- (1.) The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records relating to the impugned order, in proceedings No.E1/AC.131/II. 4/2016, dated 03.07.2016, issued by the Fifth Respondent/Registrar, Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.
(2.) The Long Germane Writ Facts:- 2.1.The Petitioner/College of Agricultural Technology, Theni, Theni District was started in the academic year 2010-2011 based on the sanction of the First Respondent/Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Agriculture Department, followed by affiliation accorded by the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. As a matter of fact, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered between the Fifth Respondent/Registrar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore and the Petitioner, on 7.7.2010. As pointed out by the Standing Committee report dated 2.5.2007, the required infrastructures and other facilities were developed in respect of the College. The College had required number of eminent Faculty Members, well-equipped Library, well-equipped Laboratories, Hostel, Orchard, fields, and other facilities, etc. Therefore, a request was made on 25.4.2011 to the Third Respondent seeking to increase the admission strength of the students for B.Sc (Agri) Degree course from 60 to 120 seats. Taking into account the infrastructural facilities available in the College, the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, by means of proceedings dated 20.6.2011 provisionally approved the proposal for increasing the admission strength of B.Sc. (Agri) degree course from 60 to 120 seats from the academic year 2011-2012 onwards with a rider that infrastructure and other facilities should be fulfilled within three months. Indeed, all the infrastructural facilities required for the additional strength were fulfilled and the College has the infrastructural facilities to have additional new courses. In fact, number of representations have been given to the authorities to grant approval for increase in the strength of the B.Sc (Agri) Degree Course from 120 to 240 as well as affiliation to have B.S(Agri Business Management), B.Tech (Horticulture). 2.2.The Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore in regard to enhancement of seats, through communication dated 15.6.2015, intimated that request for additional strength of 120 for B.Sc (Agri) Course will be considered after the inspection by the Standing Committee to ascertain the facilities as per the TNAU Guidelines. In regard to affiliation for the two new courses, it has been turned down by the Fifth Respondent on the ground that both B.S (Agri Business Management) and B.Tech (Horticulture) are self-supporting courses, which cannot be supported for affiliation. There is no whisper in the said communication, as to the inadequate infrastructural facilities. The Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore had issued an Information Brochure, Under Graduate Admission 2015, the Tamilnadu Agricultural University dated nil, wherein it was stated that the candidates admitted during the Counseling under the TNAU quota (50 per cent) in private affiliated Colleges should pay the first year fee prescribed by the Tamilnadu Government to TNAU on the date specified in the admission allotment letter. Aso, it was made clear in the said brochure that private affiliated Colleges are not permitted to collect the first year fee or any other fee from the newly admitted candidates. Inasmuch as the same is not in consonance with the Tamilnadu Agricultural University Act 1971, besides, the agreement entered between the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore and the Petitioner herein, a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.10807 of 2015 was preferred before the Madurai Bench of this Court, challenging the above said portion of the Information Brochure under Graduate Admission 2015 issued by the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. In M.P. (MD)No.2 of 2015 in the said Writ Petition, this Court on 13.06.2015 was pleased to grant interim injunction and since the interim order of injunction was granted, the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore by means of proceedings dated 3.7.2015 reverted back Dr.K.Sivasubramanian who was on deputation as Dean In charge of the College abruptly. Since the Dean was withdrawn by the University, a request was made by the Petitioner to permit the Trust to appoint a Dean for the College by way of direct recruitment by following the norms of TNAU / ICAR. However, there was no reply from the University. Therefore, the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore by means of communication dated 5.10.2015 asked the Petitioner to renew the Memorandum of Understanding entered between the University and the Petitioner Trust. Pursuant to the same, the Petitioner College gave objections for renewal of M.O.U on the ground that there is no clause as to the renewal of Memorandum of Understanding once in four years and the same is against the ingredients of Tamilnadu Agricultural University Act 1971 and Statutes of the Tamilnadu Agricultural University and its regulations. 