the respondent No. 4 made a futile attempt to give a strange explanation for issuance of the said no due certificate, in fact the clarification given by the respondent No. 4 for issuance of no due certificate is self-explanatory. In addition to that, the respondent No. 4 issued a circular dated 22- 02-2023, which contains 11 names mentioning that those students cannot be permitted to attend internship (CRM!) since they are yet to clear dues of tuition fees, admittedly the name of the petitioner is not figured in the said circular dated 22-02-2023 and the same throws a presumption that no amount of tuition fee is due from the petitioner. This circular clarifies that the impugned proceeding dated 28-08-2023 is issued with vengeance, animosity, and due to the strained relationship between the petitioner‟s father and the respondent No. 4 management. If really the petitioner is due to pay any tuition fees, her name must have been figured in the circular dated 22-02-2023. In view of these reasons, the impugned proceeding dated 28-08-2023 issued by the respondent No.4 is an afterthought and an act of prejudice to harass the petitioner due to the strained relationship between her father and the management. The Petitioner cannot be put to hardship. The Petitioner who is a student, prosecuted her studies in the respondent No. 4 institution, ought not to have been victimised by the management with their personal grudges developed against her father. The action of the 14 A. respondent No. 4 is unethical and incongruous, and the same is set to be set aside. After filing the Writ petition, as per the oral observation14B. of this Hon‟ble Court, the Petitioner made a representation to the Proposed Respondent No.7 i.e.. Supervising Authority, and brought to his notice the fact of issuance of proceedings dated 28.08.2023 by the Respondent No. 4 and requested for appropriate orders for recaliing the same. Unfortunately, the Proposed Respondent No. 7 passed an order on the representation of the petitioner and supported the proceedings issued by the Respondent No. 4 dated 28.08.2023 and strangely directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,33,00,060/- (Rupees one crore thirty three lakh and sixty only) subject to finalisation of the writ petition. In fact, the Proposed Respondent No.7 has no power/authority to pass such an order. The Proposed Respondent No.7 acted beyond his jurisdiction and passed an order which is totally erroneous. The reasoning given by the Proposed Respondent No. 7 while confirming the order of the Respondent No. 4 is totally unsustainable. The orders of the respondents No. 4 and 7, which are impugned in this writ petition, are hit by the „Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel‟ and also by „Estoppel by Conduct‟, apart from the „Doctrine of Indoor Management‟. Further, the order of the proposed respondent No. 7 is hit by the principles of Natural Justice since the petitioner is not given any opportunity of hearing before the passing of the impugned proceedings dated