Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. The proceedings of the first respondent dated 21.2.2011, and its office order dated 6.1.2014, are under challenge in this writ petition as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Regulation 12 of the University Grants Commission (Institution Deemed to be Universities), Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter called the "Regulations"). A consequential direction is sought to the respondents to accord approval, to the law college and management institute of the petitioner in Mahabubnagar District, in accordance with the Regulations. The policy on which reliance is placed on behalf of the respondents, and which is also under challenge in this writ petition, is as enunciated in the proceedings of the first respondent dated 21.2.2011 wherein reference is made to the constitution of a committee of experts by the Central Government, by its notification dated 6.7.2009, to review the functioning of the existing institutions 'deemed to be Universities' so as to satisfy itself of the justification of their continuance as institutions deemed to be Universities. Para 5 of the said policy dated 21.2.2011 reads as under:

"5. And further whereas, the issue regarding expansion of those institutions as mentioned above, can be considered by the Government only when these institutions rectify the deficiencies found in the review within the stipulated period of three years from the date of the Report, as otherwise, expansion of such institutions would further enhance their deficiencies."

2. The Task Force constituted by the Central Government, which was headed by Prof. P.N. Tandon, graded "deemed Universities", on the basis of various parameters, as Categories-A, B and C. While the petitioner was placed in Category-B, several others were placed in Category-C. The impugned proceedings dated 6.1.2014, whereby their proposal for establishing an Off-Campus Centre was returned along with the demand draft submitted by them for Rs. 5.00 lakhs, was passed on the ground that, even after re-review by the task force, the petitioner continued to be in Category-B; and, as per the policy decision, expansion of deemed Universities, placed in Category-B, could not be allowed.

3. In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that the Review Committee, in its report dated 19.10.2009, had divided various institutions (deemed to be Universities) into three categories; the petitioner was placed in the second category (Category-B) where institutions, deemed to be Universities, were to take certain corrective measures to satisfy the criteria of an "institution deemed to be University"; these corrective measures were to be taken within a period of three years so as to remove the deficiencies pointed out in the review, and justify their continuance as an institution deemed to be a University; even in its application filed before the Supreme Court, in WP (Civil) No. 380 of 2010, the Central Government had referred to various deficiencies; subsequently the Central Government had, by order dated 21.2.2011, constituted a task force to examine applications from institutions deemed to be Universities placed in Category-B so as to assess whether the deficiencies, pointed out in the review, had been overcome by these institutions and whether these institutions were eligible to continue as institutions deemed to be Universities and, accordingly, advise the Government. In response thereto, the petitioner had submitted its compliance report and had made a presentation before the task force on 29.5.2012 and the task force, after taking into consideration the deficiencies pointed out by the U.G.C. Expert Committee which inspected the petitioner institution in January, 2010, had pointed out the following deficiencies:

"(i) Only about 7% of the faculty members have Ph.D. qualifications.

(ii) The institution is yet to create adequate funding for research activity and also to provide grants for the entire University.

(iii) Research compon