K.A. SWAMI, C.J.

W. A. Nos. 1119 and 1140 of 1995 are preferred by the State Government and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu respectively against the order dated 313-1995 passed by the learned single Judge, allowing W.P. No. 17226 of 1994. The petitioner in the writ petition has sought for quashing the proceedings of the University of Madras in No. A.II/ MVS/ Dr. M.G.R. Engg. Coll/ 94-95/ 1596 dated 22nd September, 1994 and to direct the said University to consider can grant affiliation to the First year Law Course of the 5 year B. L. Degree Course stated by the petitioner Trust, in the name and style of "Tamil Nadu Law College" Madras, for the academic year 1994-95 onwards.

.2. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition, quashing the said proceeding of the University of Madras and issued a direction in the following terms :-

."No other provision of the Madras University Act, 1923 was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent University, which provides obtaining prior permission of the State Government for grant of affiliation by the University of Madras. In the aobsence of such provisions in the Madras University Act, 1923 there is no necesity for the petitioner. Trust to get prior permission of the Government of Tamil Nadu for grant of affiliation by the Madras University. In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and accordingly, the same is quashed. The respondent University is directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner for affiliation afresh on merits and in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs." *

3. At the outset we may point out that the University of Madras has not come up in appeal and thereby it must be held to have accepted the decision of the learned single Judge. However, learned counsel appearing for the University of Madras has advanced an argument that the order passed by the University, directing the writ petitioner to obtain "no objection" from the State Government for granting affiliation is not justified, having regard to the provisions contained in the Madras University Act and the Statutes framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and "the Statutes"). If is only the State Government and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, as already pointed out, have come up in appeal.

4. Before the learned single Judge, it was contended that as the State Govt. enjoys certain powers under Ss. 7 and 53 and other provisions of the Act, it is just and appropriate that the applicant must obtain and the University is justified in insisting upon obtaining No Objection Certificates from the State Government before granting affiliation. Learned single Judge has negatived this contention and allowed the writ petition.

5. Before us, the very same contention is advanced by the learned Govt. Pleader, learned counsel for the University of Madras and the learned counsel for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, if Ss. 4A, 6A, 9B, 7, 19, 21, 37, 48, 53 and 54 of the Act are read together it would lead to an inference that the Govt. cannot be held to be unconnected with the issue of grant of affiliation as it would be open to it at the later state, as the visitor of the University, to even cancel the affiliation. On the contrary, it is the contention of Mr. Somayali, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, that specific power of affiliation has been conferred upon the University, which is exercised through the Syndicate of the University. The mere fact that the State Government enjoys certain powers under the various provisions of the Act and the Statutes, will not either enable the University to insist upon obtaining no objection by the institution seeking affiliation nor it enables the State Government to insist that such no objection should be obtained before seeking or obtaini