The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutory provisions and the jurisdiction of the University, as defined by the Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University Adhiniyam, 1991, prevail over any agreements between the parties.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Regard being had to the similitude of questions of law involved in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts in the writ petition are adverted to, herein.

2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Chandigarh. The said company has set up study centres on behalf of Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, respondent No. 2 herein, at Ludhiana and Chandigarh. The said study centres commenced their functioning in the year 2003. The said University had come into existence by the Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University Adhiniyam, 1991 [for brevity `the 1991 Act']. It had set up its various study centres all over India under the Distance Education Programme undertaken by it. The said University authorised only such study centres which met the prescribed norms/parameters for setting up of such study centres and for imparting education/training to the students enrolled therein. The study material was provided by the respondent No. 2. After completion of the study course the University allotted the roll numbers and the eligible candidates were admitted to the examination conducted by the University and were awarded degree/diploma by it depending upon the course undertaken by the study centres. Aftr following the said procedure the respondent University had approved the setting up of two study centres in the name and style of Canam Academy at Ludhiana and Chandigarh. In this regard an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the University as per Annexure-P/1, dated 8-8-2003. The agreement was for a period of five years and to remain in force till the year 2008.

3. It is pleaded that in terms of the aforesaid agreement dated 8-82003 two study centres were established at Ludhiana and Chandigarh. The courses authorised at the said centres were M.Sc. (Physics), M.Sc. (Chemistry) (2 years), M.Sc. (Botany) (2 years), M.Sc. (Maths) (2 years), M.Sc. (IT) (2 years), M.Com. (Management) (2 years), M.A. (English) (2 years), M.A. (Political Science) (2 years), M.A. (History) (2 years), M.A. (Sociology) (2 years), B.Sc. (Biology), B.Sc. (Maths), B.Sc. (IT), B.Com, B.A., MBA, BBA, BCA and various other Postgraduate Diplomas and Degrees and the duration of the course was two years.

4. It is contended that at no point of time there was any grievance against the petitioner and many students have been enrolled since 2003 and the institution has successfully completed the academic sessions for the year 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The respondent-University published the admission schedule and as per academic session 2005-2006. The admission commenced in the month of July, 2000 and was scheduled to be concluded in the next July. It is averred that 194 students have already been awarded degrees/diplomas by the respondent-University and the rest of the students are pursuing their studies at the study centres set up by the petitioner. In the year 2005 a doubt emerged in the mind of students as regards recognition and equivalence of the degrees/diplomas being awarded by the respondent-University under its education programme. The matter was taken up by the petitioner and the University and the University vide communication dated 8/9-112005, Annexure-P/3 intimated that the degrees/diplomas/certificates awarded by the University were equivalent to the corresponding awards of the other Universities. With the commencement of the new academic session the students desirous of seeking admission in various courses started making queries and were provisionally enrolled.

5. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner was shocked to receive communication dated 3-7-2006 collectively brought on record as Annexure-P/4 by which the petitioner was intimated that the Board of Management of the University in its meeting held on 33-2006 has decided no