Judgment B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2.The petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and also a Public Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The said society has been established with a view to impart education and cater to the educational needs of the Pupils for Vidarbha region. The petitioner Society established the N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and Smt. Lata Mangeshkar Hospital at Digdoh Hills, Hingna Road, Nagpur and applied to the State of Maharashtra for granting permission to establish and administer a Medical College on 'no grant-in-aid' basis at Nagpur. The State Government by its Resolution dated 22-6-1990 granted permission to petitioner society to establish and administer a Medical College at Nagpur from the academic year 1990-91 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Resolution and accordingly petitioner No. 3 Medical College came to be started from the academic year 1990-91 by the petitioner No. 3 society. The permission granted by the State of Maharashtra was for admission capacity of hundred students, out of which twenty seats would be reserved for the society's quota and other twenty seats would be filled in by the Government of Maharashtra. Out of remaining sixty seats, thirty seats were to be reserved for local candidates to be admitted on merit and thirty seats were to be reserved for the students from the State level merit list. The policy of reservation was required to be followed as stipulated by the Government and the petitioner society was required to provide for seven hundred beds under one roof on permanent basis in the proposed Medical College within a period of one and half years from the commencement of the said college. A compliance report to this effect was required to be submitted and a High Power Committee of the Government was required to submit a report to the Government about compliance. Detailed terms and conditions were also attached with the Government Resolution dated 22nd June, 1990 including fees to be charged. It appears that the Nagpur University granted provisional affiliation to the petitioner No. 3 college vide its letter dated 8-1-1991 after making enquiries and satisfying itself of the necessary infrastructure and terms conditions. Detailed terms and conditions were also attached with the Government Resolution dated 22nd June, 1990 including fees to be charged. It appears that the Nagpur University granted provisional affiliation to the petitioner No. 3 college vide its letter dated 8-1-1991 after making enquiries and satisfying itself of the necessary infrastructure and terms conditions. 3.Subsequently, petitioner No. 3 college approached the Medical Council of India and by letter dated 14-3-1991, it was informed that even after affiliation granted by the Nagpur University, the college was required to be recognised by the Medical Council of India and it was called upon to comply with the requirements for that purpose. By letter dated 6-4-1991, the petitioner college requested the Medical Council of India for necessary guidance and vide letter dated 8-4-1991 of the Medical Council of India it was informed that formal request for recognition of the institute along with prescribed fees of rupees seven thousand five hundred by a Bank Draft was required to be forwarded through Nagpur University. The college was also called upon to request to arrange inspection of physical and other facilities for under graduate training available at the college. The requisite fee was remitted through the Nagpur University as is evident from the letter dated 16-4-1991 issued by the Registrar of Nagpur University to the Medical Council of India. In the meanwhile, petitioner No. 3 college had admitted hundred students for the academic year 1990-91 and by letter dated 22-4-1991, it was informed to the Registrar, Nagpur University, inter alia, that the college was proposing to admit hundred students for the academic year 1991-92. It is clear from the records that petitioner No. 3 college was allowed to admit hundred students in each of these academic year for the first year of M.B.B.S. Course. 4.The Medical Council of India (M.C.I.) deputed a team of two experts, Dr. D.K. Srivastava and Dr. Bishnu Kumar to carry out inspection of petitioner No. 3 college and a detailed report came to be submitted by the Expert Committee in September, 1993. The concluding general remarks of the said report are as under: "1. The clinical material and bed strength, for training of 100 students admission being made since Sept., 1990, is grossly inadequate as per regulations of the Medical Council of India. The concluding general remarks of the said report are as under: "1. The clinical material and bed strength, for training of 100 students admission being made since Sept., 1990, is grossly inadequate as per regulations of the Medical Council of India. The total bed strength of their own and Railway Hospital being used by them is only 269(84-185), while it should be 700. (They utilise I.D.H. of Govt. Medical College, Nagpur also for training). 2. In view of such a shortage of teaching beds the staff attached to clinical department is not only inadequate for 100 admissions but gross shortage exists in all the clinical subjects. 3. The building acquired presently for pre and para clinical departments is not at all sufficient for organising and setting labs., demonstration classes, lecture theatres etc. for teaching of 100 students. 4. The staff attached to each departments in pre para clinical subjects is grossly inadequate with the results that there is hardly any meaningful teaching in these deptts. 5. Library is yet to be organised with required staff and space as per requirement of the Council. Library staff is very meagre and number of books is too less. 6. Presently there are no regular hostel facilities. Students requiring accommodation are put in privately acquired houses. 7. There is no casualty and Emergency department independently and there is only one O.T. 8. There are no separate out-patient deptt. They are temporarily located in a haphazard manner near the wards, medicine and surgery. O.P.D. is run in one room of very small size with one table for each subject. Attendance in O.P.D's. in general is very poor for the training of 100 students admitted every year. Orthopaedic O.P.D. was run in small area in a room having six nursery beds and no patients. 9. There is no central animal house with staff and space, as per requirements of the Council. 10. There is no central Registration/Record filing section. 11. There is no Incinerator in the institution. 12. Radiology department is located in one small room with one X-ray machine (portable) of 50mA. There are three lecturers only in the department. 13. The Nursing Staff is very much inadequate. 14. There are no properly constituted units in the clinical subjects with adequate complement of staff as per regulations of Council. 15. 12. Radiology department is located in one small room with one X-ray machine (portable) of 50mA. There are three lecturers only in the department. 13. The Nursing Staff is very much inadequate. 14. There are no properly constituted units in the clinical subjects with adequate complement of staff as per regulations of Council. 15. The new college building is nearly ready, about 1 km., away from the main Lata Mangeshkar Hospital (present campus) which is quite well planned and is likely to be commissioned within two months. 16. With the shifting of pre and para clinical deptts. from the present Lata Mangeshkar Hospital campus, there are plans to renovate the present building in a short time of few months, so as to accommodate ultimately 200 beds from the present strength of 84 beds." 5.Based on the inspection report of September, 1993 the M.C.I. vide its letter dated 25-11-1993 informed the Registrar, Nagpur University that Council Inspector's Report of September, 1993 in respect of N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Nagpur was placed before the Executive Committee of the Council held on 17-10-1993 and the Committee's decision was forwarded for information and necessary action. A copy of the said letters was also addressed to the Dean of petitioner No. 3 college and the decision of the Committee as informed was as under: "The Executive Committee decided not to approve N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Nagpur for the award of M.B.B.S. degree granted by Nagpur University because of the gross deficiencies pointed out by the Council Inspectors in their inspection report. The Committee further decided to convey to the authorities to remove the deficiencies within six months and send para-wise compliance report for further consideration in the matter. Re-inspection of the college will be arranged after receiving the compliance." 6.The petitioner Medical College submitted compliance report on 4-10-1995 to the M.C.I. and contended that most of the deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report of September, 1993 were removed. In the meanwhile, Medical Council of Maharashtra also carried out inspection on the facilities available at the petitioner No. 3 college and submitted a report on 24-6-1995. Though it is not clear whether the said inspection was carried out at the instance of Nagpur University or for its own purpose of the Maharashtra Medical Council, the concluding remarks in the said report are as under: "1. Though it is not clear whether the said inspection was carried out at the instance of Nagpur University or for its own purpose of the Maharashtra Medical Council, the concluding remarks in the said report are as under: "1. Facilities for teaching at pre clinical and para-clinical level are adequate. However, the deficiencies pointed out earlier regarding staff be rectified immediately. 2. Though the number of total beds and the distribution meets the requirements, it is recommended that the wards and theatres at Digdoh hospital be commissioned at the earliest. It is also recommended that in order to facilitate proper teaching, beds in various departments be at one place and not scattered as it exists today. 