Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions dismissed; Contempt Case (C) No....

Sabu v. University Grants Commission and Bharathiar University (WP(C) No. 20693/2018 and connected cases)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 20693/2018, 31477/2018 and Con.Case(C) 1723/2018 (connected cases)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Muhammed Mustaque
Judgment Date
2018-11-12
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petitions dismissed. The court held that the termination of contracts by Bharathiar University was not arbitrary and left open the question of reliefs, such as refunds, to be pursued in the appropriate court. Contempt of Court Case (C) No. 1723/2018 was closed.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions dismissed; Contempt Case (C) No. 1723/2018 closed; petitions may pursue refunds in appropriate forum.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SABU
  • ANIL KUMAR
  • BIJU NAIR
  • MIDHUN K.RAJAN
  • MOHAMED ALI NOORU KUNNUMMAL
  • PRADOSH ALOKKAN
  • K. ANWAR SHAKEEB
  • P.P. JOSE
  • MOHAMMED RAFI M.
  • UMAIR B.
  • DR. SUNIL SREEDHAR
  • KRISHNARAJ K.K.
  • MRS. DEEPA MANIKANTAN
  • P.P. RAGHAVAN

Respondents

  • University Grants Commission
  • Bharathiar University

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S.SREEKUMAR (Sr.)
  • • A.R.NIMOD
  • • P.S.APPU
  • • T.C.SURESH MENON
  • • J.R.PREM NAVAZ
  • • P.T.SHEEJISH

Counsels for Respondents

  • • S. KRISHNAMOORTHY (CGC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court dealt with WP(C) 20693/2018 and connected matters involving private educational institutes that had entered into agreements with Bharathiar University (Tamil Nadu) to offer Bharathiar’s distance education programmes in Kerala. Following communications and actions by the University Grants Commission (UGC) noting violations of UGC regulations, Bharathiar University terminated these agreements. The petitioners contended the arrangements were private contracts and that there was no public-law bar to allowing students to complete courses through Bharathiar University; they suggested that students could register with Bharathiar University or seek refunds of tuition fees via appropriate remedies. The respondent-universities argued that the participation was contractual and private, and that public-law intervention was unwarranted unless arbitrariness by a public authority could be shown. The court observed that while the contracts are private, it has previously held that a University cannot extend its programmes beyond its territorial jurisdiction, citing Godwiin Samraj D.P.(Dr) v. Dr. M. Abdul Salam and Unine Trust (M/s.) Cherthala v. M.G. University. It concluded that the University’s action was not arbitrary and permitted the petitioners to pursue relief in the proper civil forum, dismissing the writ petitions. It also noted that petitions could pursue refunds before the appropriate court, and closed the Contempt Case (C) No.1723/2018.