2.3.As a matter of fact, a due reply was sent by the College relating to the ownership of the land possessed by it. In fact, the Third Respondent/Vice Chancellor and Chairman, Board of Management, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, had developed grudge against the College, particularly against the Petitioner/College, because of the fact that it approaches the Court as against the portion of the informaton Brochure Under Graduate Admission 2015. Moreover, no intimation, as to the meeting convened with the affiliated Colleges, was given to the Petitioner/College. In one of the meetings convened by the second Respondent/Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Finance Department, a direction was issued that any one representing the Petitioner College should leave the meeting hall and indeed other representatives of the private affiliated Colleges intimated the same to the Petitioner/College. 2.4.When that be the fact situation, to the utter shock and surprise of the Petitioner/College, the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, vide order dated 30.3.2016 issued a show cause notice by invoking Section 5 (j) of the Tamilnadu Agricultural University Act 1971 as to withdraw the temporary affiliation granted by the Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore vide order No.E1/970/2007, dated 7.7.2010 and directed the Petitioner/College to submit explanation within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the subject notice as to why the said temporary affiliation given as aforesaid should not be withdrawn. In the said show cause notice, it was mentioned that infrastructural facilities were not developed and the conditions were not satisfied. Apart from that, in paragraph Nos.9 to 15 of the said show cause notice, the following details are found:- (a). The Founder and Managing Trustee of Sree Krishna Education Trust did not come forward to sign the fresh MOU which was sent to him in this office letter NO E1/Sree Krishna Edn Trust/MoU/2015 dated 05.10.2015 when all the remaining Trusts executed the MoU with the University which amounts to deliberate breach of one of the conditions prescribed in the order of the University which granted affiliation on 07.07.2010. (b). Also, Sree Krishna Trust did not fulfill the infrastructural facilities prescribed for B.Sc (Agriculture) in the Guidelines of norms and affiliation of Institutions to TNAU for offering for B.Sc (Agri) degree programme and thus committed a breach of Trust, bonafide belief and expectation and the Trust failed to fulfill its commitments, bounden duty and mandatory requirements for offering good education for the single course viz. B.Sc (Agriculture). Therefore the demand of the Sree Krishna Education Trust to grant affiliation to offer additional courses was also not considered. (c). Besides, the Management of the College of Agricultural Technology has collected examination fees from the students, but failed to remit the required 65 per cent of the examination fee to the University in one lump sum but sent the examination fee in piece meal, as stated in its letter dated 5.12.2015. Further as admitted by the College in its letter dated 22.3.2016 the College is in arrears of remittance of the examination fee of Rs 7,05,237/- for the academic years from 2012-2015 and the College has applied for time upto June 2016. As per the report of the Controller of Examinations of the University (vide letter dated 21.03.2016) also the actual total amount due from the College comes to Rs. 7,13,102/-. Thus the management of Sree Krishna Education Trust is not proper in remitting the examination fee due to the University, knowing well that non remittance of examination fee may lead to debarring the students from writing the examination besides creating administrative inconvenience to the University. (d). Further the Sree Krishna Education Trust does not possess the absolute title of the lands as prescribed in the "Guidelines of norms for affiliation of Institute to TNAU for offering B.Sc (Agri) degree course" received during Nov 2015. Though the replies of the Trust state that they own adequate lands, no document showing the title of the lands in favor of the Trust / College has been produced. (e). Further the title of the lands is not in the name of the Trust or College as the lands are owned by a private limited under the companies Act 1956 viz. Lotus Gardens Private Limited, Bangalore and therefore the Trust/College does not possess the absolute title of the lands. Besides when this major deficiency was pointed out in this office letter dated 22.09.2015 (reference 5th cited) to the Trust, the Trust did not take any efforts to convey /acquire the title of the lands allotted to the College. Thus the Trust does not possess the title of the lands as prescribed in the Guidelines and stands disqualified for running the College. (f). The Management of the CAT having agreed to engage a Professor of the University as the Dean of the CAT on deputation basis and on foreign service terms and conditions in the MOU, later refused to pay leave salary to the Dean and thereby made the Dean to leave the College to enable the Trust engaging unqualified, retired old teachers aged about 70 years on payment of a meager salary which is against the ICAR/University/Govtnorms denying good quality of agriculture education to the students. (g). Further the Management of the College did not pay salary on the last working day of the month to the Dean of the University on deputation with the College but took their own time to disburse the salary. Therefore the University was forced to pay salary to the Dean from the fee collected from the students of the 1st year and paid the balance amount to the College. While so, the Sree Krishna Education Trust has made a false allegation of collection of students' money by the University and non-payment to the College. 