(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed to set aside the order dated 08.09.2026 in WP No. 35604 of 2026.)

G. Arul Murugan, J.

1. The appellant has filed this intra court appeal assailing the order dated 08.09.2026 in WP No.35604 of 2026 wherein the learned Single Judge had directed the appellant university to process the application submitted by the first respondent college.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant university contended that the university can only process the application under the regulations of the university, and the order passed by the learned Single Judge amounts to granting recognition, in spite of the first respondent not having a clear title and in such circumstances, they have preferred the above appeal.

3. Countering the submissions, learned Senior Counsel of the first respondent submitted that when the institution is already running various other courses and students are studying in such courses, there was no necessity for the appellant university to have preferred this appeal even at the first instance. He further submitted that there is a rival dispute between the first respondent and a third party who had purchased the property in an auction sale, which is the subject matter of challenge before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and there is an interim order in force. The learned Single Judge had only directed the appellant university to proceed with the application. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. The first respondent college is imparting pharmacy education, offering B Pharm courses. Now, the first respondent had submitted an application to the appellant University seeking for introduction of M.Pharm (Pharmaceutical Analysis) and M.Pharm (Pharmaceutics) for the academic year 2026-27. When the position stood thus, it seems that the first respondent college had availed financial assistance from a bank and due to the default committed, proceedings were taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the property is said to have been sold in auction. It is to be noted that the sale has been challenged by the first respondent before Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai in SA No.493 of 2025 and an interim order has been passed by the Tribunal. It is seen that in compliance with the conditional order passed by the DRT, the first respondent college had paid a sum of Rs.8.28 crores.

6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the purchaser had earlier approached this Court seeking to restrain the authorities from granting approval, in WP No.21346 of 2026, and the writ petition was disposed of relegating the purchaser to approach the DRT, where the securitization application is pending, to agitate their grievances.

7. Since the application was not processed, the first respondent college had preferred the writ petition, seeking a direction to the appellant university to process the application. Learned Single Judge had only directed the appellant university to process the application for provisional affiliation subject to the first respondent college fulfilling all the conditions as prescribed under the university statute. The appellant university has preferred this appeal only on the ground that the regulations of the university prescribes that the applicant college has to have a clear title when they seek any approval and since in the subject property, there is a pending lis before the DRT, the statute does not allow for grant of approval.

8. From the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that the sale is under challenge before the DRT, had directed the university to process the application as per the university rules. When the first respondent college is already conducting courses and they have submitted an application seeking introduction of new courses, the appellant university is bound to process the application and take a decision, and merely on some technicalities, even prior to the consideration of application on merits, it cannot come to a conclusion that the first respondent college would not be entitled to approval. It is also brought to our notice that pursuant to the direction issued by the first respondent, the appellant university had also conducted inspection of the first respondent college in respect of above said courses.

9. In view of the above, without going into the merits, we are inclined to dispose of the writ appeal by directing the appellant university to pass orders on the application submitted by the first respondent, based on the inspection already conducted, within a period of seven days from today, without being influenced by any of the observations made in the orders passed by the writ court.

10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.27564 and 25721 of 2026 are closed.