ORDER : (VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.) This Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider their application dated 06.11.2023 sent to the University Grants Commission (Institutions deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as “UGC Regulations, 2023”] without reference to the letter of the second respondent dated 21.11.2023 and the letter of the third respondent dated 15.11.2023. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as for the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The short facts of the case of the petitioner is as follows: a) The Petitioner, Saroja Regupathy, who is the Managing Trustee of Karpaga Vinayaga Educational Trust, runs several institutions such as Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Dental Sciences, Karpaga Vinayaga College of Nursing, Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Karpaga Vinayaga College of Engineering and Technology. b) While so, the petitioner applied for recognition of their institution as a “Deemed to be University” under the UGC Regulations, 2023. As per the regulations, the petitioner sought a “No Objection Certificate (NOC)” from the affiliating Universities/the respondents 2 & 3 herein. The petitioner requested the NOC from the respondents 2 & 3, who are the affiliating Universities for the Medical and Engineering Colleges on 07.06.2023 and received the NOCs from both the Universities/respondents 2 & 3 on 29.09.2023 and 27.09.2023 respectively but however, the same were later withdrawn by them on 21.11.2023 and 15.11.2023 citing the State Government's policy. The petitioner submits that the withdrawal of these NOCs by the respondents 2 and 3 are invalid, as per UGC Regulations 2023. Aggrieved by the withdrawal of NOCs by the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner herein was of the opinion that the first respondent may not consider their application dated 06.11.2023 sent to them for grant of “Deemed to be University” status to be institution and come forward with this petition for the relief sought for in the prayer. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the UGC published the University Grants Commission (Institutions deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2023 which provides eligibility and procedure for any institute to be recognized as “deemed to be University” where Regulation 6 deals with the procedure to apply for an institute to be recognized as 'deemed University'. 5. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the UGC published the University Grants Commission (Institutions deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2023 which provides eligibility and procedure for any institute to be recognized as “deemed to be University” where Regulation 6 deals with the procedure to apply for an institute to be recognized as 'deemed University'. 5. He put forth his submissions stating that the petitioner requested for NOC from the respondents 2 and 3, who are the affiliating Universities for Medical and Engineering Colleges on 07.06.2023. He added that as per proviso to Regulation 6(2)(a), if the respondents 2 and 3 want to refuse grant of NOC to the petitioner, they ought to have done the same on or before 06.08.2023, but they did not respond to the request of the petitioner. He further contended that on 27.09.2023, the third respondent granted NOC and subsequently, on 29.09.2023, the second respondent granted NOC and the petitioner applied for “deemed to be University” status on 06.11.2023 and thereafter on the submission of the application by the petitioner, the second respondent withdrew its NOC on 21.11.2023 and the third respondent withdrew its NOC on 15.11.2023, which are in clear abuse of process of law as per proviso to UGC Regulation 6(2)(a). 6. In furtherance, he contended that the UGC Act and Regulations are a complete code by themselves and the State Government's executive cannot curb the provisions of the UGC Regulations. He also pointed out that insofar as the UGC is concerned, it has to bind on its own regulations and to give effect to proviso to Regulation 6(2)(a) and consider the case of the petitioner, as there was no response from the affiliating universities within 60 days of their request and hence NOC is deemed to have been granted. 7. In support of his contentions, he drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in W.P.Nos.2308 of 2024 dated 03.09.2024 in the case of Krupanidhi College of Pharmacy Vs. 7. In support of his contentions, he drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in W.P.Nos.2308 of 2024 dated 03.09.2024 in the case of Krupanidhi College of Pharmacy Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, wherein the Court has held that withdrawal of NOC beyond the statutorily granted period is not binding on the UGC which arose out of the UGC (Conferment of Autonomus Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomus Colleges) Regulations, 2023 and he highlighted a simiar clause in clause 4.1 in the said Regulations, whereby if the existing affiliating University did not decide on the request for NOC within 30 days, it is presumed that the parent University has no objection to the processing of the application and also relied upon paragraph 19 of the said decision which facts are similar to that the petitioner's case and urged that the UGC cannot look into the NOC or the withdrawal of the NOC and has to decide the claim only under the proviso of Regulation 6(2)(a). He also referred to the case of Smt. Kavita Singh Vs. State of U.P. Neutral Citation No.2024 AHC 99826 wherein the Court while interpreting a deemed fiction under Rule 10(5)(ii) of the the U.P., Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978, which contained a provision where if any person was appointed in a private school and their application was forwarded to the Government and is not rejected within a period of 30 days, then it is deemed to be approved. 8. Thus, while concluding his arguments, the learned Senior counsel admitted the fact that the first respondent had not denied their application on grant and withdrawal of NOC to the petitioner but however stated that UGC will decide the application shortly. He urged this Court that in the present case, the petitioner after the grant of deemed university status has to carry out all necessary steps and make arrangements as a University to carry on its functions and admit the students in the upcoming years and therefore, prayed this Court to direct the first respondent to take necessary action to decide the petitioner's application as expeditiously as possible. 9. 9. The learned Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner applied for the recognition of their institution as “Deemed to be University” under UGC Regulations, 2023 and the institution received “No Objection Certificates (NOCs)” from the respondents 2 & 3 on 29.09.2023 and 27.09.2023 respectively. She further submitted that they subsequently withdrew the NOCs on 21.11.2023 and 15.11.2023 respectively and it was brought to the notice of this Court that the second respondent withdrew the NOC citing that the State Government's policy on the following grounds: a) Rural and underprivileged students of the state will lose out on seat; b) Special Government Reservation of 7.5% will be lost; c) No communal reservation; and d) Higher the fee structure. 10. The learned Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the application for grant of 'Deemed to be University' status is under active consideration and the domain of experts in respondent organization will take decision based on its relevant Regulation and assured that the decision will be taken shortly. She added that the petitioner can challenge the decision of the first respondent, if aggrieved in future and now, this petition is in premature stage and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 11. Considering the above discussions of the case on hand and in the light of the provisions of the UGC Regulations 2023 as stated supra, this Court is of the opinion that the application for grant of “Deemed to be University” status submitted by the petitioner is under active consideration and therefore, the respondent concerned must take decision on the pending application, within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above observation and directions. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.