WWW.LIVELAW.IN W.P(C).No.19716/2019-L 10 him. According to the 4th respondent, when the petitioner and her parent had signed the application Ext.R4(a) agreeing to abide by the instructions, she or her parent are not expected to object to the same. It is stated that there is restriction in the boys hostel also in the usage of mobile phone, which is between 6 a.m and 9 a.m and from 4 p.m to 6.30 p.m except on Sundays and from 10 p.m on all days. According to the 4th respondent, the college is having a full-fledged library with more than 30,000 books which the students can utilise and therefore acquiring knowledge through internet alone between 6 p.m and 10 p.m cannot be said to be an unreasonable restriction. Relying on the judgments in Sojan Francis v. MG University:2003 (2) KLT 582, Unniraja v. Principal Medical College: ILR 1983 (2) Ker.754, Manu Vilson v. Sree Narayana College: 1996(1) KLT 788, Indulekha Joseph v. VC M G University & Ors. : ILR 2008(3) Ker 346, M.H Devendrappa v. Karnataka State Small Industries Corporation: (1998) 3 SCC 732 etc. it is stated that supreme authority to control and enforce discipline in an educational institution is the head of the institution; the authorities of the college as well as the hostel are entitled to take suitable measure to maintain discipline; it is the duty of the members of the teaching staff to take appropriate measures to achieve excellence in education; it is the duty of the institution which imparts education, to maintain discipline and to enforce the rules and regulations which are lawfully framed, stating that the rules are not designed to curtail any fundamental right. It is further stated that in case the petitioner wants to gather knowledge through internet, she is free to use laptop for which there is no restriction. Relying