JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhan, J.
1. This appeal has been filed along with LA. II of 2001 to condone the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal. I.A. II and the appeal are taken up together for disposal.
2. We would have certainly condoned the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal had there been any merit in the appeal. As we do not find any merit in the appeal for the reasons stated in the next paragraph, we decline to condone the delay. No purpose would be served in issuing notice to the respondents to come and defend the application for condonation of delay only.
3. Writ petitioner-respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent 1’) is a college which was originally situated within the area of operation of Karnatak University, Dharwad. It was functioning under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short, the ‘Act’). With intent to commence a Unani Teaching College, it submitted its application to the University for affiliation. The process of affiliation is governed by Section 53 of the Act. Broadly speaking, the scheme of the statute is that the University appoints a Local Inspection Committee (‘LIC’, for short) which inspects the applicant-college and verifies on the application submitted and recommends about its viability to the Academic Council of the University. The Academic Council deliberates on the report and submits its opinion to the Syndicate for further action. The report of the Academic Council along with the recommendation of the Syndicate is thereafter sent to the Government under sub-section (5) of Section 53 of the Act. The same reads as under:
“53(5) The Registrar shall (within such time as the Government may from time to time specify) submit application and all proceedings, if any, of the Academic Council and of the Syndicate relating thereto to the State Government which after such inquiry as may appear to it to be necessary shall make their recommendations for the grant of the application or any part thereof and the University shall issue orders accordingly”.
A reading of sub-section (5) of Section 53 of the Act shows that the Government makes its recommendation for the grant of application or any part thereof or may refuse the application or any part thereof and thereafter the University issues orders in accordance with the recommendation made by the State Government.
4. In the present case, the State Government made its recommendation granting affiliation to respondent 1. Before the Karnatak University could issue the letter granting affiliation in favour of the 1st respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (for short, the ‘appellant’) was constituted. Respondent-college came to fall within the jurisdiction of the appellant. Appellant refused to grant the affiliation as its prede-cessor-in-interest i.e., Karnatak University, had not issued a formal tetter of affiliation to the college. Similarly, the appellant had refused
affiliation to other five colleges. Respondent 1 and other colleges filed separate writ petitions challenging the action of the appellant-University which were consolidated and disposed of by a common order passed by the Single Judge. Appellant has come up in appeal in one of the writ petitions as a test case.
5. Learned Single Judge has taken the view that once the Government passes an order granting or refusing the affiliation, then the University performs only the ministerial act. If that be so, for all intents and purposes, the college would earn the privilege of getting affiliated to the University. Once an order was issued under Section 53(5) of the Act directing the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant to issue the letter according affiliation to respondent 1 then it would be deemed that the 1st respondent had been admitted to all the privileges of the University.
6. Constitutional validity of Section 53(5) of the Act has not been challenged before us. The interpretation put by the Single Judge on Section 53(5) as it stands today, in our view, is correct. Once the Government accepts or rejects the recommendation granting or refusing affiliation, then the University has to fall in line and issue the orders in terms of the orders passed by the Government.
7. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Single Judge on the interpretation of Section 53(5) of the Act. No other point has been urged before us.
8. Dismissed on merits as well as being barred by time.