Kingston Engineering College Vs Anna University

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent herein to 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) Regulations 2023 and forthwith notify the autonomous status granted to the Petitioner College in the order of the University Grants Commission in No.F.2-10/ 2023 (AC-Policy) dated 30.05.2025 in line with the judgment in W.A.Nos.2514, 1778 and 1840 of 2025 dated 02.09.2025 and the order of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos.29146, 29057 and 29233 of 2025 dated 15.10.2025.

¶13

1/7

¶14

		W.P.No.49980 of 2025
For Petitioner	:	M/s.Kandhan Duraisami
For Respondents	:	Mr.U.Baranidharan for R1
		Ms.V.Sudha
		Central Government Standing Counsel
		for R2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the 1^st respondent herein to 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) Regulations 2023 and forthwith notify the autonomous status granted to the petitioner / College in the order of the University Grants Commission in No.F.2-10/ 2023 (ACPolicy) dated 30.05.2025 in line with the judgment in W.A.Nos.2514, 1778 and 1840 of 2025 dated 02.09.2025 and the order of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos.29146, 29057 and 29233 of 2025 dated 15.10.2025.

¶17

When the matter came up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in identical matters, orders were passed by this Court W.P.No.35 of 2025 etc. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent University also filed W.A.No.2514 of 2025 and the Division Bench also confirmed the order passed in the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals.

¶18

2/7

¶19

W.P.No.49980 of 2025 3. As a matter of fact, the respondent University also filed

¶20

S.L.P.No.29146 of 2025 and the same was also dismissed. As such, it can be seen that the matter is to be allowed on the same terms as in the order passed in Writ Petition No.35 of 2025. The relevant portion of the order passed in W.P.No.35 of 2025 etc., is extracted hereunder:

¶21

“5.The role of the parent University is stipulated in

¶22

Regulation 4 of the UGC Regulations, 2023. The relevant

¶23

portion of the Regulation 4.1 and 4.2 read as follows:

¶24

“4.1 To examine the application of the College for autonomous status on the UGC portal and give its recommendations, along with reasons/justification, within 30 working days on the UGC portal. If the parent University does not respond on the UGC Portal within 30 working days, it shall be presumed that the parent University has no objection to the processing of the application by the UGC for conferment of autonomous status.

¶25

4.2 Issue notification within 30 days for a College to function as an autonomous entity once the autonomous status is conferred on the College by UGC.”

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the UGC

¶27

submitted that without considering the objections, the first

¶28

respondent would not have passed orders conferring 3/7

¶29

W.P.No.49980 of 2025 autonomous status to the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that in case objections were filed beyond 30 days, it could be presumed that the University had no objection under Regulation 4.1.

¶30

7.The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the UGC is recorded and in the light of the said submission and Regulation 4.2 of the UGC Regulation extracted above, the first respondent is bound to issue the notification within 30 days as per Clause 4.2 aforementioned. In this regard, the Judgment of the First Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anna

¶31

University Vs. Mahendra Institute of Technology and Another in W.A.No.51 of 2020 can be usefully referred. The Court held as follows:

¶32

“14.In the said background, we are of the opinion that the 2018 Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12(f), (g), (j) r/w 26(1) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 govern the field, inasmuch as the same is clearly saved as being a Regulation duly authorized having its source in Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution of India. There is no law for the time being relating to the Regulation of grant of autonomous Colleges running contrary to the same either framed under Entry 66 of List I or entry 25 of List III. In the

¶33

4/7

¶34

W.P.No.49980 of 2025 absence of any such legislation to the contrary, we are of the clear opinion that the 2018 Regulations clearly hold the field exclusively in the matters of grant of autonomous status to affiliated Colleges. The resolution of the Syndicate dated 27.05.2014 cannot in any way be said to have an overriding effect or even supplementary effect to the 2018 Regulations, inasmuch as the method of grant of an autonomous status is clearly defined under the 2018 Regulations and the eligibility to obtain such status is also governed by the same.”

¶35

The aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble First Division Bench was confirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.8324-8325 of 2020. From a reading of the aforementioned Regulation and the Judgment of the Hon'ble First Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that the first respondent University is bound to issue the notification as mandated by Regulation 4.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2023.

¶36

In view of the above discussion and under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed. Hence, the Writ Petitions are allowed with a direction to the first respondent University to notify the autonomous status granted to the petitioner Colleges' as per Regulation 4.2 of the UGC

¶37

5/7

¶38

W.P.No.49980 of 2025 Regulations 2023, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no

¶39

order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶40

4. Accordingly, though the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

¶41

the University raises objections formally in this matter, he is not in a position to dispute the above factual position that the matter has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He would also plead for one more opportunity for placing their counter affidavit on record.

¶42