Petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the approval of the petitioner's College as a Research Centre, by Ext. P4. Petitioner's contention is that the University, but for stating that the norms are not satisfied, does not indicate anything in the order as to what are the norms and what are the defects noticed in the petitioner's institution. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University has filed a statement today, again contending merely that the norms are not satisfied.
3. The petitioner should at least be informed of what are the specific defects noticed and what are the norms to be WPC. 31366 of 2014 : 2 :
satisfied, so that at least the petitioner could make an endeavour to rectify such defects and seek for a Research Centre, after satisfying the norms.
4. Since the petitioner has filed Ext. P5 representation before the Register, the Registrar shall place the same before the Vice Chancellor who shall consider the same within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy this judgment. The 2nd respondent, Vice Chancellor shall also specifically indicate the reasons for rejection of the approval including the non-satisfaction of the norms after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, if eventually the Vice Chancellor rejects the application.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
ani/17th /truecopy/
P.S.tojudge