3. Rural Health Centre should be under the control of Dean and adequate staff be appointed. 4. Heads of the department of orthopaedics P.S.M. should be Professor. Professor of Paediatrics should be full time and that of Ophthalmology with adequate experience. As pointed out earlier, other deficiencies in staff of clinical departments be rectified. 5. Residents posts should be created. 6. Adequate number of residential quarters should be constructed." 7.In pursuance of the compliance report submitted in October, 1995, the M.C.I. again deputed two Inspectors (Dr. J. Rajappa and Dr. Bishnu Kumar) for carrying out further inspection. A detailed report came to be submitted to the M.C.I. and the said report pointed out that the deficiencies still remained in respect of two main points, namely, teaching staff and availability of beds. The report stated that there existed in all 24 vacancies of teaching staff (one Professor, seven Readers, ten Lecturers and six Tutors) and the bed strength of Hospitals attached to N.K.P. Salve Medical College, Nagpur was not adequate. The break-up given in the said report in this regard is as under : Bed Strength of Hospitals attached to N.K.P. Salve Medical College, Nagpur. Annual Admission-100 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SpecialityBedsBeds PresentDeficiency Reqd. C.H. LMH Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Medicine Allied Specialities : a) Gen. Medicine 160 119 10 129 31 b) Pediatrics 50 30 10 40 10 c) TB Chest 30 - - - 30 d) Skin STD 30- - - 30 e) Psychiatry 30- - - 30 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 300 149 20169 131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Surgery Allied Specialities : a) Gen. C.H. LMH Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Medicine Allied Specialities : a) Gen. Medicine 160 119 10 129 31 b) Pediatrics 50 30 10 40 10 c) TB Chest 30 - - - 30 d) Skin STD 30- - - 30 e) Psychiatry 30- - - 30 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 300 149 20169 131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Surgery Allied Specialities : a) Gen. Surgery190 138 -138 52 b) Orthopaedics 40 -40 40 - c) Ophthalmology 40 -40 40 - d) E.N.T. 30 -28 28 02 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 300 138 108 246 54 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. OBST. GYNAE. a) Obst. ANC 60 -69 69 31 b) Gynae. 40 - - - - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- G. Total700 287 197 848 216 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.H. - College Hospital, Digdoh Hills. LMH - Lata Mangeshkar Hospital, Sitabuldi. However, it is pertinent to note that the additional beds available and being utilised by the petitioner No. 3 college were also considered and the deficiency of total beds was thus met. From the report, it is clear that the petitioner No. 3 college/Hospital had 287 beds and Lata Mangeshkar Hospital, Sitabuldi had 197 beds (total 484 beds) and 276 beds available with Central Railway Hospital, Government Medical College and Government Mental Hospital were also shown to be utilised by the petitioner No. 3. The total number of beds thus exceeded seven hundred. 8.On receipt of the said inspection report of January, 1996, the petitioner No. 3 submitted its compliance report to Medical Council of India vide its letter dated 20-7-1996 and inter alia, pointed out that as against 148 posts of teaching staff as per requirement of Medical Council of India, petitioner No. 3 had filled in 151 posts and in respect of counting of beds, it was submitted that the Executive Director (Health) Railway Board, Government of India by his Communication dated 12-7-1996 had informed that the Ministry of Railways accorded its approval in regard to the administrative control for academic needs of education, such as posting of students, drafting of time table, teaching and training schedule of the students of petitioner No. 3 so also a communication from Superintendent, Railway Hospital to the Secretary, Medical Council of India dated 17-5-1996 to the effect that their application for recognition of House jobs to be treated as withdrawn, as they being a teaching Hospital attached to N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre by the Medical Council. In short, the compliance report stated that the major deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report of January, 1996 were removed and the case of the petitioners be considered for granting recognition. 9.By letter dated 28-8-1996, the Medical Council of India informed the petitioner No. 3 college that on going through the compliance report of July, 1996, it was noticed that some deficiencies in respect of staff and beds were still required to be removed. By letter dated 3-9-1996, the petitioners informed the Medical Council of India that one post of Professor, five posts of Readers and seven posts of Lecturers were filled in by appointment of suitable, qualified and experienced teaching staff. The details of all the faculty members in respect of their qualifications and experience were also furnished along with this letter. Regarding deficiency of beds for teaching in the subject of Psychiatry, it was informed that Government Mental Hospital, Nagpur had agreed to provide facilities and the staff of that Hospital would be treated as Honorary Teaching faculty of the petitioner No. 3 college. It was further specifically pointed out that there were four other Medical Colleges in the jurisdiction of Nagpur University availing the facilities by petitioner No. 3 college at Nagpur was in order. 10.The Medical Council of India arranged for third inspection by deputing Professor L.S. Chawla and Professor J.K. Tandon in the month of September, 1996 and it appears that a detailed inspection report came to be submitted by these two Inspectors to the Medical Council of India in September/October, 1996. It is pertinent to note at this stage that a copy of this inspection report was not supplied to the petitioner and surprisingly, a letter dated 22-12-1996 came to be addressed to petitioner No. 3 college by the Medical Council of India stating that compliance verification was carried out in September/October, 1996 by the Council and on going through the said report, it was noted that there were deficiencies in the staff and other infrastructural facilities available for hundred admissions. The letter further stated that the college was required to give undertaking to reduce number of admissions from 100 to 50 for the academic year 1997-98 in order to decide the matter regarding recognition by the Council and the said undertaking was required to be sent at the earliest. Such an undertaking was submitted by the petitioner college on 10-1-1997. The letter further stated that the college was required to give undertaking to reduce number of admissions from 100 to 50 for the academic year 1997-98 in order to decide the matter regarding recognition by the Council and the said undertaking was required to be sent at the earliest. Such an undertaking was submitted by the petitioner college on 10-1-1997. The petitioners more particularly stated that the decision of the Medical Council of India to admit fifty students for the academic year 1997-98 will be abided and on the next day, i.e. on 11-1-1997, petitioner college submitted a detailed representation pointing out that the deficiencies as brought out by the Medical Council of India in respect of teaching staff were removed and even the infrastructural facilities like beds, etc. were also arranged as per requirements laid down by the Medical Council of India. It was also pointed out that the facilities of Government Mental Hospital were also being utilised by other privately run Medical College like Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Sawangi, Wardha, which is about 60 kms. from Nagpur. It was further pointed out that Ministry of Railways after due consideration was pleased to accord its approval regarding administrative control by the Dean of petitioner College in the matter of academic needs, such as postings of students, drafting of time table, teaching and training schedule of students to be undertaken by the students of the College. One Unit of each of specified Departments from the College was posted at Railway Hospital for teaching the students and thus, the facilities of Railway Hospital were brought under the administrative control of the petitioner College as approved by the Ministry of Railways. It was also pointed out that two Medical Colleges in the country, which were similarly using Railway Hospital beds for teaching purposes without having administrative control over such Railway Hospitals, were recognised by the Medical Council of India. The names of two Colleges were furnished in the report. In short the report pointed out the steps taken to remove the deficiencies and also made out a case to consider the facilities available at the Government Mental Hospital and Railway Hospital at Nagpur for being clubbed to meet the prescribed requirement of seven hundred beds and grant recognition to the petitioner College. In short the report pointed out the steps taken to remove the deficiencies and also made out a case to consider the facilities available at the Government Mental Hospital and Railway Hospital at Nagpur for being clubbed to meet the prescribed requirement of seven hundred beds and grant recognition to the petitioner College. Another representation on the same lines was forwarded on 15-1-1997 to the Medical Council of India pleading that the petitioner College had all the teaching and other facilities sufficient to meet the needs of hundred students to be admitted and as was done in the past. However, the Medical Council of India vide its letter dated 21-3-1997 informed the Director, Medical Education and Research, Government of Maharashtra, Dental and Hospital Building, Mumbai, with a copy to the petitioner No. 3, that the Council in its meeting held on 27-2-1997 considered the compliance verification report on the physical and other teaching facilities available at N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Nagpur for the purpose of its recognition for the award of M.B.B.S. degree granted by Nagpur University and the following recommendations of the Executive Committee were communicated for information and necessary action : "The Executive Committee on going through the compliance verification report, decided to approve N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Nagpur for the award of M.B.B.S. degree granted by Nagpur University. However, the authorities be directed to reduce the number of admission from 100 to 50 from next academic session, i.e. 1997-98 in view of the deficiencies detected in the inspection report for 100 admissions. The Committee also decided that the institution may apply for increase of seats after fulfilling all the requirements, in case they so desire, as per provisions of the section 10-A of the I.M.C. Amendment Act, 1993." 