2.5.As per the conditions of the University, the Trust had signed the Memorandum of Understanding with the University on 7.7.2010. Further neither in the Tamilnadu Agricultural University Act 1971 nor Statutes of the Tamilnadu Agriculture University nor its regulations nor in the hand book of guidelines for establishing Agricultural College, anything is stated pertaining to the fresh / renewal of Memorandum Of Understanding between the Tamilnadu Agricultural University and affiliated Colleges. As against the communication dated 5.10.2015, objections were sent to the University on 18.2.2016. As such, it cannot be construed as deliberate breach of one of the conditions prescribed in the order of the Notification dated 7.7.2010. 2.6.Besides the above, even in the notification dated 7.7.2010, it was mentioned only to execute a MOU with TNAU before commencement of the course, which does not speak about the renewal of the MOU once in four years. It is false to state that the Petitioner had not satisifed the infrastructural facilities prescribed for B.Sc (Agri) in the guidelines of norms for affiliation of institutions to TNAU for offering B.Sc (Agri) Degree programme and thus committed a breach of Trust bonafide belief and expectation of the University. In fact, the Standing Sub Committee conducted an inspection on 30.4.2014 and pointed out certain minor deficiencies in their report and all the deficiencies as pointed out by the said Committee were rectified and action taken report was forwarded to the University. Even in the report of the Standing Committee, which is lateral point of time to the show cause notice dated 18.06.2016, in the remarks column it was mentioned that 'Examination fees are remitted in time.' 2.7.In regard to the absolute title of the lands as prescribed in the guidelines for the norms of affiliation of the Institute with TNAU for offering B.Sc (Agri) Degree course, it is to be pointed out that the said guidelines were issued subsequent to the affiliation granted to the Petitioner/College. In fact, the said guideline was issued in the year November 2015. Even then, as per the direction of the University, title was transferred in the name of the Trust and the copy of the registered Sale Deed was submitted before the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. Continuing further, the University withdrew the Dean on his own accord on volition. In the said circumstances, the permission has been sought for to appoint a Dean by way of direct recruitment with eligible qualification as required by the TNAU / ICAR. However, no reply was given in this regard. Also that the management paid salary to the Dean of the University on deputation in time and there were no lapses in the payment of salary which warranted the University to pay the salary to the Dean from the fee collected from the students of the first year as alleged in the show cause notice. In reality, with respect to all affiliated Colleges, the University paid salary of the Dean from the fee collected from the students of first year of respective Colleges. As such, it could be inferred that the allegations made in the show cause notice are not correct and also that the Trust had produced all the records besides information as sought for by the University. 2.8.As a matter of fact, the issuance of the show cause notice dated 30.03.2016 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, malafide, pre determination, non application of mind. In fact, in W.M.P.No. 12438 of 2016 in W.P.No.14238 of 2016 an interim stay was granted for a limited period and on 02.06.2016 the stay was extended till 20.6.2016. When the stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the issuanct of show cause notice was very much in force, the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore sent a communication to the Petitioner on 08.06.2016 as to visit of Standing Committee of TNAU on 10.6.2016 to assess the infrastructure and other facilities available for continuing B.Sc (Agri) degree course. Since the College is fully equipped with vast extent of campus covering 130 acres with all facilities like academic block with 20 class rooms, 8 + 6 Laboratories, Hostel for Boys and Girls which could accommodate 800 students with all basic facilities but the standing committee though not approved by Board of Management as required under law, without any locus standi hurriedly visited the campus with a preconceived notion and left without verifying the facts besides conducting field inspection. When the matter came up for hearing on 20.06.2016 this Court extended the stay till 12.8.2016 with a rider to notify the students about the pendency of the writ petition besides the admission of students by the Institution for the current academic 2016-17 is subject to the result of the writ petition. On 27.6.2016, this Court was pleased to observe that in the light of the subsequent development in the form of the Standing Committee Report dated 10.6.2016 the Respondent University is at liberty to serve the same to the Petitioner and eliciting its response shall proceed further in accordance with law and posted the matter for final hearing 25.7.2016. Under the said circumstances, on 21.6.2016 the report of the Standing Committee dated 10.6.2016 was sent to the Petitioner/College along with covering letter seeking to rectify the deficiencies pointed out therein at the earliest. In the said communication, there was no whisper as to our response for the standing committee inspection report but only directed us to rectify the deficiencies. 