JUDGMENT : Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. 1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 25.06.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.1247 of 2025, filed by the respondent Nos.1-3 against a letter issued by the appellant dated 23.12.2024 refusing permission to the respondent No.2 to operate as an Autonomous Institution from the Academic Year 2024-25. 2. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant/Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) was the respondent No.1, the respondent No.4/University Grants Commission (‘UGC’)) was the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.5/the State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, was the respondent No.3. 3. The respondent Nos.1-3/writ petitioners filed the Writ Petition aggrieved by the letter dated 23.12.2024 of the appellant/JNTU to the respondent No.4/UGC, wherein the appellant opined that the appellant was not inclined to issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’ for grant of Autonomous Status to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute of Engineering and Technology For Women, Chowdaryguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (‘Princeton Institute’). The appellant also requested UGC to withdraw the Autonomous Status conferred upon the Princeton Institute for the Academic Year 2024-25 on the grounds stated in the said letter. 4. By the impugned order dated 25.06.2025, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition and directed the appellant/JNTU to issue a notification by 05.07.2025 granting Autonomous Status to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute from the Academic Year 2024-25 on all aspects covered by the University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2023 (‘UGC Regulations’) except the curriculum/syllabus for the existing batch of students (Academic Year 2024-25). 5. The undisputed facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition by the respondent Nos.1-3/writ petitioners are briefly stated below: (i) All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) granted its approval to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute on 22.05.2024 for the Academic Year 2024-25 in terms of The All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Education) Regulations and the powers delegated under The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. (ii) The appellant/JNTU granted affiliation to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute on 20.01.2025 for the Academic Year 2024-25. (iii) On 27.08.2024, UGC granted Autonomous Status to Princeton Institute for a period of 10 years with effect from the Academic Year 2024-25. (ii) The appellant/JNTU granted affiliation to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute on 20.01.2025 for the Academic Year 2024-25. (iii) On 27.08.2024, UGC granted Autonomous Status to Princeton Institute for a period of 10 years with effect from the Academic Year 2024-25. This decision was communicated by UGC to the appellant/JNTU on 04.09.2024 with a direction to issue the necessary notification within 30 days. (iv) On 20.12.2024, the respondent Nos.1-3/writ petitioners filed a Writ Petition (W.P.No.36068 of 2024) challenging the inaction of the appellant/JNTU in issuing a notification in accordance with the UGC Regulations in order for the Princeton Institute to function as an Autonomous Institution. (v) On 23.12.2024, the appellant/JNTU issued the impugned letter to UGC requesting it to revoke the Autonomous Status conferred upon Princeton Institute. (vi) On 09.01.2025, the respondent Nos.1-3/writ petitioners filed W.P.No.1247 of 2025 challenging the letter dated 23.12.2024 issued by the appellant/JNTU and the inaction of the appellant/JNTU in issuing the notification as required under the UGC Regulations, thereby preventing Princeton Institute from operating as an Autonomous Institution from the Academic Year 2024-25. (vii) The impugned order dated 25.06.2025 was passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.1247 of 2025 and directing the appellant/JNTU to issue the necessary Notification by 05.07.2025 granting Autonomous Status to Princeton Institute from the Academic Year 2024-25 on all aspects covered by the UGC Regulations except the curriculum/syllabus for the existing batch of students. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/JNTU and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1-3/writ petitioners have made their respective submissions. 7. The primary contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant/JNTU is that the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute cannot be granted Autonomous Status in the middle of the Academic Year 2024-25. Counsel further submits that the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute has failed to meet all the requirements for the grant of affiliation and is hence not entitled to the grant of Autonomous Status under the UGC Regulations. Counsel also relies on Regulation No.3.33 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad Regulations for the Grant of Affiliation to the Colleges/Institutions, 2012 (as amended) (‘JNTU Affiliation Regulations’), which requires a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to be issued by the JNTU to the affiliated College for filing an application to the UGC for grant of Autonomous Status. Counsel submits that the respondent Nos.1-3/writ petitioners did not comply with this requirement. 