11.Subsequently, by letter dated 9-4-1997, the Medical Council of India forwarded a copy of the compliance verification report of September/October, 1996 to the petitioner College for the first time. The Government of Maharashtra by its letter dated 30-4-1997 approached the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and requested to inform whether any notification is being issued in terms of the recommendation of the Medical Council of India reducing admission intake from hundred to fifty in the petitioner No. 3 College for the academic session 1997-98. The Government of Maharashtra by its letter dated 30-4-1997 approached the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and requested to inform whether any notification is being issued in terms of the recommendation of the Medical Council of India reducing admission intake from hundred to fifty in the petitioner No. 3 College for the academic session 1997-98. It was further requested to send the information as early as possible so as to enable the Government to issue necessary Government order in that regard. It is thus clear that the decision of the Medical Council of India taken in the meeting held on 27-2-1997 and as communicated by letter dated 21-3-1997 was treated by the Government of Maharashtra as recommendation and further orders from the Government of India were sought by way of notification. 12.Aggrieved by the decision as communicated vide letter dated 21-3-1997 by the Medical Council of India, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the instant petition seeking to quash the said letter. While the petition was pending, the Government of Maharashtra without receiving any final decision from the Government of India, issued notification dated 21-5-1997 and reduced the admission capacity of petitioner No. 3 College from hundred to fifty for the academic session 1997-98. The petition was subsequently amended and directions were sought restraining the Government of Maharashtra from implementing the impugned decision of Medical Council of India of reducing admission strength of students from hundred to fifty and also restoring the admission strength of petitioner College to hundred students by setting aside the notification dated 21-5-1997. The petitioners also pleaded that the provisions of sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C of the Indian Medical Council Act (I.M.C. Act) were not applicable to their College. 13.Before coming to the rival claims of the parties, it is also necessary to refer to the letter dated 31-3-1997 addressed by the M.C.I. to the petitioner college stating therein that-- (a) approval of the College means the College is recognised under Nagpur University; (b) the students of an Institution which is recognised/approved by the Council shall enjoy all the benefits of the recognised medical colleges; (c) as no date has been given regarding approval/recognition, it is understood that the recognition is retrospective; (d) the seats have been reduced from 100 to 50 from the academic session 1997-98. This letter was in reply to the fax letters dated 28th and 29th March 1997 of the petitioner College. There is yet another letter on record, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, a copy of which has been addressed to all the Universities. The said letter, inter alia, stated as under : "(a) It is hereby clarified for general information that under section 11(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, any medical qualification granted by a University or a Medical Institution in India, which is included in the First schedule, is a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of the said Act. Under section 11(2), any University or Medical Institution in India which grants medical qualifications not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government for such qualifications to be recognized and the Central Government after consulting the Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the first schedule to include the medical qualification therein. This means that under section 11(2), it is the Central Government, which recognises the medical qualification included in the First Schedule and not the M.C.I. which is only consulted by the Central Government. (b) Under section 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act, the Medical Council of India can represent to the Central Government that the facilities for instruction and training provided in any University or Medical Institution or any other College or any other Institution affiliated to that University do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council. After considering such a representation, the Central Government may send it to the State Government concerned and the State Government shall send it to the concerned University or College prescribing a period in which an explanation of that University or Medical Institution may be given to the State Government. The Central Government may after getting an explanation from the concerned institution through the State Government and making such other enquiry as they may think fit may withdraw recognition to the medical qualification if granted to students of a specified College or Institution affiliated to any University. This shows that withdrawal of recognition is also to be sent not by the Medical Council of India, but by the Central Government on representation made by the Council. This shows that withdrawal of recognition is also to be sent not by the Medical Council of India, but by the Central Government on representation made by the Council. Thus the question of recognition or de-recognition of any degree or medical College by the Medical Council of India does not arise." 14.The respondent No. 3 State of Maharashtra has appeared and filed its reply and has not denied the sequence of events leading to the present petition as stated hereinbefore. In its reply filed, Government of Maharashtra did not take any stand as to whether the decision of Medical Council of India as communicated vide letter dated 21-3-1997 was only recommendatory or it was a final decision of the Government of India. However, in the second affidavit filed by the Government of Maharashtra, it has been submitted that the Medical Council of India was competent to take a decision to reduce the strength from hundred to fifty and under Explanation 2 of section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council of India was the sole body to fix the admission capacity of any Medical College and accordingly decisions of the Medical Council of India reducing the admission capacity from hundred to fifty students for the academic year 1997-98 in respect of petitioner No. 3 was binding on the State of Maharashtra and the same has been implemented, notwithstanding its letter dated 30-4-1997 addressed to the Central Government enquiring about the notification to be issued on the recommendation of the Medical Council of India. 15.The Medical Council of India has appeared and filed its return opposing the petition. 15.The Medical Council of India has appeared and filed its return opposing the petition. The grounds for opposing are briefly as under: (a) Having given an Undertaking to reduce the admission capacity from hundred to fifty for the academic session 1997-98, the petitioner College is estopped from raising a grievance against the decision of the Medical Council of India; (b) The Amendment Act of 1993 incorporating sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C is applicable to the petitioner College even if the said College has been established in the year 1990-91; (c) Under Explanation 2 to section 10-A(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, the Medical Council of India has powers to fix number of admissions even in respect of the Colleges, which were already in existence as on 27-8-1992 or on 1-6-1992; (d) The provisions of section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 were not applicable to the petitioner College inasmuch as the M.B.B.S. degree as awarded by the Nagpur University is listed in the First Schedule of the Act as a recognised qualification; and (e) Even otherwise, in the absence of Amending Act of 1993, the petitioner College was required to be recognised by the Medical Council of India in view of the settled position of law as laid down by this Court in the case of (Dr. Rahul s/o Rajendra Mahajan and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, 1995(1) Mah.L.R. 116, and in terms of a combined reading of sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act. Rahul s/o Rajendra Mahajan and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, 1995(1) Mah.L.R. 116, and in terms of a combined reading of sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act. 16.