Soosaiya Peter Educational Trust Vs University Grants Commission.

¶1

WP No. 869 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

WP No. 869 of 2026

¶7

Soosaiya Peter Educational Trust, Represented by its Chairman, Plot No.92, Second Street, Krishna Nagar, Virugambakkam, Madras – 600 092. Educational Agency, Madha Engineering College, Madha Nagar, Somangalam Road, Kundrathur, Kanchipuram, Chennai – 600 069.

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

Vs

¶10

University Grants Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002. 2.The Registrar, Anna University, Sardar Patel Road, Chennai – 600 025.

¶11

Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent University to notify the autonomous status granted to the petitioner college by the first respondent University Grants Commission vide order inNo.F.2-10/2023(ACPolicy) dated 03.10.2025 for a period of five years from 2025-2026 to 20292030, as per Clause 4.2 of University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for maintenance of standards in autonomous colleges) Regulation 2023 forthwith.

¶13

1 of 6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

WP No. 869 of 2026

¶16

For Petitioner: Mr.D. Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar For Respondents: Mr.V.Sudha for R1

¶17

Mr.U.Baranidharan Standing Counsel for R2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to direct the second respondent University to notify the autonomous status granted to the petitioner College by the first respondent, University Grants Commission, vide order in No. F.210/2023 (AC-Policy) dated 03.10.2025, for a period of five years from 20252026 to 2029-2030, as per Clause 4.2 of University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and measures for maintenance of standards in autonomous colleges) Regulation 2023.

¶20

Heard Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal position on this matter has been settled by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The issue was subsequently taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the University, which confirmed the Division Bench's judgment. As per the

¶22

2 of 6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

WP No. 869 of 2026

¶25

prevailing regulations, once the first respondent (UGC) grants autonomous status to the petitioner College, the second respondent University is obligated to notify the same without any discretion.

¶26

Per contra, Mr.U.Baranidharan , the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent University, would submit that it is true that, in an earlier round of litigation, the concerns raised by the University regarding infrastructural requirements were negatived by this Court and that decision was confirmed up to the Honourable Supreme Court. However, to verify the current factual situation in this specific matter, the learned counsel requests that a short adjournment be granted, as the matter is listed for admission today, to enable the University to formally place any other potential objections on record by way of a formal counter-affidavit.

¶27

I have considered the said submission made by the learned counsel for the second respondent University.

¶28

This specific prayer is consistently being brought before this Court in several matters. Since the issue has already been definitively settled by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court during the earlier round of litigation, there is no valid reason or point in further adjourning the matter.

¶29

3 of 6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

WP No. 869 of 2026

¶32

It can be seen that earlier, when the second respondent University sought to raise grounds regarding its right to verify the eligibility of a concerned educational institution to be granted autonomous status, specifically concerning academic standards and infrastructure, this Court by an order in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.38 of 2025, etc., dated 05.02.2025, allowed the Writ Petitions, where it was held that once the University Grants Commission (UGC) takes a decision to grant autonomous status to a College, it becomes incumbent upon the affiliating university (the second respondent) to notify that status. The affiliating university cannot, at that stage, seek to re-verify the infrastructure or other eligibility criteria of the College.

¶33

The said judgment was challenged by way of intra-Court Appeals before the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 2514, 1778 and 1840 of 2025. In a judgment dated 02.09.2025, the Honourable Division Bench ruled that, under Regulation 4.2, the second respondent University has no discretion other than to notify the autonomous status granted to the petitioner College. As a matter of fact, the University filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29057 of 2025 against the said order of the Honourable Division Bench, which was summarily dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India.

¶34

4 of 6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

WP No. 869 of 2026

¶37

In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed , and the second

¶38

respondent University is directed to notify the autonomous status granted to the petitioner College by the University Grants Commission (UGC) vide Order No. No. F.2-10/2023 (AC-Policy) dated 03.10.2025, for a period of five years from 2025-2026 to 2029-2030, as per Clause 4.2 of University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and measures for maintenance of standards in autonomous colleges) Regulation 2023, with this notification process to be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

09-01-2026

¶40

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶41

nsl

¶42

To

¶43