MOHINDER PAL, J.

1. All these petitions are taken up together having common question of law and facts.

2. By way of these petitions, petitioners have approached this Court against the action and inaction of Respondent No. 2-University in not cancelling the admission of the petitioners and not refunding the entire fees in respect of Ph.D. programme on account of non-compliance of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phill/Ph.D. Degree), 2009 (herein after referred to as 2009 Regulations') and also on the account that other similarly situated students have got refund of their fees.

3. Petitioners have taken admission in Ph.D. programme of respondent-University for the session starting from 2013-14 after respondent-University published an advertisement for the same. The said advertisement gave an impression that respondent-University had necessary permissions for conducting Ph.D. programme and that University was in capacity of complying with all regulations and guidelines as mandated by University Grants Commission (UGC). Petitioners paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,350/- as fees for Ph.D. programme at regular intervals which was as per fees structure of the respondent-University.

4. On 24.10.2015, a Committee of Experts from the UGC visited the Respondent-University and after due inspection, the said Expert Committee came to conclusion that respondent-University was not following 2009 Regulations which was mandatory for running Ph.D. programme.

5. Regulations of 2009 are mandatory to be followed by University established under the Act and therefore, the degree awarded by the respondent-University will not be valid and genuine for the purposes of higher studies and employment and otherwise. After the above mentioned inspection by UGC, the petitioners have been regularly approaching the officials of Respondent-University and inquiring about validity and authenticity of the Ph.D. programme conducted by the Respondent-University and also for refund of fees amounting to Rs. 1,50,350/-. However, the respondent-University every now and then, gave false promises that the petitioners will get refund of fees in full in parity with others.

6. Apart from aforementioned refund of fees, petitioners also prayed for return of the original degrees/documents which were retained by the respondent-University at the time of admission.

7. Respondent No. 2-University contested this petition by filing reply wherein, it has been stated that as respondent-University being a private University which was not being managed, controlled or financed by the Government and does not fall under the purview of other Authorities as given in Article 12 of the Constitution. Further, as per clause 10 of the terms and conditions of the registration, any request for cancellation/refund has to be made in writing on month prior to the commencement of the session. The application, if made as per the prescribed time, would be decided by the Admission Committee of the respondent-University. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the Admission Committee then in such a situation as per clause 10 such dispute/disagreement shall be referred to arbitrator as the arbitration clause exists in the admission form, the jurisdiction of the Court was barred. Further, it is well settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts were involved, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not a proper remedy.

8. Though, it was allegations of the petitioners that respondent-University did not have requisite permission to conduct the Ph.D. programme but they never provided any proof substantiated their allegations and making of such allegations completely unfounded as well as groundless. Petitioners failed to provide appropriate reasons for requesting such cancellation and instead they have tried to attack the credibility and prestige of the University. University was having valid permission to run Ph.D. programme and there were approximately 400 stude