ORDER : 1. Heard Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned Standing Counsel for Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU), appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri M.P. Kashyap, learned Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Osmania University, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and Sri A.P. Suresh Rao, learned Standing Counsel for TG EAPCETB, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “……to issue a Writ, Order or direction, particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 University in not issuing the notification as required under the University Grants Commission Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges Regulations 2023 and not permitting the Petitioner Institution to operate as an autonomous institution from the Academic Year 2025-26 inspite of conferment of Autonomous status by the Respondent No.2 in its orders Dated 28.02.2025 as being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, against to the Principal of Natural Justice and consequently Direct the Respondent No.1 University to issue a notification for the Petitioner Institution to function as an Autonomous institution and grant the Petitioner Institution all the privileges of autonomy from the Academic Year 2025-26 onwards and pass any such other orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under: i) The petitioner is a registered charitable educational society running Princeton College of Pharmacy, which is affiliated to the 1 st respondent University and accredited by NAAC with “B++” grade. Pursuant to the UGC Regulations, 2023, the petitioner applied through UGC portal for grant of autonomous status and also sought a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the 1 st respondent University as required under Regulation 4.2 of UGC Regulations, 2023 duly paying the prescribed fee and submitting all necessary documents. Pursuant to the UGC Regulations, 2023, the petitioner applied through UGC portal for grant of autonomous status and also sought a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the 1 st respondent University as required under Regulation 4.2 of UGC Regulations, 2023 duly paying the prescribed fee and submitting all necessary documents. ii) Upon scrutiny and expert appraisal, the UGC found the petitioner institution eligible and, by orders dated 28.02.2025, the 2 nd respondent had granted autonomous status for five years i.e., from the academic year 2025-2026 to 2029-2030, directing the 1 st respondent University to issue the necessary notification within 30 days to enable the institution to function as an autonomous college from the Academic Year 2025–26. iii) Inspite of repeated representations submitted by the petitioner dated 25.03.2025, 02.06.2025, 17.06.2025, 02.07.2025, 05.08.2025, 12.08.2025 and 19.08.2025, the Respondent University has failed to issue the notification, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner, particularly affecting admissions during the ongoing EAPCET-2025 counselling process. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) The relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, in particular, paragraph Nos.11 to 13 are extracted hereunder: “11. In reply to Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the 2 nd Respondent has conferred Autonomous Status to the College on 28-02- 2025, even though the University has not processed the application submitted by the College for want of payment of Processing Fee while submitting the application for NOC and the College has paid NOC processing fee only on 06-06-2025. 12. In reply to Paragraph Nos. 14, 15 & 16 of the affidavit, the contents of the same are denied in total. It is submitted that, in the absence of NOC from the 1 st Respondent University and without considering the objections of the 1 st Respondent, the 2 nd Respondent could not have granted Autonomous Status to the Petitioner Institution. 13. In reply to Paragraph Nos. 17, 18 & 19 of the affidavit, it is submitted that, the University communicated a letter to the Secretary, UGC on 23-12- 2024, requesting that the conferment of Autonomous Status to Princeton College of Pharmacy be withheld for the current Academic Year 2025-26 and also the College did not pay the NOC processing fee for conferment of Autonomus Status while submitting application for NOC. Further in view of the proposal of the state to submit a strategic plan for maintaining standards and healthy environment which was communicated to the 2 nd Respondent the orders are passed without refence to said objections and as such the WP is without merits. Thus, the Writ Petition has absolutely no merits and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.” B) Regulation Nos. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2023 are extracted hereunder: “ ROLE OF THE PARENT UNIVERSITY: The role of the parent University in general and subject to the provisions of Regulations will be as under: 4.1 To examine the application of the College for autonomous status on the UGC portal and give its recommendations, along with reasons/justification, within 30 working days on the UGC portal. If the parent University does not respond on the UGC portal within working days, it shall be presumed that the parent University has no objection to the processing of the application by the UGC for conferment of autonomous status. 4.2 Issue notification within 30 days for a college to function as an autonomous entity once the autonomous status is conferred on the College by UGC. 4.3 The College, on attaining autonomous status will continue to be affiliated with the parent University but will enjoy the privileges of autonomy. 4.4 To provide nominees on various Statutory Bodies of the Autonomous College. 4.5 To facilitate the implementation of these regulations.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions: 5.1 The petitioner college had made an application to UGC for Conferment of Autonomous Status on 24.07.2024. 5.2 On 12.12.2024, the UGC sent a letter to JNTU directing to provide its recommendation, along with reasons/justification, within five working days from the date of receipt of the said communication through the UGC Portal. 5.3 As per Regulation 4.1 of the University Grants Commission, if JNTU does not respond, it shall be presumed that the JNTU has no objection to the processing of the application by the UGC. 5.4 On 23.12.2024, JNTU addressed a letter to the UGC stating that the Government was in the process of submitting a strategic plan to the UGC for the academic year 2025-2026, in order to maintain a healthy academic environment. 5.4 On 23.12.2024, JNTU addressed a letter to the UGC stating that the Government was in the process of submitting a strategic plan to the UGC for the academic year 2025-2026, in order to maintain a healthy academic environment. 