Point of Law: Statute 9(7) of Chapter 23 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statute, which - without room for doubt reserves prorogative to them to decide upon affiliation of a college or the sanctioning of any particular course, after ascertaining the views of Government.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. Even though what are impugned in this case are certain Policy decisions of the Government, as reflected in Exts.P11 and P11(a), it is indubitable that this Court does not have to enter into the merits of the same because the Universities in Kerala are not subserviently bound by such decisions and this has been made clear repeatedly in Vidya International Charitable Trust vs. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, 2017 (2) KLT 1049 and Principal, Rajagiri College of Social Sciences, Kakkanad vs. M.G. University and Others, 2016 (4) KHC 489, as also in Exts.P9, P13 and P15 judgments.

2. As per the Scheme for starting a course of study in an Autonomous Colleges, affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University, the college had to approach the said University, intimating that they intend to do so which is then evaulated and sanctioned by it, based on the applicable UGC Regulations, after verifying whether the said course falls within the ambit of the prescriptions therein.

3. During such, of course, the University can seek inputs from the Government and they will be free either to concede to the starting of the course or to oppose it, as they may decide.

4. In this context, the real question is whether an omnibus Government Policy not to grant No Objection Certificate (NOC) to any course other than for ‘B.Voc’ (Bachelor of Vocational) can stand in the way of the University considering the proposal of the Autonomous Colleges.

5. I have heard Sri. Issac Kuruvila Illikal-learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri. Surin George Iype - learned Standing Counsel for the M.G. University, Sri. Krishnamoorthy - learned Standing Counsel for the UGC and Smt. Parvathy K. learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

6. I must also record that I had the benefit of hearing Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam - learned Senior Counsel, who was available in the Court when I heard this matter, who offered great assistance, by his expertise in the field.

7. As I have said above, the genesis of the controversy in this case is the fact that the petitioner - College approached the University through Exts.P7 and P7(a) intimating that they desire to commence certain courses which have been approved by their concerned Boards of Study and Academic Council - bodies in which the nominees of the Government, UGC and the University were also available. They say that, however, instead of taking a decision on Exts.P7 and P7(a) by referring the courses proposed to an Expert Committee as per the imperative statutory mandate, the University has now issued Ext.P12 peremptorily rejecting it, solely for the reason that Government has issued an order, G.O. (M.S.) No. 456/2021/H.Edn dated 16.10.2021, to the effect that no NOC will be issued by them to any Aided College to start a Self Financing course except in the case of ‘B.Voc’ sanctioned as per the UGC guidelines. This order has been placed on record as Ext.P11 and I notice that Government has clarified it subsequently, through Ext.P11(a) dated 25.08.2021, which was necessitated on account of an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in certain earlier litigations - a copy of which has been produced on record as Ext.P10.

8. Sri. Issac Kuruvila Illikal - learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the stand of the University in Ext.P12 is egregiously improper because they seem to be under the impression that they are slavishly governed by the decision of the Government and that they are incapacitated when it has taken a decision not to grant ‘NOC’ to commence a new course in an Aided College. The learned counsel submitted that this goes contrary to the declarations of this Court in Vidya International Charitable Trust (supra) Principal, Rajagiri College of Social Sciences, Kakkanad (supra) as also the various judgments produced on record in this case. He thus prayed that, either this Court quash Exts.P11 and P11(a) orders of the Government as being illegal; or, in the altern