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously urged that (a) the Medical Council of India a statutory body created under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is only a recommendatory body and it has only an authority to recommend recognition of a Medical College or Medical Institution to the Government of India and it is the Government of India alone, which has to decide whether to grant or not to grant recognition to any such College/Institution and this view has been supported by the Central Government vide its letter as quoted in para 13 above; (b) the petitioner College was established in the year 1990-91 and it was in existence as on 27-8-1992 and its application for recognition was forwarded to the Medical Council of India as early as in March/April 1991 and hence, the provisions of Amending Act of 1993 are not applicable to the petitioner College; (c) the Amending Act of 1993 has no retrospective effect and it cannot be made applicable to the Colleges/Institutions, which were started prior to 1st June, 1992; (d) the Government of Maharashtra after satisfying itself about the teaching and other infrastructural facilities had granted permission to admit hundred students and from the academic session 1990-91 to 1996-97, petitioner College had admitted hundred students every year and hence, there was no justification on the part of the Medical Council of India to reduce the admission capacity from hundred to fifty and more so, even after its letter, dated 25-11-1993, the Medical Council of India had never recommended to reduce the admission capacity during the intervening period; (e) the compliance verification report of September/October, 1996 submitted by the Inspectors of Medical Council of India was clearly in favour of the petitioner College to continue with hundred students admission capacity and the said report has not been considered by the Medical Council of India while taking decision of reducing the admission capacity of the petitioner No. 3 College to fifty seats. 17.The questions, which are required to be decided by us in the present petition are : (a) Whether the amending Indian Medical Council Act, 1993 incorporating sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C is applicable to the present petitioner College, which started for the first time in the year 1990-91 and whose application for recognition/approval by the Medical Council of India was pending since March/April, 1991. (b)Whether the petitioner No. 3, College was required to seek approval/recognition from the Medical Council of India prior to Amendment Act of 1993 in pursuance of the scheme of sections 17,18 and 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. (c) Whether the M.C.I. while deciding to reduce the admission capacity from hundred to fifty has considered the compliance verification report of September/October, 1996 submitted by its own team of Inspectors and whether the said report justifies such reduction and whether the decision of the M.C.I. suffers from being arbitrary. (d) Whether the action of the Government of Maharashtra in reducing the admission capacity of the petitioner College from hundred to fifty students for the academic year 1997-98 by following the decision of M.C.I. is legal. (e) Whether the petitioners are estopped from challenging the decision of the M.C.I. to reduce the admission capacity in view of the Undertaking furnished on 10-1-1997 ? 18.For deciding the contentious issues, it is necessary to consider the provisions of the I.M.C. Act, 1956. The provisions, which are relevant for the petition are sections 2, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 33. Section 2 deals with the definitions and those relevant for the present purpose are reproduced herein below ; (a) "approved institution" means a hospital, health control or other such institution recognised by a University as an institution in which a person may undergo the training if any, required by his course of study before the award of any medical qualification to him; (b) "Council" means the Medical Council of India constituted under this Act; (e) "medical institution "means any institution, within or without India, which grants degrees, diplomas or licences in medicine; (h) "recognised medical qualifications" means any of the medical qualifications included in the schedules; Section 11 deals with recognition of medical qualifications granted by any University or medical institution in India. The First Schedule to the Act enlists medical qualifications granted by the Universities or Medical Institutions in India, which have been recognised. The First Schedule to the Act enlists medical qualifications granted by the Universities or Medical Institutions in India, which have been recognised. Sub-section (2) of section 11 provides for recognition to any other University or Medical Institution in India, which grants medical qualification and which is not included in the First Schedule. Section 16 pertains to the power to require information as to course of study and examinations to be undergone in order to obtain such medical qualifications, whereas section 17 deals with inspection of examinations. As per this section, the M.C.I. has the authority to appoint team of Inspectors as it may deem requisite to inspect any Medical Institution/College/Hospital or any other Institution where medical education is given or to attend any examination held by any University or Medical Institution for the purpose of recommending to the Central Government recognition of medical qualification granted by that University or Medical Institution. Section 18 empowers the Council to appoint such number of visitors as it may deem requisite to inspect any Medical Institution/College/Hospital or other Institution where medical education is given or to attend any examination held by any University or Medical Institution for the purpose of granting recognised medical qualification. Section 19 pertains to withdrawal of recognition and a detailed procedure in that regard has been set out. As per sub-section (1) the M.C.I. is required to submit a report to the Central Government and sub-sections (2) and (3) deal with the procedure to be followed and subsequent action on the report submitted by the M.C.I. by the Central Government, whereas sub-section (4) empowers the Central Government, inter alia that medical qualification if granted to the students of a specified College or Institution affiliated to any University shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted before a specified date or, as the case may be, that the said medical qualification, shall be a recognised medical qualification in relation to a specified College or Institution affiliated to any University only when granted after a specified date. Section 33 empowers the Council to frame regulations on the subjects listed therein. Section 33 empowers the Council to frame regulations on the subjects listed therein. 19.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner College submitted that an application for recognition approval as contemplated before the amendment of 1993 in terms of combined reading of sections 11, 17 and 19 and as prescribed by the M.C.I., was forwarded with requisite fees in March/April, 1991 and the Amendment Act of 1993 was not in picture at the relevant time. From the documents brought on, record, it appears that the M.C.I. was considering the Application for recognition/approval submitted by the petitioner College as per the I.M.C. Act, 1956 prior to its amendment in 1993 or in short, in keeping with the requirements prior to 27-8-1992. While the application of the petitioner College was pending for approval/recognition by the M.C.I., Government of India issued an Ordinance namely, Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 1992 to amend the I.M.C. Act, 1956 by incorporating therein provisions for prior permission of the Central Government for establishing any new Medical College or for starting any new Medical College or for starting any new or higher course of study or increasing admission capacity in any course of study or training including post graduation studies in any existing Medical College. A Bill to replace Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 1992 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha during the Winter Session of Parliament and the Bill was passed by Rajya Sabha on 22nd December 1992. However, the Bill could not be considered and passed by the Lok Sabha and hence, Government of India was of the considered view that it was in the public interest that the provisions of the said Ordinance should be continued to be in force and accordingly Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 (Ordinance II of 1993) was promulgated by the President of India on 2nd January, 1993. The Bill was passed and the Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993 (31 of 1993) was made effective from 27-8-1992, which incorporated sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C in the original Act of 1956. The Bill was passed and the Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993 (31 of 1993) was made effective from 27-8-1992, which incorporated sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C in the original Act of 1956. The amended provisions read as under : "10-A. Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study etc.---(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force-- (a) no person shall establish a medical college; or (b) no medical college shall- (i) open a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognised medical qualification; or (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training). except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the, provision of this section. Explanation 1.---For the purposes of this section, "person" includes any University or a trust but does not include the Central Government. Explanation 2.