to go into the merits of the case and deal with them elaborately. The petitioners were admitted by the institutions beyond the permitted intake for the reasons best known to them, eventhough the list of approval in respect of the permitted intake was communicated in September, 2014, itself. The petitioners were not approved to be admitted by anyone including the University. The only ground that is advanced is that the students are innocent, they have prosecuted their studies and before the fag end of attending the examinations, the hall tickets are denied to them. Though another learned single Judge of this Court granted interim direction in another case and the learned Senior Counsel relied on the aforesaid decisions, this Court is not inclined to follow the same in the name of consistency. The law should prevail over consistency. The Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court in the above decisions categorically held that the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be frittered away for such a purpose and directed the management to refund the fee/incidental charges collected by them from the students with interest at 6% per annum. However, the learned Senior Counsel distinguishes the said order stating that those cases arose out of absence of recognition/affiliation in respect of those institutions and in these cases, the institutions are being run with proper approval from NCTE and affiliation from concerned University, but only the intake exceeded the permissible strength fixed by the University. I am unable to make a distinction merely because the facts can be distinguished on the ground of excess intake. Excess intake even in the face of a communication in September, 2014, by the concerned University is glaring irregularity committed by the institutions. This Court should not come to the aid of such students, who were admitted without verifying the antecedents or the regularity of such admission in the institutions. It is not known under what circumstances the petitioners, who are from outside the State, are lured to take admission beyond the permitted intake. This is a clear case of commercialisation
