Under challenge in these writ petitions are the communications issued by the Secretary to the Chancellor of the respondent university as well as the Registrar of the respondent university, by which the petitioners have been directed to close down their Off Campus Centres.

2. As per letter dated 08.05.2015, the Chancellor of the respondent university directed the Vice Chancellor of the respondent university to comply with the judgment in WP(C) Nos.27490/2014, 35231/2014 & 1722/2015 as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA Nos.604/2015, 615/2015 & 617/2015 relating to the functioning of Off Campus Centres of the respondent university outside its territorial jurisdiction. In the light of the said direction, the Vice Chancellor, exercising powers under Chapter III, 10(15) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, accorded sanction to close down all Off Campus Centres of the respondent university, functioning outside the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent university as defined under Chapter II, 4(1) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 and the provisions contained in Chapter II, 4(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985.

3. In these cases, the petitioners allege that the judgments of this Court in the aforesaid cases do not apply to the case of the petitioners as those judgments deal only with Offshore Campus Centres situated overseas and not campus centres situated within the State of Kerala. According to them, the directions contained in the said judgment are to close down such centres, which are situated abroad; and the direction issued by the respondent university is not in compliance with the judgments of this Court. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the impugned orders were passed in an arbitrary manner in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. The petitioner in WP(C) No.16435/2015 alleges that it is the first DTS studio, which is situated in Kinfra Film and Video Park, Thiruvananthapuram, working in the field of software development entrusted with the authority to give training on free animation software developed by the Amsterdam Blender Foundation. The petitioners allege that an agreement was executed with the respondent university, which entitles the petitioner to conduct off campus course for a period of five years from the date of signing of the agreement; and they are conducting three year course of Animation and Graphic Design. The petitioner alleges that the first batch of the students was admitted in the year, 2013-14; and the course for the second batch was also begun. According to the petitioner, it is its duty to complete the course it had started on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the respondent university. According to the petitioner, the respondent university is legally bound to fulfill its promise as per the MOU signed by it.

5. The 1st petitioner in WP(C) No.16732/2015 is an association of coordinators of Off Campus Centres of the respondent university, functioning within the State of Kerala registered under the Travancore - Cochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The 2nd petitioner is the Centre Coordinator of Nirmala Off Campus Center, Chalakudy, which is conducting courses in various streams under the Distance Learning Programme through Off Campus Academic Centres, started by the respondent university. The petitioners point out that this Court had no occasion to consider the case of Off Campus Centres, situated within the State of Kerala, in the writ petitions and writ appeals referred to above.

6. The petitioner in WP(C) No.17374/2015 is running an Off Campus Centre of the School of Distance Education of the respondent university at Alappuzha and is conducting selected courses of the university for a period of five years. The Centre was started on 23.05.2013; and the institution is mainly imparting courses in management for about 150 students. The said petitioner i