2.9.Further, on 2.7.2016 a communication was received from the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore addressed to the Petitioner/College stating it had not responded to the inspection report of the Standing Committee and further requested College to send its response for the Standing Committee report immediately. A detail reply about the factual factual aspect besides the preconceived notion nurtured by the Members of the Standing Committee was sent by the Petitioner/College and even without providing a reasonable time to respond to the report of the Standing Committee, the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore straightway reduced the students strength from 120 to 60 on 4.7.2016. In fact, no communication was made to Petitioner in this regard the Petitioner came to know from the vacancy position of affiliated Colleges which was published in the First Phase of Counseling which was held between 4.7.2016 to 10.7.2016. Only 39 seats were allotted in favour of the Petitioner College under the government quota which is 65% of the reduced strength of 60. The Petitioner/College received a impugned communication dated 03.07.2016 issued by the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore on 08.07.2016, wherein it was mentioned that the academic council of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, in their 131st Meeting held on 03.07.2016, had accepted the report of standing committee and approved for reduction of B.Sc (Agri) Student admission strength from 120 to 60 for the academic year 2016-17 to the Petitioner's College considering its infrastructural facilities etc. 2.10.The stand of the Petitioner is that without awaiting for its reply, on 03.07.2016 the subject impugned order was passed thereby reducing the students admission strength from 120 to 60 for the academic year 2016-2017. Though the Counselling commenced on 04.07.2016, it was received by the Petitioner only on 08.07.2016. The signature dated 05.07.2016 of the Deputy Registrar (Education) would substantiate the Petitioner's contention. For the name sake, a response was sought for and without even providing 24 hours time, the subject order has been passed. There were many instances to the fact that the Fourth Respondent is bent on creating all sorts of troubles to close the Petitioner College. One instance is that every year the Tamilnadu Agricultural University would issue a information Brochure for Under-Graduate admissions. As usual, Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Under - Graduation Admissions 2016 - Information Brochure was published in the website of the University wherein in the caption of College details, Table - 2, i.e. Courses offered at affiliated Colleges of TNAU, a asterisk has been marked as against the course offered by our College. Below the above stated tabular column, it was found that the said asterisk is meant for "subject to the decision / approval of the University". It is seen from the Brochure that the said asterisk is also found against 'Athiyamaan College of Agriculture and Research, Hosur' and 'Krishna College of Agriculture and Technology, Usilampatti'. The two Colleges were yet to be affiliated for want of standing committee reports. In respect of the Petitioner College, there is no necessity to mark asterisk as against the name of the Petitioner College in the said Information Brochure and this was made at the instigation of the fourth Respondent to create confusion among the students who sit for Counseling in the University. A communication was addresed to the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore on 12.5.2016 to remove the asterisk as found against our College in the Information Brochure issued by the University for Under Graduate admissions 2016. But so far neither the asterisk was removed nor was any reply made by the University to substantiate the same. 2.11.Now, the Standing Committee had given a recommendation not only to reduce the students strength from 120 to 60 but also give six months time to improve the infrastructure facility and staff strength, failing which, the affiliation may be withdrawn permanently from the next academic year. If the report is accepted in toto then, the Petitioner is to be given a show cause notice to submit its explanation and a summary enquiry will be conducted pursuant to the reply and later suitable orders are to be passed. Further, if the report is accepted in toto, then the earlier show cause notice becomes infructuous. Without considering the Petitioner's reply nor conducting any summary enquiry, straightway the students strength was reduced as per impugned order which amounts to arbitrariness, malafide, violation of principles of natural justice, non application and pre determination of mind against the procedures contemplated under law, besides orders passed by this Court. Hence, the Petitioner/College has filed the writ petition.