---For the purposes of this section, "admission capacity", in relation to any course of study or training (including Post graduate course of study or training) in a medical college, means the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being admitted to such course or training. (2) (a) Every person or medical college shall, for the purpose of obtaining permission under sub-section (1), submits to the Central Government a scheme in accordance with the provisions of Clause (b) and the Central Government shall refer the scheme to the Council for its recommendations. (b) The scheme referred to in Clause (a) shall be in such form and contain such particulars and be preferred in such manner and be accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed. (b) The scheme referred to in Clause (a) shall be in such form and contain such particulars and be preferred in such manner and be accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of a scheme by the Council under sub-section (2), the Council may obtain such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or the medical college concerned, and thereafter, it may--- (a) if the scheme is defective and does not contain any necessary particulars, give a reasonable opportunity to the person or college concerned for making a written representation and it shall be open to such person or medical college to rectify the defects if any, specified by the Council; (b) consider the scheme, having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7) and submit the scheme together with its recommendations thereon to the Central Government. (4) The Central Government may, after considering the scheme and the recommendations of the Council under sub-section (3) and after obtaining where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or college concerned and having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7) either approve (with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall be a permission under sub-section (1): Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent any person or medical college whose scheme has not been approved by the Central Government to submit a fresh scheme and the provisions of this section shall apply to such scheme, as if such scheme has been submitted for the first time under sub-section (2). (5) Where, within a period of one year from the date of submission of the scheme to the Central Government under sub-section (2) no order passed by the Central Government has been communicated to the person or college submitting the scheme, such scheme shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Government in the form in which it had been submitted, and, accordingly the permission of the Central Government required under sub-section (1) shall also be deemed to have been granted. (6) In computing the time-limit specified in sub-section (5), the time taken by the person or college concerned submitting the scheme, in furnishing any particulars called for by the Council, or by the Central Government, shall be excluded. (7) the Council, while making its recommendations under Clause (b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub-section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors, namely :--- (a) whether the proposed medical college or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training, would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of medical education as prescribed by the Council under section 19-A or, as the case may be, under section 20 in the case of postgraduate medical education. (b) Whether the person seeking to establish a medical college or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training or to increase its admission capacity has adequate financial resources; (c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical college or conducting the new course of study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time limit specified in the scheme; (d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number of students likely to attend such medical college or course of study or training or as a result of the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme; (e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn to impart proper training to students, likely to attend such medical college or course of study or training by person having the recognised medical qualifications; (f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine; and (g) any other factors as may be prescribed. (8) Where the Central Government passes an order either approving or disapproving a scheme under this section a copy of the order shall be communicated to the person or college concerned. (8) Where the Central Government passes an order either approving or disapproving a scheme under this section a copy of the order shall be communicated to the person or college concerned. 10-B. Non-recognition of medical qualifications in certain cases,---(1) Where any medical college is established except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 10-A, no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college shall be recognised medical qualification for the purpose of this Act. (2) Where any medical college opens a new or higher course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 10-A), no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of such study or training shall be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act. (3) Where any medical college increases its admission capacity in any course of study or training except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 10-A, no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of the increase in its admission capacity shall be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act. Explanation.---For the purposes of this section, the criteria for identifying a student who has been granted a medical qualification on the basis of such increase in the admission capacity shall be such as may be prescribed. Explanation.---For the purposes of this section, the criteria for identifying a student who has been granted a medical qualification on the basis of such increase in the admission capacity shall be such as may be prescribed. 10-C. Time for seeking permission for certain existing medical colleges, etc.---(1) If, after the 1st day of June, 1992 and on and before the commencement of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993 any person has established a medical college or any medical college has opened a new or higher course of study or training or increase the admission capacity, such person or medical college, as the case may be, shall seek within a period of one year from the commencement of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993, the permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 10-A. (2) If any person or medical college, as the case may be, fails to seek the permission under sub-section (1) the provisions of section 10-B shall apply, so far as may be, as if, permission of the Central Government under section 10-A has been refused." 20.The Government of Maharashtra has published Rules. Application form and other information for admission to Medical and Dental Courses, 1997-98. All the details regarding admission capacity and break up of admission under various categories have also been set out in the booklet. In the State of Maharashtra, there are in all 30 Medical Colleges, out of which seven are un-recognised Colleges by the Medical Council of India. The petitioner college has also been shown as one of the un-recognised Colleges in the said Rules for 1997-98 notwithstanding the fact that by the decision as communicated vide letter dated 21-3-1997, the said College has been recognised by the Medical Council of India. In addition, its admission capacity has been reduced from hundred to fifty for the academic year 1997-98. 21.It is clear that the petitioner is not a Medical Institution as defined under section 2(e) of the Indian Medical Council Act and the M.B.B.S. degree granted by the Nagpur University is a recognised qualification enlisted in the First Schedule to the Act. In view of this factual position. 21.It is clear that the petitioner is not a Medical Institution as defined under section 2(e) of the Indian Medical Council Act and the M.B.B.S. degree granted by the Nagpur University is a recognised qualification enlisted in the First Schedule to the Act. In view of this factual position. Shri Bhangde, the learned Counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India, opposed the contentions of the petitioner College that it had applied for recognition/approval by the Medical Council of India as required under section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act. Even if it is agreed that the submissions of Shri Bhangde are correct, the scheme of the Act as reflected on a combined reading of sections 11, 16, 17 and 19 suggests that even a Medical College affiliated to a University whose degree is a recognised qualification enlisted in the First Schedule to the Act, is required to obtain recognition/approval from the Medical Council of India. The Medical Council of India has laid down recommendations on Graduate Medical Education and it distinguishes between a recognised Medical College and an unrecognised Medical College. A Division Bench of this Court in para (11) of the judgment in the case of Dr. Rahul Mahajan and others (supra) has observed as under : "As indicated above, there are only two recognised College in the Marathwada area and as per sections 11(1), 17, 18 and 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act, the unrecognised colleges have not been approved by the Medical Council of India because the formalities contemplated under these provisions have not been completed. It is indeed a fact that the M.B.B.S. degree of Marathwada University is mentioned in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act. The degree by the Marathwada University is a recognised degree, but it has been pointed out that the Medical Council of India has not been satisfied with the standards of