5.5 On 28.02.2025, the UGC confirmed autonomous status to the petitioner college for the Academic Year 2025– 2026 and directed JNTU to issue the necessary notification within 30 days. Despite several letters dated 25.03.2025, 02.06.2025, 17.06.2025, 02.07.2025, 05.08.2025, 12.08.2025 and 19.08.2025 addressed to JNTU, no response was received from the 1 st respondent University and the notification conferring autonomous status has not been issued. 5.6 However, JNTU had granted autonomous status to similar colleges without any objection. On 26.08.2025, UGC addressed a letter to JNTU directing it to comply with the UGC Regulations, 2023, and to issue the notification within 15 days, to avoid any punitive action by UGC. On 25.09.2025, since no notification had been issued by the JNTU, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5.7 The respondent University raised objections only in respect of the petitioner college, while granting autonomous status for a period of five years for the Academic Year 2025–2026 to other similarly situated colleges, including Samskruthi College of Pharmacy. Although similar objections were earlier raised with respect to the petitioner and another institution, pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 25.07.2025 in W.P. No. 1247 of 2025, the 1 st respondent University issued the notification conferring autonomous status on the petitioner’s Engineering College. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that, as per Regulations 4.1 and 4.2 of the University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards of Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2023, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 in particular, paragraph No.13, contends that the 1 st respondent University had addressed a letter to the Secretary, UGC on 23.12.2024, requesting the conferment of Autonomous Status to the petitioner college. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 in particular, paragraph No.13, contends that the 1 st respondent University had addressed a letter to the Secretary, UGC on 23.12.2024, requesting the conferment of Autonomous Status to the petitioner college. He further submits that the petitioner college did not pay the NOC processing fee for conferment of Autonomous Status while submitting an application for NOC and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. 7. A bare perusal of Regulation 4.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2023 indicates that once autonomous status is conferred on a college by the UGC, it is incumbent upon the University to furnish its recommendations, along with reasons or objections/justifications, to the UGC through the UGC portal within 30 working days. As per Regulation 4.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2023, if the parent University does not respond on the UGC portal within 30 working days, it shall be presumed that the parent University has no objection to the processing of the application by the UGC for conferment of autonomous status. It follows therefrom that, in the event the 1 st respondent University fails to respond within the stipulated period, a deemed “No Objection” stands granted in favour of the petitioner college for conferment of autonomous status. 8. A bare perusal of Regulation 4.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2023 further provides that, pursuant to an express or deemed No Objection Certificate granted by JNTU, the UGC shall proceed to issue a notification within 30 days from the date of such express or deemed grant of No Objection. The notification issued by the UGC shall confer autonomous status upon the college as per the regulations in force of UGC, 2023. 9. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner, admittedly as borne on record, made an application to UGC for conferment of autonomous status on 24.07.2024 and the same is not disputed by the 1 st respondent University and as per the relevant regulations (referred to and extracted above), upon expiry of 30 working days, the petitioner could be entitled for deemed NOC by virtue of Regulation 4.1. In other words, the right of either UGC or its committee to object to grant of autonomous status by UGC in favour of the petitioner college comes to an end after 30 working days from the date of the petitioner’s application dated 24.07.2024. 10. The High Court of Judicature at Madras, under identical circumstances, passed orders in the judgment dated 12.09.2025 in W.P. Nos. 21470 of 2025 and batch, observing as under: “6. The learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for the UGC submitted that without considering the objections, the first respondent would not have passed orders conferring autonomous status to the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that in case objections were filed beyond 30 days, it could be presumed that the University had no objection under Regulation 4.1. 7. The submission of the learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for the UGC is recorded and in the light of the said submission and Regulation 4.2 of the UGC Regulation extracted above, the first respondent is bound to issue the notification within 30 days as per Clause 4.2 aforementioned. In this regard, the Judgment of the First Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anna University Vs. Mahendra Institute of Technology and Another in W.A. No. 51 of 2020 can be usefully referred. The Court held as follows: "14. In the said background, we are of the opinion that the 2018 Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12(f). (g), (j) r/w 26(1) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 govern the field, inasmuch as the same is clearly saved as being a Regulation duly authorized having its source in Entry 66 of List 1 of the Constitution of India. There is no law for the time being relating to the Regulation of grant of autonomous Colleges running contrary to the same either framed under Entry 66 of List I or entry 25 of List III. In the absence of any such legislation to the contrary, we are of the clear opinion that the 2018 Regulations clearly hold the field exclusively in the matters of grant of autonomous status to affiliated Colleges. In the absence of any such legislation to the contrary, we are of the clear opinion that the 2018 Regulations clearly hold the field exclusively in the matters of grant of autonomous status to affiliated Colleges. The resolution of the Syndicate dated 27.05.2014 cannot in any way be said to have an overriding effect or even supplementary effect to the 2018 Regulations, inasmuch as the method of grant of an autonomous status is clearly defined under the 2018 Regulations and the eligibility to obtain such status is also governed by the same." 8. The aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble First Division Bench was confirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 8324-8325 of 2020. From a reading of the aforementioned Regulation and the Judgment of the Hon'ble First Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that the first respondent University is bound to issue the notification as mandated by Regulation 4.