(3.) The Gist of Counter of the Fifth Respondent:- 3.1.Because of the lack of infrastructural facilities in the Petitioner/College (i.e. availability of 44.3% out of 100 %), the Respondent has issued the Show Cause Notice dated 30.03.2016 to the Petitioner/College, calling upon it to show cause as to why the affiliation granted to the Petitioner-College should not be withdrawn, against which, the Petitioner had already filed W.P.No.14328 of 2016 before the Principal seat of this Court and the same is pending. Inasmuch the impugned order was issued due to the lack of infrastructure and the Writ Petition filed in respect of the same is pending, as stated supra, the present writ petition filed by the Petitioner is clearly abuse of process of Law and the Court. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that score. 3.2.As a matter of fact, in the interim order passed on 27.06.2016 in W.P.No.14328 of 2016, the Principal Seat of this Court had granted liberty to the Fifth Respondent to serve the standing committee report to the Petitioner and after eliciting their response, shall proceed further in accordance with law. In fact, the Standing Inspection Committee report was already sent on 21.06.2016 to the Petitioner/College and the Petitioner/College had not responded and therefore, a reminder was sent on 02.07.2016. Even then, the Petitioner had not responded and in view of the Counseling process for admission of students for the year 2016-2017 was fixed, the Academic Council which met on 03.07.2016, has taken stock of the infrastructure and situation at all the Agricultural Colleges (including private Agricultural Colleges) and had considered the lack of infrastructure in the Petitioner/College and non compliance with the policy to fulfill the infrastructure under the guise of "interim stay order" granted against the Show Cause Notice, dated 30.03.2016. Further, considering the direction given by the Hon'ble Court on 27.06.2016, the Academic Council had decided to reduce the admission strength from 120 to 60 in the interest of the students, since the Standing Committee report says that the infrastructural facility available is 44.3% out of 100 %. As such, the impugned order was passed based on the infrastructure, which is correct one and well within the powers and jurisdiction of the Academic Council. The Petitioner/College had not fulfilled the infrastructure even now for admission strength of 60 students and though the six months time granted in G.O.(D) No.123 Agriculture (AU) Department dated 21.06.2010 lapsed (i.e. even before six years). In fact, the Petitioner/College had not inclined to abide by other conditions prescribed by the University in the MOU, i.e. renewal of MOU etc and thereby violated the condition prescribed for approval to start and run the Agricultural College, which is in gross violation of the conditions. 3.3.Indeed, on the bonafide belief that the Petitioner would create all infrastructural facilities, the increase in admission strength from 60 to 120 was provisionally approved, but taking advantage of the bonafide belief and expectation of the Respondent/University, the Petitioner has dodged to create infrastructure and even applied to increase the admission strength of students from 120 to 240 per year and took the behind screen activities to compel the University to comply with the demand of increase of strength. Hence, based on the Committee report, dated 16.06.2016, the Respondent/University is not inclined to increase the students strength and since the existing infrastructure is only 44.30% as per the SCORE CARD of the Standing Committee, the Academic Council had decided to reduce the admission strength from 120 to 60 considering the academic requirement, welfare and performance of the students of the Petitioner/College to fall in line with the academic standard being maintained in the University Colleges. Therefore, the reduction of students' admission strength is valid in law. 3.4.Because of the insufficient infrastructure available in the Petitioner/College for a single Course i.e. B.Sc.(Agri.) course, the request made to offer new courses so as to mint money without the required infrastructure facilities was not considered by the University, which is well within the domain of Experts of the University and valid in law. In regard to the Admission Information Brochure, 2015 the University had directed the candidates being admitted to the private Colleges, also to remit the First year fee to the University. It is pointed out that as per the conditions of MOU, the University offered to provide the services of Senior Professors to serve as Principals in the Private Agricultural College on Foreign Service terms and conditions, to take up responsibility of students education and to maintain their performance on par with the student of University Colleges and the private Colleges accepted the same. In respect of two Colleges (including the Petitioner/College), they had not paid the salary to the Professor deputed to serve as Principal on the last working of the month as per the Government norms. Apart from that, the Petitioner/College had not paid "Leave salary" also to the deputed Professor, though there is a provision for "reimbursement of leave salary" from the University, under Foreign service terms and conditions. Therefore, the deputed Professors did not want to continue in the service of Private Colleges and to protect the interest and livelihood of the University Professors deputed to Private Colleges, the University decided to collect the First year fee alone at the time of admission of students and to pay the salary of the deputed Professors and refunded the balance amount to the Colleges. 