8. Counsel submits that the respondent Nos.1-3/writ petitioners did not comply with this requirement. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1- 3/writ petitioners submits that the letter dated 23.12.2024 addressed by the JNTU to UGC, which formed the subject matter of W.P.No.1247 of 2025, was issued in the absence of any supporting Regulation. Counsel submits that approval by AICTE, affiliation by JNTU and Autonomous Status by UGC had been granted to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute on 22.05.2024, 20.01.2025 and 27.08.2024, respectively, for the Academic Year 2024-25. Counsel relies on Regulation No.4.2 of the UGC Regulations, which requires the appellant/JNTU (Parent University) to issue a notification within 30 days for a college to function as an Autonomous entity once Autonomous Status is conferred on the college by the UGC. Counsel submits that the appellant/JNTU has, on previous occasions, notified the Autonomous Status of other Institutions in the middle of the Academic Year, contrary to the submissions now made on behalf of the appellant/JNTU. Counsel further submits that the objection with regard to Princeton Institute not meeting the requirements for grant of affiliation is misplaced since the appellant/JNTU itself granted affiliation to Princeton Institute for the Academic Year 2024-25 on 20.01.2025. 9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for UGC submitted on 05.01.2026 that UGC did not have any independent arguments to make before the Court. 10. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the material placed before us. 11. It should first be clarified that any Institution requires two specific permissions to function as an academic Institution and to run academic courses viz., (i) approval from AICTE as the Central regulatory body which accords permission to run the technical Institution and (ii) affiliation from the Parent University, which in this case is JNTU, Hyderabad/the appellant. An Institution may also apply for Autonomous Status under the UGC Regulations. 12. Regulation No.3 of the UGC Regulations enumerates the ‘Role, Terms and Conditions of an Autonomous College’ while Regulation No.4 of the UGC Regulations enumerates the ‘Role of the Parent University’. 13. Regulation No.4.1 of the UGC Regulations is set out below: ‘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. 13. Regulation No.4.1 of the UGC Regulations is set out below: ‘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 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. 14. Regulation No.4.1 of the UGC Regulations would show that the role of the Parent University is ministerial in nature since it envisages automatic recommendation for Autonomous Status along with reasons, which must be submitted on the UGC Portal within 30 working days. The limits of the Parent University’s role would further be evident from the second limb of Regulation No.4.1, which provides for the presumption that the University has no objection to the processing of the application by the UGC for conferment of Autonomous status if the Parent University does not respond on UGC Portal within 30 working days. 15. Regulation No.4.2 of the UGC Regulations imposes a further obligation on the Parent University to issue a notification within 30 days for a college to function as an Autonomous entity once UGC has conferred Autonomous Status on that college. 16. Hence, read together, Regulation Nos.4.1 and 4.2 stipulate that the Parent University is required to act upon the application made by a College for Autonomous Status and to submit its recommendation along with reasons/justification, within 30 working days, on the UGC Portal, failing which, it shall be presumed that the Parent University has no objection to the processing of the application by UGC for conferment of Autonomous Status. 17. In the present case, it is undisputed that UGC granted Autonomous Status to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute on 27.08.2024 for a period of 10 years with effect from the Academic Year 2024-25. This decision was also communicated to the appellant/JNTU on 04.09.2024 along with a request to issue the necessary notification within 30 days. The appellant/JNTU, however, failed to issue the necessary notification, which led the writ petitioners to file the first Writ Petition (W.P.No.36068 of 2024) on 20.12.2024 questioning the appellant’s inaction in providing the recommendation in terms of Regulation No.4.1 of the UGC Regulations. The appellant/JNTU, however, failed to issue the necessary notification, which led the writ petitioners to file the first Writ Petition (W.P.No.36068 of 2024) on 20.12.2024 questioning the appellant’s inaction in providing the recommendation in terms of Regulation No.4.1 of the UGC Regulations. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the appellant/JNTU issued the letter dated 23.12.2024 to UGC requesting UGC to revoke the Autonomous Status conferred on Princeton Institute. This compelled the writ petitioners to file the second Writ Petition (W.P.No.1247 of 2025) challenging the said letter. 