instruction, equipment, accommodation and staff provided in Nanded Medical College. There is, therefore, no recognition and under section 19(4), the Medical Council can prescribe as to when the M.B.B.S. degree could be legally conferred to the students of recognised institutions. Under the above provisions, the Medical Council of India is authorised to appoint a Committee and also appoint a number of visitors to the Medical Colleges etc. There is, therefore, no recognition and under section 19(4), the Medical Council can prescribe as to when the M.B.B.S. degree could be legally conferred to the students of recognised institutions. Under the above provisions, the Medical Council of India is authorised to appoint a Committee and also appoint a number of visitors to the Medical Colleges etc. They have to report about the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities prescribed for giving medical education or the sufficiency of every examination. This is for the purposes of granting recognition to the Medical Colleges. If the standards are below the prescribed standards, the Medical Council has to report to the Central Government which in turn has to seek explanation from the State Government, in regard to the inadequacy in the requirements of the College. It is only thereafter that the Central Government can authorise issuing of qualifying degrees to students of a specified college. It is nowhere in evidence that such an enquiry was carried out in regard to the Nanded Government Medical College. On the other hand, the report to which we have referred above clearly shows that there is a strong opposition to approval by the Medical Council of India so far as Nanded Government Medical College is concerned." Similar is the case in the present petition. The petitioner college had applied to the Medical Council of India for approval/recognition by following the requisite procedure as advised by the Medical Council of India and after the first inspection report of September, 1993 in respect of petitioner College, by letter dated 25-11-1993 issued by the Medical Council of India, the Registrar of Nagpur University was informed that the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India decided not to approve N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Nagpur for award of M.B.B.S. degree granted by Nagpur University because of the gross deficiencies pointed out by the Council Inspectors in their inspection report. This goes to show that there was an opposition by the Medical Council of India for granting approval to the petitioner college. The same situation continued till the year 1996-97. We, therefore hold that this pending application of the petitioner College made in March/April, 1991 for approval/recognition by the Medical Council of India was under the scheme of Indian Medical Council Act prior to its amendment in 1993. The same situation continued till the year 1996-97. We, therefore hold that this pending application of the petitioner College made in March/April, 1991 for approval/recognition by the Medical Council of India was under the scheme of Indian Medical Council Act prior to its amendment in 1993. The submission of Shri Bhangde, the learned Counsel appearing for, Medical Council of India, that the petitioner College has not made any application for approval/recognition or it was not required to make such an application cannot be accepted. 22.Shri Bhandge further submitted that the amendment of 1993 is applicable to the petitioner College and it is the Medical Council of India alone that can fix the admission capacity under Explanation 2 of section 10-A(1) of the I.M.C. Act notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner College was existing prior to such amendment i.e. prior to 27-8-1992 and three batches of M.B.B.S. admissions were already completed by the petitioner College with an admission capacity of hundred students. Mr. Kukade, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of State of Maharashtra has supported the arguments of the Medical Council of India to the extent that minimum capacity of admissions is required to be fixed by the Medical Council of India alone and its decision as communicated to the State Government on 21-3-1997 in respect of the petitioner College has been accepted and implemented by the Government, without awaiting any final notification by the Central Government though letter dated 30-4-1997 was addressed by the State Government to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. As stated hereinabove, Shri Deshpande the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has opposed these submissions and submitted that amendments of 1993 have no application to any Medical College, which was established at any time prior to 1st June, 1992 and the decision of the Medical Council of India as communicated by its letter dated 21-3-1997 is only recommendatory in nature and it cannot become a decision of the Government of India unless a notification to that effect has been issued by the Government of India. Shri Deshpande has further submitted that the Medical Council of India has the authority to grant approval/recognition, but it has no authority to grant such conditional approval/recognition. Shri Deshpande has further submitted that the Medical Council of India has the authority to grant approval/recognition, but it has no authority to grant such conditional approval/recognition. Once the admission capacity of the petitioner College was fixed by the Government of Maharashtra at hundred seats and the same was followed for six consecutive years, it was not within the competence of Medical Council of India to slash down the admission capacity from hundred to fifty and the said decision taken by the Medical Council of India does not reflect the true spirit of the compliance verification report submitted by its own team of Inspectors in September/October, 1996, urges the learned Counsel for the petitions. It is further submitted that the decision of the Government of Maharashtra in reducing the admission capacity of the petitioner College was premature and the Government of Maharashtra was not justified and it has acted arbitrarily in that regard. The Government of Maharashtra ought to have waited for a notification from the Government of India pursuant to the impugned decision of M.C.I. 23.Shri Bhangde in support of his contention that the Amendment Act of 1993 is applicable to the present petitioner College has relied upon a recent unreported judgment of the Karnataka High Court (Single Bench) in the case of (A Citizen of India v. State of Karnataka and others. More particularly, our attention has been invited to paras 61 and 62 of the said judgment. However, if we take into consideration the facts of the case before the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court, it will be clear that the learned Single Judge was considering an alarming situation prevailing in the State of Karnataka regarding increased admission capacity in each Medical College. It appears from the facts of that case that the Medical Council of India had already prescribed a certain admission capacity for all the Medical Colleges and the State Government went on increasing the said admission capacity from time to time. A public interest litigation came to be filed before the Karnataka High Courts and it was in that context that the learned Judge made the following observations in paragraphs (61) and (62) : "61. A public interest litigation came to be filed before the Karnataka High Courts and it was in that context that the learned Judge made the following observations in paragraphs (61) and (62) : "61. Now the material and the crucial question is as to whether the admission capacity of a Medical College as fixed on or before 1-6-1992 by State Government will form the benchmark for finding out the increase therein for the purpose of applying regulatory provisions contained in section 10-A of the Central Act or the admission capacities fixed by the Council, with reference to the minimum standard of medical education prescribed under section 19-A of the said Act, will form the benchmark for the said purpose." "62. In my opinion, the Parliament having fully delved into the said aspect, has very clearly provided that it is the admission capacity which has been fixed by the Council, will form the benchmark for the purpose of section 10-A of the Central Act. It is so because of the Explanation 2 to section 10-A(1) of the said Act which provides that for the purposes of the said section "admission capacity" means the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being admitted to the medical course in a given college. The Parliament has not given any credence to the admission capacities or intakes fixed by any State Government or the Universities which was for the obvious reasons, as noticed in the statement of objects and reasons of the Amendment, namely, that the State Governments were not adhering to the requirements of maintaining even the minimum standard of medical education while fixing the admission capacities and were working under various pressures. Therefore, it has to be conclusively held that it is the admission capacity which is fixed by the Council from time to time will form the benchmark for determining any increase therein for the purposes of section 10-A(1) requiring previous permission from the Central Government and any violation thereof will visit the consequences envisaged under section 10-B(3) of the Central Act." To appreciate the true spirit and context of the above observations, it is necessary to refer to para 53, 54 and 55 of that judgment. "53. "53. A bare reading of section 10-A(1)(b)(ii) as also 10-C(3) clearly shows that no Medical College can increase its admission capacity in any course of study and training except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) to (8) of section 10-A." "58. Now turning to the object of the Central Amendment Act of 1993 and the provision contained in section 10-A(10 thereof, it becomes more than evident that the Parliament has simultaneously taken over three more aspects of medical education in its fold with effect from 1-6-1992 completely denuding the State Legislature to have any authority in respect of those. These are-- (I) Establishment of new Medical Colleges; (II) opening of new or higher course of study or training in medical colleges established before 1-6-92, and, (III) Increase in admission capacity of Medical Colleges established before 1-6-92." "55. In the present proceedings we are concerned with the third aspect as noticed above ......... 