IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Loyola Institute Of Technology Rep. by its Principal, Dr. P.Seeni Kannan, Palanchur, Mevalur Kuppam, B Village, Nazarethpet Post, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District - 600 123 ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Anna University Rep. by its Registrar, Sadar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.

2. University Grants Commission Rep. by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002 ..Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 25.04.2025 and scrupulously adhere to regulation 4.2 of University Grants commission (Conferment of autonomous status upon colleges and measures for maintenance of standards in autonomous colleges ) Regulation 2023 and forthwith notify the autonomous status granted to the petitioner college as per the order of UGC in No. F.2-10/ 2023 (AC-

Policy) dated 17.04.2025 within the time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Adinarayana Rao For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Bharanidharan for R1 Ms.V.Sudha for R2

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for a direction in the Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.04.2025 and scrupulously adhere to Regulation 4.2 of the University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon colleges and measures for maintenance of standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations 2023 and forthwith notify the Autonomous Status granted to the petitioner college as per order of UGC in No.F.2-10/2023 (AC-Policy) dated 17.04.2025 within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had duly applied for Autonomous Status and the UGC by the order dated 17.04.2025 had passed the orders for conferring Autonomous Status on the petitioner. The Affiliating University under Regulation 4.2 has no other option than to issue the necessary notification declaring the Autonomous Status which is not being done. Therefore, they are before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the University Grants Commission would also point out condition Nos.1 and 2 in the order granting Autonomous Status and would submit that the petitioner Institution should comply with the same with respect of applying to the National Assessment and Accreditation Council and hosting it in their website. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University would seek time to get instructions with reference to the issue of notification.

4. This matter has been regularly been dealt with by this Court and in several matters directions were given to the University and as such no useful purpose will be served in adjourning the matter at the request of the counsel for the University and as such the writ petition is disposed of today itself.

5. The learned counsel during the arguments shall produce the certificate of Accreditation from the National Assessment and Accreditation Council and also the communication from the said authority to the principal in that regard. It is seen that the condition No.1 in the order dated 17.04.2025 is complied with. The learned counsel submits that they have also uploaded the particulars in the website and therefore, condition Nos.1 and 2 are complied with.

6. As far as the notification of the Autonomous Status is concerned, the first respondent University in the connected matter pleaded that it is also entitled to verify the academic requirements as well as the infrastructural requirements and it cannot issue the notification unless it is satisfied of itself. The matter was challenged and the learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 12.09.2025 held that the University has no other option than to notify under as per section 4.2. The matter was also