18. The appellant/JNTU has not given any explanation for failing to act/submit its recommendation within the stipulated time frame with regard to the grant of Autonomous Status to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute under Regulation No.4.1 of the UGC Regulations. The appellant has also not given any credible reasons for issuing the letter dated 23.12.2024 to UGC requesting UGC to withdraw the grant of Autonomous Status to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute. Thus, it can be assumed that the appellant’s inaction in failing to issue the recommendation for processing the grant of Autonomous Status to Princeton Institute and its subsequent letter to UGC seeking withdrawal of such Autonomous Status were not based on any Regulations or Rules. Such inaction and the subsequent impugned action were hence unreasonable and arbitrary. 19. The extent of arbitrariness in the appellant’s inaction in giving the recommendation and the subsequent action of issuing the impugned letter would further be evident from its contention that Autonomous Status cannot be granted to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute in the middle of the Academic Year 2024-25. Notably, the appellant/JNTU has not relied upon any Regulation or Rule to support this contention. The contention also appears to be misconceived since the Court was shown various instances where the appellant has notified Autonomous Status for other Institutions in the middle of the Academic Year. A list of such instances/Institutions forms part of the record. 20. Moreover, the National Education Policy, 2020 envisages flexible curricular structures and permits movement from one discipline of study to another, as well as from one institution to another. 21. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute undertook to continue the same syllabus for the existing batch of students until the commencement of the next Academic Year i.e., 2025-26. 20. Moreover, the National Education Policy, 2020 envisages flexible curricular structures and permits movement from one discipline of study to another, as well as from one institution to another. 21. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute undertook to continue the same syllabus for the existing batch of students until the commencement of the next Academic Year i.e., 2025-26. Therefore, the appellant’s refusal to grant Autonomous Status to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute in the middle of the Academic Year 2024- 25 is not sustainable, either on facts or under the relevant Regulations. 22. It is also significant that the appellant/JNTU has not challenged UGC’s grant of Autonomous Status to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute. Hence, the appellant cannot now contend that the said grant was improper or not binding on the appellant, all the more so, when the appellant failed to act in accordance with Regulation No.4.1 of the UGC Regulations. 23. The second objection raised by the appellant/JNTU is that the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute does not meet all the requirements for the grant of affiliation and is, therefore, not entitled to the grant of Autonomous Status. This argument, however, is not supported by any record showing that the appellant/JNTU refused affiliation to Princeton Institute at the relevant point of time. In fact, the appellant/JNTU granted affiliation to Princeton Institute for the Academic Year 2024-25 on 20.01.2025. The aforesaid fact is undisputed. 24. Even otherwise, the UGC Regulations form the basis for conferring Autonomous Status on Institutions. This clearly reflects that once UGC itself has granted Autonomous Status, the appellant cannot rely on the UGC Regulations viz., Regulation Nos.6.1 and 7.4, to deny notification thereof, especially, in view of the fact that the appellant failed to challenge either the UGC Regulations or the grant of Autonomous Status by UGC to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute on 27.08.2024. 25. As stated above, Regulation Nos.4.1 and 4.2 of the UGC Regulations stipulate a window of 30 working days for the Parent University (JNTU) to give its recommendation, along with reasons/justifications, on examining the application of the College for Autonomous Status. 25. As stated above, Regulation Nos.4.1 and 4.2 of the UGC Regulations stipulate a window of 30 working days for the Parent University (JNTU) to give its recommendation, along with reasons/justifications, on examining the application of the College for Autonomous Status. The latter part of Regulation No.4.1, which is factually applicable to the present case, amounts to a green signal on the part of the Parent University for the process for conferment of Autonomous Status on the College by the UGC to go through if the Parent University fails to respond on the UGC Portal within the stipulated time frame of 30 working days. Regulation No.4.2 continues the peremptory duty cast upon the Parent University by imposing an obligation on the Parent University to issue a notification within 30 days enabling a College to function as an Autonomous entity once the UGC confers such status on the College. 26. Regulation Nos.4.1 and 4.2 of the UGC Regulations apply in their entirety to the facts of the present case. Thus, the appellant/JNTU, as the Parent University, had no basis to seek withdrawal of the Autonomous Status conferred by UGC upon the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute including by way of its letter dated 23.12.2024, which was the subject matter of W.P.No.1247 of 2025. 