Provisions of Law Cited

UGC Regulations

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the Bharathiar University agreements were private contracts and should be treated as private affairs, not subject to public-law intervention unless arbitrariness by a public authority could be shown. They asserted that the program was to be taught through the petitioners’ centers within Kerala and that students could complete the courses via Bharathiar University. They urged the court to refrain from interfering with private contractual arrangements and to allow remedies, including potential refunds, to be pursued in the appropriate forum. They also suggested that students might register with Bharathiar University if permissible. The petitions contended that nothing in the UGC Regulations directly bars such private contractual arrangements, particularly under the private contract framework.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the agreements with Bharathiar University involve programs conducted under a state-university framework and that UGC Regulations regulate such distance education activities. They emphasized that the University cannot run programs beyond its territorial jurisdiction and that terminating the contracts was not arbitrary but was based on regulatory concerns and policy considerations. They maintained that the matters were private contracts and that any relief should be sought in proper civil or contractual remedies, not through public law. The respondents relied on established jurisprudence that a university can’t operate beyond territorial limits and that the public law remedy should not be invoked to override private contractual rights where arbitrariness is not shown.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Godwiin Samraj D.P.(Dr) and Another v.Dr.M.Abdul Salam and Others [2015(2) KHC 551]2015(2) KHC 551PositiveCourt cited this judgment to support the proposition that a University cannot run programs beyond its territorial jurisdiction, aligning with the current decision.
Unine Trust (M/s.) Cherthala v. M.G.University and Others [2017(3) KHC 169(DB)]2017(3) KHC 169(DB)PositiveCourt cited this judgment as reinforcing the territorial jurisdiction limitation on university programs and the non-interference in private contractual matters unless arbitrariness is shown.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sabu v. University Grants Commission and Bharathiar University (WP(C) No. 20693/2018 and connected cases) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **MONDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No.20693 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 MR.SABU, DIRECTOR, S/O. MR.M.N. RAJAPPAN, AGED 42 YEARS, IIKM BUSINESS SCHOOL, IIKM CAMPUS, BHAT ROAD, WEST HILL, CHUNGAM, CALICUT - 673 005.** - **2 MR.ANIL KUMAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR,S/O. GOVINDANKUTTY K., AGED 45 YEARS, CINDREBAY SCHOOL OF FASHION & INTERIOR DESIGN, SKYLARK, JN ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM - 679 322.** - **3 MR. BIJU NAIR, DIRECTOR, S/O. MR.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, AGED 39 YEARS, AADHIRIYAA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM - 679 576.** - **4 MR. MIDHUN K.RAJAN, DIRECTOR, S/O. MR.K.T.RAJAN, AGED 32 YEARS, SKYWINGS ACADEMY OF AVIATION & TOURISM, MANAKKAPPADY LANE, NEAR OBEROL MALL, KOCHI - 682 024.** - **5 MR. MOHAMED ALI NOORU KUNNUMMAL, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, S/O. ABOOBACKER NOORU, AGED 39 YEARS, EMPIRE INSTITUTE OF HIGHER STUDIES, MOODAL, KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM - 679 571.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHA ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 002.** **1** ## **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 2** **2 BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MARUTHAMALAI MAIN ROAD, COIMBATORE - 641 046.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2018, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).1723/2018, WP(C).31477/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **MONDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940** **Con.Case(C).No.1723 of 2018** **AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27.06.2018** **IN W.P.(C) NO.20693/2018** **-----** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 MR. SABU, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O MR. M.N RAJAPPAN II KM BUSINESS SCHOOL, IIKM CAMPUS, BHAT ROAD, WEST HILL, CHUNGAM, CALICUT-673005.** - **2 MR. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, S/O GOVINDANKUTTY K., CINDREBAY SCHOOL OF FASHION AND INTERIOR DESIGN, SKYLARK, JN ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679322.** - **3 MR.BIJU NAIR, AGED 39 YEARS, DIRECTOR, S/O. MR. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, AADHIRIYAA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM-679576.** - **4 MR. MIDHUN K. RAJAN, AGED 32 YEARS, DIRECTOR, S/O. K.T.RAJAN, SKYWINGS ACADEMY OF AVIATION AND TOURISM, MANAKKAPPADY LANE, NEAR OBEROL MALL, KOCHI-682024.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 PROF.RAJNISH JAIN, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, SECRETARY AND CVO,UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SHA ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002.** **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 4** **2 DR. B. VANITHA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.SELVARAJ, THE REGISTRAR, BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY, MARUTHAMALAI MAIN ROAD, COIMBATORE-641046.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC** **THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).20693/2018, WP(C).31477/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 5** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **MONDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 31477 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 PRADOSH ALOKKAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN ALOKKAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KANNUR, RESIDING AT ALOKKAN HOUSE, VENGAD P.O., KANNUR, PIN-670612.** - **2 K. ANWAR SHAKEEB, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, THE PRINCIPAL, RAYHAN COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY, RAYHAN EYE HOSPITAL AND LASER CENTER, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 576.** - **3 P.P. JOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. PAUL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TEAMS GLOBAL VILLAGE ACADEMY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT POZHOLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, 10 OORAKAM IRINGALAKKUDA, DISTRICT, PIN - 680 683** - **4 MOHAMMED RAFI M., AGED 26 YEAR, S/O. UMMER, DIRECTOR, LONDON INSTITUTE, KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT MACHINGAL (H), R.V. HALL, NEAR THOTTATHAZHATHIL, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 576.** - **5 UMAIR B., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. SAYED ALAVI THANGAL, DIRECTOR, ME HEALTH CARE (P) LIMITED, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT BASALMINTAKATH, PANTHALAYANI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 305.** - **6 DR. SUNIL SREEDHAR, AGED 39 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRINITY ACADEMY OF OPTOMETRY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001.** - **7 KRISHNARAJ K.K., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, CHAIRMAN, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH (IIBMR), THRISSUR.** **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 6** - **8 MRS.DEEPA MANIKANTAN, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.N.SUDHAKARAN, REPRESENTING THE INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT STUDIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **9 P.P. RAGHAVAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. LATE A.P. NARAYANA PISHARADI, REPRESENTING THE AL SALAMA EYE RESEARCH FOUNDATION PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY, BHADUR SHA ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110 002.** - **2 BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MARUTHAMALAI MAIN ROAD, COIMBATORE - 641 046.