JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon and S.K. Mookerjee, JJ. - The prayer in substance is that the respondents No. 1 and 2 may be commanded to register the petitioner No. 2, a product of the petitioner No. 1 institution, in the State Register of the Board of Indian Medicines, U. P. Lucknow so as to enable the petitioner No. 2 and the other products of the petitioner No. 1 to practies in the Unani system of medicines. 2. The Standing Counsel took time on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 on more than one occasion to file a counter-affidavit on their behalf; but no counter-affidavit has been filed. We are not inclined to grant any further time. We are proceeding to dispose of this petition finally. 3. In the absence of any counter-affidavit, the averments made in the memorandum of this petition have to be treated as correct. The material averments are these. The petitioner No. 1, the Ibn-e-Sina Tibbiya College (hereinafter referred to as the College) is a minority institution. It imparts education in Unani system of medicines The petitioner No. 2 and other students were admitted in the college in the First year course in the year 1984 and they completed the course of their studies in the year 1988. The Uttar Pradesh Indian Medical institutions Acquisition and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1982, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enforced. The provisions of this Act prohibited any parson other than a person authorised by the Central Government or the State Government to open a new institution after the appointed day. It also provided that the existing institutions could promote the students studying in a lower class to a higher class during a period of five years from the appointed day. However, it also provided that after the expiry of a period of five years the provisions of Section 8, which restrict the opening of new institutions etc., ware to apply mutatis mutandis to the existing institutions. Section 10 made it clear that the provisions of Section 8 and 9 were not applicable to minority referred to in Article 39 of the Constitution to establish and administer any educational institution of their "for imparting instruction in Ayurvedic or Unani-Tibbi Systems of Medicine of Naturopathy or Yoga Therapy". Section 10 made it clear that the provisions of Section 8 and 9 were not applicable to minority referred to in Article 39 of the Constitution to establish and administer any educational institution of their "for imparting instruction in Ayurvedic or Unani-Tibbi Systems of Medicine of Naturopathy or Yoga Therapy". After completing their course in the year 1988 and after having been declared successful in the final examination, the petitioner No. 2 and others applied for registration, to the Board of Indian Medicines, the respondent No. 1. Their applications are still pending and are not being disposed of The petitioner No. 1 has been declared a minority institution by the Minority Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh. The Central Government through its Joint Secretary informed the Director of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines, Uttar Pradesh that if tho institutions were being run by the minority then the same would be deemed to be the minority institutions. The State of U. P. also recognised the petitioner No. 1 as a minority institution. True copies of the said decision of the Minority Commission, the communication of the Joint Secretary to the Central Government and the recognition given by the State of U. P. have been filed as Annexures 6, 8 and 9 to the writ petition. By means of writ Petition No. 10695 of 1983 the petitioner No. 1 along with others challenged the the constitutionality and validity of the Act. On 6th April, 1983, the petition was admitted and by way of an interim order this Court stayed the operation of Section 9 of the Act as against the petitioner No. 1, The Writ petition is still pending and the stay order passed therein continues to operate. The petitioners apprehend that the respondents are not passing any orders on the applications made by the petitioner No. 2 and the other products of the college for being registered as practitioners in Unani medicines on account of the pendency of the aforementioned writ petitions in this Court and also on account of the fact that the respondents still consider that the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 are applicable to the College. 4. The pendency of the writ petition, in our opinion, should not come in the way of the respondents in considering the application of the petitioner No. 2 and the other products of the college. 4. The pendency of the writ petition, in our opinion, should not come in the way of the respondents in considering the application of the petitioner No. 2 and the other products of the college. Section 10 is the relevant provision for consideration. Therefore, the primary question to be decided by the respondents is as to whether the college was, at the relevant time, and is even now, a minority institution. If the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that the College was and is minority institution it should have no difficulty in applying the provisions of Section 10. We, however, make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the application made by the petitioner No. 2 for being registered as a practitioner in the Unani medicines. It will be open to the authority concerned to take into account all relevant considerations while registering the petitioner No. 2. However, if the relevant authority decides to reject the application of the petitioner No. 2, it shall give reasons in support of its order. The respondent No. 1 shall dispose of the application of the petitioner No. 2 within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner before it. 5. We are not inclined to accept the general prayer made in this petition that the respondents should register not only the petitioner No. 2 alone, but also the like products of the College. This is so as the petitioner No. 2 alone has chosen to joint the writ petition. We have, however, no doubt that if the cases of the other students are similar to the one of the petitioner No. 2, authority concerned will dispose of their cases also in the light of the decision taken in the case of petitioner No. 2. 6. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of finally.