3.5.As a result of denial of Leave Salary, a Professor deputed to the Petitioner/College to serve as Principal had relinquished the post and reverted to University. Accordingly, after the disbursal of salary, the balance amount was refunded to the Petitioner/College, but the Petitioner/College filed W.P.(MD) No.10807 of 2015 against the said provision in the Admission Information Brochure 2015 and this Court granted Interim Injunction and as such, the First year fee was not collected by the Respondent/University, from the students admitted to the Petitioner/College during the year 2015 and the notification was made for the same and the writ petition is pending. 3.6.It is to be pointed out that as per Condition No.12 in G.O. (D)No.123, Agriculture (AU) Department, dated 21.06.2010, wherein a permission was granted to start the College, which was mentioned that the Petitioner College has to comply with the conditions prescribed by the University and the said condition prescribed in the MOU was accepted by the Petitioner. In fact, when the University had revised the MOU considering the further developments and latest Rules and Regulations in the agriculture education, the Petitioner/College alone refused to sign the renewed MOU and further the Petitioner induced other Private Agricultural Colleges to raise objections to each and every decision of the University, but all other Colleges executed renewed MOU, but the Petitioner alone is denying. As such, the University has taken action in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the aforesaid Government Order in G.O.(D)No.123, Agriculture (AU) Department, dated 21.06.2010, and the same was accepted by the Petitioner, which is well within the jurisdiction of the University. 3.7.As per the norms, the land used by the College should be in their own name or on long time lease of the College or Trust or Society, which is running the College so as to have continuous practical class by way of cultivation in the same land by the students as a part of agricultural education syllabi and curricula. However, in respect of Petitioner/College, the land was not in the name of College or Trust, but the land is owned by some other body viz. Lotus Gardens Private Ltd., Bangalore, which is a clear violation of accepted condition. Moreover, many reports received on encroachment, land grabbing, threatening, coercion etc. from local public. Therefore, the Respondent/University had issued the Show Cause Notice, dated 30.03.2016, which is under interim stay before the Principal Seat of this Court. 3.8.As regards the allegation made against the Fourth Respondent, it is denied as misleading and false. Further, the Fourth Respondent is very much interested in the academic performance of all the students, who are getting Degrees from the Respondent/ University, since the University is world renowned and is getting schemes and projects from National and International Agencies, bodies etc. and further so many Civil Service Appointees are the alumni of this University and hence, the Fourth Respondent is taking all efforts to retain the name and fame of the University. When more than 15 Colleges had not faced any problem and had not refused to comply with the conditions prescribed in the interest of the academic performance of their students, the Petitioner, who was a former Member of the 'Board of Management of the University' (Supreme policy making body) wants to use his earlier position and to remain without fulfilling and maintaining the infrastructure and other facilities to the College and students. Therefore, there is no 'Bias' or 'Grudge' or 'Malafide' on the issue of show cause notice or reduction of admission strength, which are solely based on the reports of the Standing Committee and not personal view or report of the Fourth Respondent. 3.9.In fact, the Show Cause Notice is the subject matter in WP No.14238 of 2016 before the Principal Seat of this Court and in which, on 18.04.2016, this Court was pleased to pass an order staying the show cause notice and also ordered that the admission of the students by the Petitioner Institution for the current academic year 2016-2017 is subject to the result of the writ petition and the concerned students shall be put on notice. As a matter of fact, the Respondent/University had put on notice the above direction of this Court at the Admission Counseling Centre at Coimbatore and had also filed a Vacate Stay petition, to vacate the interim order granted on 18.04.2016 and the same is pending. 