** **BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2018, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).1723/2018, WP(C).20693/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 7** ## **JUDGMENT** **[WP(C) 20693/2018, Con.Case(C).1723/2018, WP(C).31477/2018]** The petitioners in these writ petitions have entered into an agreement with the Bharathiar University in Tamil Nadu. The agreement was entered for the purpose of offering programmes conducted by the Bharathiar University to the students in the State. The Bharathiar University offers distance education programme. They offered online courses to the students in the State to participate in the programme involving the petitioners. 2. The University entered into agreement with each of the petitioner. The University decided to terminate the agreement in the wake of threatened action from the University Grants Commission(UGC). The UGC appears to have noted that such participatory programme offered by the Bharathiar University is in violation of UGC Regulations. The UGC particularly noted that the University incorporated under the State Enactment could not have allowed to conduct the programme in formal or informal way beyond that territorial limits of the State. **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 8** 3. The learned senior counsel referring to the various UGC Regulations and nature of the programme imparted by the petitioners, argued that the students are enrolled through them to complete the courses directly from the University and therefore, there is no legal bar in providing such facilities in the State. It is to be noted that the agreement between Bharathiar University and the petitioners is contractual. It is purely a private affair between the University and the petitioners. The termination of the contract at the best would be interfered by the court only if it is found that it was result of an arbitrary action by public authority or statutory authority. The private affairs of the University based on a contract with the person cannot be enforced through the public law remedy. The University appears to have come to a justifiable reason for terminating the contract. Therefore, the court need not interfere with such contractual matters. The learned senior counsel further argued that the students enrolled through the petitioners may be permitted to register with Bharathiar University. It is doubtful whether cause of action for such relief is maintainable for this court. Anyway I am leaving open the issue. This Court had already taken a view that the University cannot run any ## **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 9** programme beyond its territorial jurisdiction. See the judgments of this Court in Godwiin Samraj D.P.(Dr) and Another v.Dr.M.Abdul Salam and Others [2015(2) KHC 551] and Unine Trust (M/s.) Cherthala v. M.G.University and Others [2017(3) KHC 169(DB). 4. In such scenario, it cannot be said that the action of the University is arbitrary. However, the petitioners are free to work out any relief based on their agreement before the appropriate court. Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the University shall refund the tuition fees remitted by the petitioners. It is open for the petitioners to pursue such remedy as against the University before the court having territorial jurisdiction. In view of the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.20693/2018, Contempt Case (C) No.1723/2018 is closed. ## **Sd/-** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **JUDGE** **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 10** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C)NO.20693/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 30.06.2010.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 20.07.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 25.07.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 03.04.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 03.04.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE PUT FORWARD UNDER THE RTI DATED 05.05.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.05.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DOWNLOADED FROM WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.05.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 15.05.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.NO. 30039/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 12.03.2013.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH PERMITTING THE ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY TO CONTINUE WITH THE DISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAMME FOR CENTERS SITUATED OUTSIDE ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, DATED 15.04.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.NO. 37760/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 27.11.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.NOS.13036 AND 13037 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 13.05.2018.** **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 11** ## **EXHIBIT P14** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 224/2018 IN O.S.NO. 357/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE V SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD DATED 02.05.2018.** ## RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DO N.F.1 52/99 (CRP-II) DATED 09.08.2001. EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 13.05.2003. EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.F.9-8/2008(CPP-1) DATED 16.4.2009 ADDRESSED TO ALL THE STATE GOVERNMENTS. EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.9.8/2008(CPP-1) DATED 15.06.2009 ADDRESSED TO VICE-CHANCELLORS OF ALL STATE UNIVERSITIES. EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION F.NO.DEC/SC/11 DATED 31.01.2012. EXHIBIT R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION F.NO.DEC/NOTIFICATION/40.5/2012 DATED 1.11.2012. EXHIBIT R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED F.27-1/2012(CPP-11)DATED 27.06.2013. EXHIBIT R1(H) TRUE COPY OF LETTER F.NO.DEB/QMC/2013 DATED 23.8.2013. EXHIBIT R1(I) TRUE COPY OF LETTER F.NO.UGC/DEB/QMC/2013 DATED AUGUST 2014. EXHIBIT R1(J) TRUE COPY OF PUBLIC NOTICE NO.DEB/UGC/WEBSITE/2013 DATED 30.10.2014. EXHIBIT R1(K) TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE F.NO.11-5/2015(DEB-III)DATED 4.6.2015. EXHIBIT R1(L) TRUE COPY OF PUBLIC NOTICE F.NO.11-5/2015(DEB-III DATED 17.06.2015. EXHIBIT R1(M) TRUE COPY OF LETTER D.O.NO.F.9-8/2008(CPP-I/PU) DATED 12.8.2015. EXHIBIT R1(N) TRUE COPY OF PUBLIC NOTICE NO.F.11-5/2015(DEB-III) DATED 25.1.2016. EXHIBIT R1(O) TRUE COPY OF LETTER F.NO.28-2/2015 (DEB-III) DATED 28.04.2016. EXHIBIT R1(P) TRUE COPY OF PUBLIC NOTICE F.NO.12-9/2016(DEB-III) DATED 19.07.2016. EXHIBIT R1(Q) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.20-1/2015(DEB-III) DATED 20.8.2015. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ln **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 12** ## **APPENDIX OF Con.Case(C)NO.1723/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.20693/2018-J ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 22.6.2018 ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENDED ORDER UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS IN WPC.20693/2018-J ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 27.6.2018 ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.BU/RR/080618/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.7.2018. ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN WPC.13036 AND 13037 OF 2018 ALONG WITH A BATCH OF OTHER WRIT PETITIONS ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS DATED 24.7.2018.** RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ln **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 13** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C)NO.31477/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND IST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND 4TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND 5TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND 6TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND 7H PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND 8TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND 9TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE PREFERRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THIS REPLY FURNISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.05.2018. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.07.2018. EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDERS IN W.P.(C) NO. 20693/2018 DATED 22.06.2018 AND 27/06/2018.** ## **WP(C)No.20693/2018 and conn.cases 14** RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ln