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2023. ” 11. In the Judgment of High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 03.09.2024 passed in W.P. No. 23038 of 2024, in particular paragraph No.19, it is observed as under: “19. ” 11. In the Judgment of High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 03.09.2024 passed in W.P. No. 23038 of 2024, in particular paragraph No.19, it is observed as under: “19. Insofar as the contention of RGUHS that on 12.03.2024, its committee of Academic Council issued a recommendation not to issue NOC in favour of the petitioner for conferment of autonomous status and the said recommendation was accepted by the RGUHS syndicate on 26.08.2024 is concerned, it is relevant to state that it is an undisputed fact that on 10.07.2023 itself, the petitioner had filed an application which was uploaded on the UGC portal and upon expiry of 30 working days, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of deemed NOC by virtue of the deeming provision contained in Regulation 4.1 of the UGC Regulations; in other words, the right of either the UGC or its committee to object to grant of autonomous status by UGC in favour of petitioner - college came to an end after 30 working days from the date of the petitioner's application dated 10.07.2023 and consequently, the recommendation made by the committee highly belatedly on 12.03.2024 was clearly beyond the stipulated period of 30 working days from 10.07.2023 and as such, no reliance can be placed upon the said recommendation by RGUHS in support of its claim; in any event, the recommendation of the committee was accepted only on 26.08.2024 during the pendency of the present petition, which was preferred on 20.08.2024 and the said decision taken by RGUHS on 26.08.2024 vide Annexure-R1 is clearly a post - litem decision /document which cannot be made the basis by RGUHS to decline to issue a Notification for grant of autonomous status in favour of the petitioner especially when the UGC had already / undisputedly conferred autonomous status upon the petitioner college as long back as on 03.11.2023 itself and the said contention of RGUHS cannot be accepted.” 12. This Court, in similar circumstances, passed orders vide Judgment dated 25.06.2025 in W.P. No. 1247 of 2025, observing as under: “14. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing JNTU to issue notification by 05.07.2025, granting autonomous status to the petitioner institution from the academic year 2024-25 on all aspects covered by the UGC Regulations except the curriculum/syllabus for the existing batch students (academic year 2024-25). No order as to costs.” 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing JNTU to issue notification by 05.07.2025, granting autonomous status to the petitioner institution from the academic year 2024-25 on all aspects covered by the UGC Regulations except the curriculum/syllabus for the existing batch students (academic year 2024-25). No order as to costs.” 13. A bare perusal of the averments made in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 clearly indicates a categorical admission by the 1 st respondent that the petitioner-college paid the NOC processing fee on 06.06.2025. In view of the said submission, the plea raised in paragraph No.13 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner-college did not pay the NOC processing fee for conferment of autonomous status while submitting its application for NOC is wholly untenable, as it stands admitted that the said fee was paid on 06.06.2025 and was received by the 1 st respondent-University in June, 2025 itself. 14. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the Respondent No.1 conferred UGC Autonomous Status on Samskrithi College of Pharmacy, vide proceedings No.F.2- 10/2023 (AC-Policy) dated 12.08.2025 followed by proceedings issued by the Registrar, JNTU, vide proceedings No. JNTUH/DAAC/Y7/960/2025 dated 28.08.2025 which is filed as material documents by the petitioner in support of the petitioner’s case vide a memo dated 09.10.2025. 15. This Court opines that the plea put forth in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 that in view of the proposal of the State to submit a strategic plan for maintaining standards and a healthy academic environment, a decision had been taken to reject the petitioner’s application for conferment of autonomous status, is untenable and is accordingly rejected, in view of the fact as borne on record as per the material documents filed by the petitioner in support of the petitioner’s case, a similar benefit was extended to Samskruti College of Pharmacy, Kondapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District, vide proceedings dated 12.08.2025, which is similar to the petitioner-college. 16. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 and in particular, paragraph no. 16. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 and in particular, paragraph no. 11, 12 and 13 (referred to and extracted above), d) Regulation Nos.4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 of the UGC Regulations, 2023 (referred to and extracted above), e) The proceedings of the Registrar, JNTU vide No.F.2-10/ 2023 (AC-Policy) dated 12.08.2025 issued in favour of the Samskriti College of Pharmacy, Kondapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District pertaining to confirmation of autonomous status to the said college, f) The proceedings of the Registrar, JNTU, vide proceedings No. JNTUH/DAAC/Y7/960/2025 dated 28.08.2025 issuing Conferment of UGC Autonomous Status in respect of the Samskriti College of Pharmacy, g) The observations of various Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above), h) The judgment dated 25.06.2025 passed in W.P.No1247 of 2025 issued by this court under similar circumstances (referred to and extracted above) which had attained its finality, i) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at paragraph Nos.5 to 15 of the present order, The writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 1 University is directed to issue a notification permitting the petitioner institution to function as an autonomous institution and to grant the petitioner institution all the privileges of autonomy from the academic year 2025–2026 onwards, duly taking into consideration Regulations 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2023 (referred to and extracted above), and the view of the Courts in similar circumstances as reflected in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance to law. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.