23-A) In the instant case we are not concerned with the issue of increase in admission capacity of the petitioner College. We are, therefore, of the considered view that reliance of the learned Counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India on the above observations is misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court did not hold that Amendment of 1993 is applicable to a Medical College established at any time prior to 1st June, 1992 and whose application for approval was pending with the Medical Council of India for its approval. A bare reading of provisions of section 10-C of the Indian Medical Council Act clearly suggests that the amended provisions, namely, sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C will not be applicable to a Medical College, which has been established at any time prior to 1st June, 1992. A very same subject came up for decision before a Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of (Syed Welayat Hussain and others etc. v. State of Bihar and others)2, A.I.R. 1995 Patna 17. In para 28 of the said judgment, it is held as under:-- "It is correct to contend that the provisions of the Amending Act of 1992 being prospective in nature, the same will have no application in relation to the Institutions which had already been established. v. State of Bihar and others)2, A.I.R. 1995 Patna 17. In para 28 of the said judgment, it is held as under:-- "It is correct to contend that the provisions of the Amending Act of 1992 being prospective in nature, the same will have no application in relation to the Institutions which had already been established. There cannot be any doubt that a Statute is presumed to have prospective operation unless it is given retrospective operation expressly or by necessary implication." In this regard we may also refer to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (T.K.V.T.S.S. Medical Education Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu and others)3, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2384 : 1996(3) S.C.C. 15 , wherein it was, inter alia observed- "It would thus appear that in section 10-A, Parliament has made a complete and exhaustive provision covering the entire field for establishing of new Medical Colleges in the country." We are in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down by the Patna High Court (supra) and we hold that the schedule of the amended Act, i.e. sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C was not applicable to the petitioner College when its application for approval/recognition by the Medical Council of India was pending and the Medical Council of India was required to consider the said application as per the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act prior to its amendment in 1993. 24.Shri Bhangde has also invited our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of Punjab and others v. Renuka Singla and others)4, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 595 : J.T. 1993(6) S.C. 524 in support of his contention that it is the Medical Council of India alone, which is authorised to decide admission capacity in any Medical College, whether established before 1-6-1992 or thereafter. The learned Counsel more specifically relied upon the observations of the Apex Court in para 8 of the said judgment, which reads as under: "8. The admission in Medical Course throughout India is governed by different statutory provisions including regulations framed under different Acts. During last several years, efforts have been made to regulate the admissions to the different medical institutions, in order to achieve academic excellence. The admission in Medical Course throughout India is governed by different statutory provisions including regulations framed under different Acts. During last several years, efforts have been made to regulate the admissions to the different medical institutions, in order to achieve academic excellence. But, at the same time, a counter attempt is also apparent and discernible, by which the candidates, who are not able to get admissions against the seats fixed by different statutory authorities, file writ applications and interim or final directions are given to admit such petitioners. We fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or this Court can be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations, in respect of admissions of students. It cannot be disputed that technical education, including medical education, requires infrastructure to cope with the requirement of giving proper education to the students, who are admitted. Taking into consideration the infrastructure, equipment, staff, the limit of the number of admissions is fixed either by the Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India. The High Court cannot disturb that balance between the capacity of the, institution and number of admissions, on "compassionate ground". The High Court should be conscious of the fact that in this process they are affecting the education of the students who have already been admitted, against the fixed seats, after a very tough competitive examination. According to us there does not appear to be any justification on the part of the High Court, in the present case, to direct admission of respondent No. 1 on "compassionate ground" and to issue a flat to create an additional seat which amounts to a direction to violate section 10-A and section 10-B(3) of the Dentists Act referred to above." In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the power of the High Court to grant admission or increase admission capacity on some pretext or the other and for the reasons like compassionate ground, etc. The facts of that case also indicated that the admission under challenge pertained to year 1992-93 in B.D.S. course and the High Court order was passed on 18-10-1992. The facts of that case also indicated that the admission under challenge pertained to year 1992-93 in B.D.S. course and the High Court order was passed on 18-10-1992. The High Court had directed admission to be given in excess of admission capacity and it was in these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that a counter attempt is also apparent and discernible by which the candidates, who are not able to get admissions against the seats fixed by different statutory authorities, file writ applications and interim or final directions are given to admit such petitioners. The Supreme Court further held that taking into consideration the infrastructure, equipment and staff, the limit of the number of admissions is fixed either by the Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India and the High Court cannot disturb that balance between the capacity of the institution and number of the admissions, on compassionate ground. We are afraid the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 25.Even if it is accepted that the Medical Council of India is a statutory body for granting approval to a new Medical college established prior to 1st June, 1992, we do not see any provision, vesting authority in the Medical Council of India to grant conditional approval. The Medical Council of India may say that it either grants approval or does not grant approval to a particular Medical College. In the instant case, on a plan reading of its letter dated 21-3-1997 it is clear that the Medical Council of India has granted approval to the petitioner College at the first instance and by way of additional step, it has called upon the petitioner college to reduce its admission capacity from hundred to fifty seats for the academic year 1997-98. However, it does not appear from the said letter that the Medical Council of India has specifically conveyed its decision that approval is granted to the petitioner college only if it reduces its admission capacity from hundred to fifty seats. 25-A. Under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, prior to its amendment of 1993, the power of Medical Council of India regarding granting approval/recognition to a newly established Medical College/Institution is well settled. However, it is difficult to accept the proposition that the said power is a clubbed or integrated power for determining the admission capacity. 