This writ petition has been preferred by a retired professor and former Chairman, Faculty of Electrical Engineering of Anna University challenging the order dated 29. 2005 in No.5135/Pd/7/2004 on the file of the second respondent whereby a sum of Rs.10.24 lakhs was determined as one time honorarium for developing a software package for Engineering students.

2. The factual details as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows:-

a) The petitioner as the Chairman of the faculty of Electrical Engineering took the initiative to introduce a new laboratory course "EEE435 Power System Simulation Laboratory" in the existing curriculum of B.E. Electrical and Electronic Engineering and the said proposal was considered by the Anna University in its meeting held on 12. 2003 and approved by way of a resolution for introduction of the new laboratory course in the curriculum of B.E. Electrical and Electronics Engineering.

b) The petitioner also proposed a software package to conduct the laboratory course and constitution of a committee for implementation of the proposal to develop the software. Accordingly a committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor with the Professor of Electrical Engineering as Convenor and three persons including the petitioner as members for the purpose of development of software modules required for the laboratory course "Power System Simulation", preparation of documents relating to software such as user manual and programme reference manual etc. The Committee was directed to complete the work by the end of March, 2004 so as to enable the University to communicate to the affiliated colleges for implementation in the VII Semester of B.E. Electrical and Electronics Engineering commencing from June, 2004.

c) In response to the said communication the petitioner as per his letter dated 13. 2004 sought details about the project, expenses for developing the project etc., and in the said letter it was also stated that the project might be considered as a consultancy project. The second respondent as per proceedings dated 19/23. 2004 granted necessary approval to undertake the said project and in the said communication, it was clearly stated that the project should be administered as per norms established for a consultancy project by the University.

d) The second respondent also as per proceedings dated 23. 2004 informed the principles of all affiliated colleges about the new course and the software and indicated that the affiliated colleges can either procure the required software modules for the course from open market or go in for in-house development or may contact the writ petitioner, being Chairman, Faculty of Electrical Engineering as well as Member of the Committee for development of fresh software. As per proceedings dated 21. 2004 norms for calculation towards distribution of consultancy charges were prescribed by the Anna university (hereinafter referred to as "University") wherein 64.5% received on account of the consultancy charges were to be distributed to the project team.

e) The petitioner and other members of the team developed the software package AU Power Lab and distributed the software with relevant training to thirty three colleges under Phase-I. Subsequently, the petitioner raised a bill amounting to Rs.24.948 lakhs representing the consultancy charges collected from thirty three colleges. The said bill was approved by the University officials and the same was submitted to the Vice Chancellor for approval. The Vice Chancellor has accordingly approved the said bill as well as the note appended to the bill certifying that the consultancy charges have been checked by the Professor of Planning and Development Section and found to be as per the University norms.

f) Subsequently the second respondent as per letter dated 27. 2004 sought certain clarification with respect to the software development of the petitioner and his team and accordingly they have sub