P.R. Ramachandramenon, J.

1. All these cases are having a common connection, in relation to the right of the Institutions concerned to run "Off Campus Centres" as part of Distant Education Programmes sanctioned by the University even by engaging franchisees; that too, beyond the territory or area of operation of the University within the State, outside the State and beyond the shores of the Country. Some cases have been filed by the Institutions, where as the other cases have been filed by the students concerned. Grievance is common, in so far as such Institutions have been ordered to be closed down, as the sanction given by the University is beyond the power and jurisdiction confined under the relevant enactment and also contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court on the point.

2. Earlier, when the University permitted to run the 'Off Campus Centres', no objection was raised by the UGC in this regard, but for making it clear that it should be subject to relevant provisions of the Statute and also the orders/decisions of the Academic Council/Syndicate. The Government had also made it clear in the year 2004 that the Government did not intend to interfere with the running of such Centres already started and that the University might run such Centres, subject to approval of the competent bodies at the University level and in line with the directions of the University Grants Commission (UGC). However, running of such Centres was sought to be intercepted by some Association of the private college teachers by approaching this Court. Interference was declined by a Division Bench of this Court, observing that the alleged instance of 'commercialisation of education' could be agitated before the appropriate authority or before this Court, if such an instance was properly demonstrated, in the due course. The challenge raised before the Chancellor of the University also came to be repelled and the issue was set at rest, for the time being.

3. Since the basic issue involved in all these cases is almost the same, reference is made to the facts and figures as given in W.A. No. 2257 of 2015; except where it is separately mentioned with reference to the parties and proceedings. Several Universities had decided to conduct Distant Education Programmes (DEP) which was regulated by the Distant Education Council (DEC) of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) constituted under Statute No.28 of the IGNOU Act. Later, the said statute came to be repealed, by virtue of which, the DEC was dissolved and the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India entrusted the matter with the UGC and AICTE to take up the responsibility in running the DECs of the IGNOU as borne by the memorandum dated 16.05.2013 issued by the Govt. of India.

4. As a matter of fact, the MG University had decided to start such Distant Education Programmes through Off Campus Centres within and outside the territory of the State, way back in August 2001. The said decision was sought to be challenged by the All Kerala Private College Teachers Association (Additional respondent No. 3 in W.A. No. 2257/2015) by filing O.P. No. 28403 of 2001. The said Original Petition was considered by a Division Bench of this Court headed by the Chief Justice. It was held that any provision under the MG University Act, prohibiting the University from affiliating the Educational Institutions situated outside the territorial limits prescribed under Section 4 (2) of the Act was not substantiated and as long as consent from the Government and the Vice Chancellor were obtained, even affiliation could be granted to the Institutions outside the territorial limits. It was also observed that the allegation that setting up of the Off Campus Centres would commercialize the field of Education was not properly demonstrated and in such circumstances, interference was declined and the Petition was dismissed. However, it was made clear that, when a situation arose and it was demonstr