3.10.The Fifth Respondent/University bonefidely expected that taking time due to the interim stay granted by the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.No.14238 of 2016 on 18.04.2016, the Petitioner could have taken action to fulfill the infrastructural facilities to the most possible extent. However, to the dismay of the University, it was found that taking advantage of the Interim stay granted as stated above, the Petitioner was intended to run the College without fulfilling the infrastructure facilities. Futher, the SCORE Card Report given by the Standing Committee on 16.06.2016 and the Standing Committee report dated 18.06.2016, would categorically show that the Petitioner College is having only 44.30% of the infrastructure and the same was sent to the Petitioner/College on 21.06.2016 and the Petitioner/College had not filed any report on the fulfillment of the infrastructure or had not taken time to complete the required infrastructure, but the Petitioner/College kept silent and had not responded. Therefore on 02.07.2016, a further letter was sent to Petitioner/College, for which also, there is no response from the Petitioner/College. Therefore, based on over all stock situation of all the Colleges for admission of the students for the academic year 2016-2017, the Academic Council, supreme statutory body in respect of academic matters, has considered the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner/College and the irresponsive attitude of the Petitioner/Colleg and the report of Standing Committee to reduce the admission strength from 120 to 60 and also considered that the show cause notice issued for withdrawal of provisional affiliation itself is stringent than reduction of admission strength. Therefore, it had directed to reduce the students admission strength from 120 to 60 based on 44.30% infrastructure available, which is valid in law. 3.11.Though the infrastructural facilities are not satisfied for 120 students, the Petitioner/College wanted to increase the admission strength from 120 to 240 to mint money only without taking care of the academic performance and services to the students, who are paying for the same, which is illegal. Under such circumstances, the Fifth Respondent/University will not remain a silent spectator or go along with the Petitioner/College to cheat the students. Therefore, the Academic Council has taken a valid decision in the interest and academic performance of the students and reduced the admission strength from 120 to 60, which is valid and tenable in law. Only after receipt of the impugned order, the Petitioner/College had replied on 07.07.2016. As a matter of fact, the Fifth Respondent/University had sent the SCORE CARD to the Petitioner/College, for which, a reply was sent on 19.07.2016 by the Petitioner/College and in fact, the Petitioner/College had not furnished reply for each and every deficiency noted in the Score Card, but it has furnished its "self evaluation report granting full scores" to most of the items of infrastructures and without any evidence which is untenable in law. As such, the allegation made on malafide, violation of principle of natural justice and predetermination are false and deserved to be rejected. 3.12.The Fifth Respondent/University has every power to constitute any committee to find the facts and accordingly, the committee's inspection to the private Colleges is accepted in the MOU and accordingly, the Standing Committee constituted from time to time had inspected the Petitioner/College. In fact, there is no reason to deny to accept the report of the Standing Committee. 3.13.In regad to the allegation of violation of principle of natural justice, it is to be pointed out that, since the show cause notice, dated 30.03.2016 as well as the standing committee report was communicated on 21.06.2016 and reminder issued on 02.07.2016 but there was no response of the Petitioner/College to the same till the passing of the impugned order, dated 03.07.2016, all these would point out that the Petitioner had not utilised the due opportunity provided to it. Therefore the plea of violation of principle of natural justice is to be rejected. 3.14.Also, in the respect of averment of predetermination made by the Petitioner/College in the wirt petition, there is no proof for that and as such, the same is to be rejected as malafide. 3.15.The Petitioner/College canot expect the Fifth Respondent/University to be a silent spectator, while the Petitioner/College is not taking care of fulfilling the requirement for students' education, academic performance and welfare. The standing committees report has not been specifically denied by producing the records for fulfillment of the deficiencies or inviting the Standing Committee for re-inspection. However, the Petitioner/College has chosen to come before the Court whenever any direction is issued in the interest of students education, academic performance and welfare etc. In respect of some Medical Colleges, due to lack of infrastructure facilities, the students had agitated and were distributed and transferred to other Colleges and in such circumstances, the University became answerable for not monitoring the Colleges. Therefore, to avoid such a contingency, the Fifth Respondent/University has taken action, which is not malafide and illegal. ;