27. The third ground raised by the appellant/JNTU pertains to the requirement of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to be issued by the University to the affiliated college in terms of Regulation No.3.33 of the JNTU Affiliation Regulations, before an application is filed by the College for Autonomous Status. 28. We, however, find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent Nos.1-3/writ petitioners that Regulation No.4.1 of the UGC Regulations sets out the manner in which objections may be recorded by the University with respect to an application seeking Autonomous Status by an affiliated College and notably provides that such objections shall be treated as non- existent if the University does not respond within the stipulated time frame of 30 days. Contrary to the argument made on behalf of the appellant/JNTU, Regulation No.3.33 of the JNTU Affiliation Regulations is not in conflict with Regulation No.4.1 of the UGC Regulations, as it merely prescribes the manner in which objections may be recorded by the Parent University. 29. Contrary to the argument made on behalf of the appellant/JNTU, Regulation No.3.33 of the JNTU Affiliation Regulations is not in conflict with Regulation No.4.1 of the UGC Regulations, as it merely prescribes the manner in which objections may be recorded by the Parent University. 29. Even otherwise, if a conflict is presumed to exist between the JNTU Affiliation Regulations and the UGC Regulations, to the extent of Regulation No.3.33 and Regulation No.4.1 respectively, the UGC Regulations, which is a subordinate legislation made under a Central legislation i.e., The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 would override the JNTU Affiliation Regulations, since its parent legislation i.e., The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Universities Act, 2008, is a State legislation. It is settled law that a State legislation being in conflict with a Central legislation, including a Subordinate legislation made by the Central legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, shall be repugnant to the Central legislation to the extent of the conflict and would be inoperative: Kalyani Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj , (2015) 6 SCC 363 . 30. In other words, in the event of a conflict between a subordinate State legislation enacted under Entry 25 of List III (the JNTU Affiliation Regulations) and a Subordinate Central legislation made under Entry 66 of List I (the UGC Regulations), the legislation falling under Entry 25 of List III would be subject to the legislation under Entry 66 of List I of the VII Schedule. Therefore, the argument regarding the requirement of annual affiliation under the JNTU Affiliation Regulations is misplaced since the JNTU Affiliation Regulations are subject to the UGC Regulations, particularly, Regulation Nos.4.1 and 4.2 thereof. 31. In conclusion, we hold that the respondent Nos.1-3/writ petitioners were justified in approaching the Writ Court against the letter dated 23.12.2024 issued by the appellant/JNTU to the UGC requesting the latter to withdraw the Autonomous Status conferred upon the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute. We have already given our reasons for holding that this particular objection, as well as the other objections raised by the appellant/JNTU, was untenable and not founded on any Regulation or Rule of either the JNTU or the UGC. 32. We have already given our reasons for holding that this particular objection, as well as the other objections raised by the appellant/JNTU, was untenable and not founded on any Regulation or Rule of either the JNTU or the UGC. 32. The learned Single Judge correctly recorded the submission made on behalf of the appellant/JNTU that JNTU is not following any standard or consistent policy or norms for the conferment of Autonomous status and that such status has been granted throughout the year and not just during fixed months of the year. The learned Single Judge also rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant/JNTU that the Autonomous Status conferred on the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute would be applicable only to the fresh batch of students and not to the existing batch of students since the said contention was not substantiated by any specific Rule or Regulation. 33. The learned Single Judge was correct in directing the appellant/JNTU to issue the Notification granting Autonomous status to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute by 05.07.2025. We do not find any error in the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in disposing of the Writ Petition and directing the appellant/JNTU to issue a Notification granting Autonomous Status to the respondent No.2/Princeton Institute by 05.07.2025 for the Academic Year 2024-25 on all aspects covered by the UGC Regulations except with respect to curriculum/syllabus for the existing batch of students i.e., Academic Year 2024-25. 34. The above reasons persuade us to hold that the Writ Appeal against the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 is without merit. 35. W.A.No.827 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any, including pertaining to Contempt Proceedings initiated by the writ petitioners/Institute shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.