Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—These writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts, as such, they are being decided by this common judgment. Civil Misc. Writ No. 17386 of 2006 is being treated as main petition.

2. Petitioner’s institution-Krishna College of Law is self financed; does not receive any aid from the State Government and is running a law college of three and five years duration. State Government vide orders dated 19.6.2002 and 3.4.2003 respectively granted ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner’s institution (for short ‘institution’). The institution was granted temporary affiliation to run three years law course provided the institution obtains permission from the Bar Council of India vide order dated 13.8.2002 passed by the Chancellor. Bar Council of India granted permission to the institution to run three years’ law course with four Sections and intake of 80 students in each Section for the academic session 2002-2003 vide order dated 1.10.2002 in pursuance whereof the University permitted the institution vide letter dated 10.10.2002 to admit 320 students. Thus, three years’ law course continued in the institution for the academic sessions 2003-04 and 2004-05; examination of the students were held and results were declared.

3. The institution was thereafter granted permission by the State Government vide order dated 3.4.2003 to run five years’ law course. The institution was then permitted to run three years’ law course with intake of 4 Sections of 80 students and five years’ law course with intake of two Sections of 80 students for academic years 2003-04 and 2005-06 by the Bar Council of India. Vide orders dated 13.8.2003 and 11.9.2003, the Chancellor extended the affiliation to the three years’ course from 1.7.2003 and five years’ course from 1.7.2003 for five years respectively.

4. The University vide letter dated 23.10.2003 also permitted the institution to admit students in the five years’ law course. For the academic session 2005-06, the University issued letters to the students who had qualified in the entrance examination to approach the colleges of their choice for admission in three years’ law course and in pursuance thereof 11 students approached the institution, who were admitted. Vide letter dated 20.11.2005 issued by the University, the institution was informed that it can further admit 30 students from the list sent by the University in five years’ law course. However, only six students came forward thereafter to take admission in the institution which fact was informed to the University vide letter dated 22.12.2005.

5. The institution again vide letter dated 5.1.2006, the institution informed the University that only 11 students had approached for admission against the University quota and 36 students had been admitted in the management quota and that a large number of seats were lying vacant.

6. When the institution received no response it filled up the vacant seats from management quota in accordance with Government order dated 14.12.1999.

7. Examination forms together with examination fee of 480 students for examinations for session 2005-06, which were to commence in March 2006 was submitted by the institution were accepted by the University and roll numbers were also issued to the students but the institution was informed vide impugned letter dated 18.3.2006 that it has admitted students in excess of the sanctioned strength as such, the students would not be permitted to appear in the examination.

8. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-University is estopped from refusing permission to the students admitted against management quota after having accepted their examination forms and fee. It is urged that the petitioner has admitted the students strictly in accordance with the norms fixed by the Bar Council of India and the Government order dated 14.12.1999 in which it is clarified that in case the students are not recommended by the Government or the University, t