directing the Government yet again to feel satisfied as to whether the University had shown compliance with the conditions mentioned in the Letter of Intent before permitting the petitioners to proceed and make admissions in the University. 11. It was urged that what was important was the issuance of a Letter of Intent and that the amendment of the Schedule was nothing but a consequential/ministerial Act on the part of the Government, which direction ought to have been given by the writ Court without questioning the right of the appellant/University to make admissions. It was also urged that the Government had no power to impose terms and conditions while issuing the Letter of Intent and that in the absence of any terms and conditions having been prescribed by the expert committee, no new terms and conditions could have been prescribed by the Government, which had acted beyond the powers vested in it in terms of the Act. 12. Counsel for the appellants would submit that Sec. 11 of the Act did not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the expert committee had not imposed any terms and conditions and therefore, there was no occasion for the Government to satisfy itself regarding the compliance and further that the Sec. 11 would apply only when the Letter of Intent was based upon terms and conditions prescribed in the Letter of Recommendation of the expert committee. 13. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand, took a firm stand that expert committee had not given any unconditional clearance to the appellant/Society. 14. 13. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand, took a firm stand that expert committee had not given any unconditional clearance to the appellant/Society. 14. With reference to the reply affidavit, it can be seen that the Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner/Society after verifying the finances and obtaining clearance from the Chartered Accountant. 15. It was urged by learned counsel for the respondents that the Letter of Intent was conditional and that the appellants were not entitled to start classes without obtaining approval of the compliance report. It was also urged that it would be not public interest as also the interest of the students that the appellants are permitted to conduct the admission process only after satisfying the Government that there was a compliance of all the necessary conditions contained in the Letter of Intent. In any case it was urged that the appellants would claim to function as a University and make admissions in that capacity after a formal inclusion of its name, location and address in the Schedule and not otherwise. It was urged that a Letter of Intent does not by itself have the effect of recognising any institution as a University as per the Scheme of the Act. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 17. Admittedly, the application of appellant No.1 to establish a private University was filed before the Government, which in turn referred it to an expert committee in terms of the provisions of the Act. Apparently, the expert committee in its recommendations recorded the minutes of the meetings which reads thus: "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, Government of Andhra Pradesh to take a call." 18. It also appears that the Government after verifying the financials and obtaining clearance from the Chartered Accountant took steps to issue a Letter of Intent to appellant No.1. The Letter of Intent further mandated that the sponsoring body, the appellant No.1 should fulfil all its commitments as contained in its project report submitted to the Government as per the time frame fixed in the said report. The Letter of Intent further mandated that the sponsoring body, the appellant No.1 should fulfil all its commitments as contained in its project report submitted to the Government as per the time frame fixed in the said report. The sponsoring body/appellant No.1 was also required to conform to the financial projections made in the project report, not only this the Letter of Intent clearly stated that the same was issued subject to the condition that the sponsoring body would procure their own land. Apart from this, the Letter of Intent did envisage the sponsoring body to consider the feasibility of starting classes from the academic year 2019-20. 18.1 Interestingly however, even when the sponsoring body filed its response vide communication dtd. 1/2/2019, it made no reference at all to any of the conditions which were contained in the Letter of Intent and confined itself only to expressing gratitude to the Government for issuing Letter of Intent and further communicated to the Government its intention to start classes for the academic year 2019-20, on the ground that they had established the required infrastructure and where recruiting qualified faculty etc., and that admission notification would be issued for admission to various courses for the said academic year 2019-20. In seeking a response within 15 days from the date of receipt of the communication containing the Letter of Intent the intention was not just to seek the approval of the sponsoring body to start classes for the academic year 2019-20 but also its promise to fulfil its commitments as contained in the project report. The condition with regard to procuring their own land etc., which was conspicuously missing in the response submitted by the appellant No.1 and instead in hot haste the appellant No.2 proceeded to issue advertisements for purposes of making admission, claiming it to be a legally established University recognised by the University Grants Commission. 19. We are not at all convinced by the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the issuance of a Letter of Intent by itself converted an applicant into a University as the scheme of the Act clearly does not envisage it so. 19. We are not at all convinced by the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the issuance of a Letter of Intent by itself converted an applicant into a University as the scheme of the Act clearly does not envisage it so. The Letter of Intent that was issued in the present case to the sponsoring body/appellant No.1 was only a Letter of Intent for establishing the proposed Greenfield Private University which did not carry with it in the least, the effect of actually registering it as a University and admitting the same to the rights and privileges which otherwise a University is entitled to enjoy in terms of the Act. 20. The scheme of the Act envisages that the expert committee has to consider each proposal and project report with reference to the following factors: a) financial soundness and assets of the sponsoring body and its ability to set up the infrastructure of the proposed University. b) background of the sponsoring body, such as its experience in the field of education, its credibility and general reputation, c) potentiality of the programmes and courses to be offered which are not only of conventional nature but also in tune with the contemporary requirements of emerging branches of learning and relevant to various development sectors and to the society in general. d) appropriateness of the objectives of the proposed University against overall goals and objectives of the State. 21. Needless to say that what is placed before the expert committee inter alia is the proposal and the project report based upon which the expert committee is expected to make recommendations. The Government upon receipt of the recommendations from the expert committee is entitled to insist upon the sponsoring body to fulfil such terms and conditions as have been recommended by the expert committee, which the sponsoring body is under obligation to fulfil and report compliance to the Government, within such period as may be prescribed from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent. Upon receipt of the compliance report the Government in terms of Sec. 10 (5) of the Act is required to request the expert committee constituted under Sec. 8 of the Act or may constitute another similar committee to verify the compliance report within a period of 30 days. Upon receipt of the compliance report the Government in terms of Sec. 10 (5) of the Act is required to request the expert committee constituted under Sec. 8 of the Act or may constitute another similar committee to verify the compliance report within a period of 30 days. It is only if the Government is satisfied, in terms of Sec. 11 of the Act, that the sponsoring body has complied with the conditions of Letter of Intent and on the specific recommendations of the expert committee that it is required to make an endeavour for inclusion of the name of the University in the Schedule within a of the period of seven (7) months by way of amendment of the Schedule. 22. In the present case admittedly, there has not been any satisfaction recorded by the Government as regards the fulfilment of the various terms and conditions in the Letter of Intent dtd. 22/1/2019 and it was only in that context had proceeded to issue a direction to the Government to permit the petitioners to start classes from the academic year 2022-23 and to include the name of petitioner No.2/University in the Schedule within the statutory period, if the Government was satisfied that the petitioners had shown compliance to the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent and also the statutes. 23. Needless to say that appellant No.2 would be entitled to make admissions and claim itself to be a University only if the name of the appellant No.2 was formally included in the Schedule appended to the Act, in terms of Sec. 3 of the Act. 24. We are also of the opinion that the Government is entitled to satisfy itself as to whether the sponsoring body has complied with the conditions of the Letter of Intent which satisfaction in the present case is conspicuously absent. Needless to say that the universities are not envisaged to be incorporated merely on the basis of project reports prepared on paper much less on the basis of Letters of Intent based upon the basis of proper project reports except where the Government is satisfied based upon reports yet again from the expert committee that compliance had been shown as per the projections made in the reports on ground which would include among others infrastructure and faculty requirements. 25. 25. For the reasons aforementioned we do not find any merit in the present Letter Patent Appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.