25-A. Under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, prior to its amendment of 1993, the power of Medical Council of India regarding granting approval/recognition to a newly established Medical College/Institution is well settled. However, it is difficult to accept the proposition that the said power is a clubbed or integrated power for determining the admission capacity. As observed earlier, the Medical Council of India may reject or grant approval/recognition to a new Medical College/Institution, but it may not be entitled to say that approval/recognition is granted subject to reduction in the prevailing admission capacity or admission which has been decided by a University/State Government prior to 1-6--1992 and such decision of the University/State Government does not suffer from any legal infirmity. In the instant case also, the Medical Council of India vide its letter dated 25-11-1993 communicated its decision not to grant approval/recognition to the petitioner No. 3 college, whereas by its impugned decision of February, 1997, it granted approval and directed the college to reduce the admission capacity from hundred to fifty students for the academic year 1997-98. Such an integrated/duel action is not envisaged under the scheme of the Act prior to its amendment in 1993 and such a decision of the Medical Council of India may not be binding on the Central Government in each case. 26.As referred to hereinabove, the M.C.I. refused approval to the petitioner college and communicated the same by its letter dated 25-11-1993, but it did not put any restriction on the petitioner college regarding admissions to the M.B.B.S. course inasmuch as the admission capacity was not reduced. This may indicate that the M.C.I. was aware of its role as an advisory and regulatory body controlling the standards of medical education and that the colleges established prior to 1-6-1992 were not within the ambit of the amended provisions, viz, section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act, 1956. This may indicate that the M.C.I. was aware of its role as an advisory and regulatory body controlling the standards of medical education and that the colleges established prior to 1-6-1992 were not within the ambit of the amended provisions, viz, section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act, 1956. The college was allowed to admit 100 students in the consecutive four years 1993-94 to 1996-97 and neither the M.C.I. nor the State Government has taken cognizance of the letter dated 25-11-1993 issued by the M.C.I. 27.The compliance report of September/October, 1996 prepared by the expert team of M.C.I. itself was not available to the petitioner college at any time prior to issuing of letters dated 22-12-1996 or 21-3-1997 by the M.C.I. and it is evident that the said report does not seem to have been taken into considerations by the M.C.I. while deciding to reduce the admission capacity from 100 to 50 seats. We are conscious of the fact that the M.C.I. is an expert body created under the I.M.C. Act, 1956 and it is the sole competent body to decide, recommend and lay down the standard and other terms and conditions governing the medical education throughout the country. It is also an established legal position that so far as new colleges are concerned (colleges established on or after 1-6-1992), the admission capacity is decided only by the M.C.I. and no University or State Government has powers in that regard (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2384). We are also aware that this Court has no powers to sit in appeal over the decisions of M.C.I. in these matters. However, it is apparent from the record that the inspection and compliance reports were prepared from time to time after the letter dated 25-11-1993 was issued and the M.C.I., perhaps rightly so, has given opportunities to the petitioner college to remove the deficiencies and create infrastructure and the teaching facilities to the standards expected and required for 100 students admission to the M.B.B.S. Course. A perusal of the compliance report of September/October, 1996 undoubtedly indicates that the petitioner-college has taken all the possible steps to remove the deficiencies in almost all the major area like teaching staff and providing of beds etc. A perusal of the compliance report of September/October, 1996 undoubtedly indicates that the petitioner-college has taken all the possible steps to remove the deficiencies in almost all the major area like teaching staff and providing of beds etc. This is more evident from the letters dated 11-1-1997 and 15-1-1997 written by the college to the M.C.I. More importantly, the compliance report of September/October, 1996 submitted by the Team of M.C.I. is more or less in favour of the college in these major areas. In the reply filed by the M.C.I., there is no mention about the merits or demerits of this report, hence we are afraid, this vital report does seem to have either escaped the attention of the M.C.I. or it was not placed before its Executive Committee Meeting held on 7-2-1997. 28.It is also ironical to note that the M.C.I. and State of Maharashtra allowed the college to continue with 100 seats admissions continuously from the year 1990-91 to 1996-97 in spite of major deficiencies and these deficients have been undoubtedly removed as per the compliance report of September/October 1996. The college was allowed to admit 100 students when the infrastructure and other facilities like teaching staff and beds etc., were not adequate and when the college has removed these deficiencies, the M.C.I. has decided to reduce the admission capacity to 50 seats. This shows total non-application of mind and arbitrariness on the part of the M.C.I. and the State of Maharashtra. Added to this is the letter dated 31-3-1997 by the M.C.I. stating, inter alia, that the approval granted by it to the petitioner college was retrospective, that is, from the year 1990-91 when the college was established. On one hand by its earlier letter dated 25-11-1993, the M.C.I. has rejected approval to the petitioner college and it did not itself reduce the admission capacity in spite of its decision as well as the deficiencies shown in the reports till July, 1996. The college, therefore, continued to admit 100 students to the M.B.B.S. course every year. With the retrospective approval to the petitioner college by the M.C.I., all the graduates who passed out from this college are deemed to have passed from a recognised college though, as per the M.C.I. the deficiencies shown in the inspection as well as compliance reports did not warrant approval/recognition of the said college. With the retrospective approval to the petitioner college by the M.C.I., all the graduates who passed out from this college are deemed to have passed from a recognised college though, as per the M.C.I. the deficiencies shown in the inspection as well as compliance reports did not warrant approval/recognition of the said college. On the other hand, while the college has not removed almost all the major deficiencies and the compliance report of September/October 1996 is in favour of the college, the M.C.I. has chosen to reduce the admission capacity from 100 to 50 seats while granting approval to the petitioner college. When better facilities for imparting medical education and training are made available by the petitioners, the M.C.I. has decided to reduce the admission capacity without considering the compliance report of its own team of Inspectors. 29.Some of the major remarks in the compliance report of September/October, 1996 made by the team of M.C.I. deserve to be highlighted at this juncture. "(A) The total number of teaching beds in Medical College Hospital are now 330 and the distribution of beds in various hospitals attached to the college are now as follows: A detailed chart of beds available with and attached to the petitioner college have been shown and these beds exceed the figure of 700. (B) The OPD facilities at the College Hospital have improved and further expansion of OPD building is in the process. On the date of inspection, improvement in General Medicine, General Surgery, ENT, Skin and STD varied from 30 to 50 per cent. It was good in orthopaedics, paediatrics, obst., and gynaecology. OPDs have been provided with teaching areas; supportive services and the sound proofing of audiometery have been completed. "Patients waiting area need more benches." (C) Staff shortage is now extremely marginal and the college has more or less the prescribed employment of teaching staff for 100 admissions. (D) A casualty with 5 beds emergency ward is working in Digdoh Hills. It has all ancilliary facilities and it is working round the clock with Chief Medical Officer in 8 hours shift. Medically legal cases are redirected to Government Medical College or Indira Gandhi Medical College since the College Hospital is about 1 km. away from the main road and it will take time for the clinical attendance to pick up. In the meantime, a free shuttle service is being provided towards the same road. Medically legal cases are redirected to Government Medical College or Indira Gandhi Medical College since the College Hospital is about 1 km. away from the main road and it will take time for the clinical attendance to pick up. In the meantime, a free shuttle service is being provided towards the same road. A-5 beds I.C.U. and I.C.C.U. is also working near the O.P.D. At present, 11 OTs are working; 6 in Sitabuldi and 5 in Digdoh hospital. Every surgical speciality has a separate OT except for orthopaedic's and E.N.T. and all the OTs are with air-conditioning and proper ancillary and supportive facilities. (E) The college has full complement of 700 beds required for 100 admission, if only hospitals beds are accepted towards teaching beds. Ministry of Railways has allowed to quote their approval regarding the administrative control in regard to academic needs of education such as posting of students, drawing of time table for the students to be undertaken by the Dean of the N.K.P. Salve Institute, in consultation with the Chief Medical Superintendent, Railway Hospital, Nagpur. This hospital is also recognised by the M.C.I. for housemanship in Medicine, Surgery, Obst, and Gync. and paediatrics in 1982. The colleges have further assured us that the required complements of 700 teaching beds for 100 admissions will be made available by March 1997 under one roof and the authorities are making constant efforts to increase the attendance both in OPD and indoor. We are also informed that they are making efforts to bring the hospital to E.S.I. finally since this area is surrounded by this unit." 30.It is thus seen from the observations made by the team of experts of M.C.I. that the college had removed the deficiencies and was able to provide the facilities sufficient enough for 100 admissions. Shri Bhangade, the learned Counsel for the M.C.I. has invited our attention to the following observations made in the compliance report of September/October 1996 and contended that the decision of M.C.I. to reduce the admission capacity from 100 to 50 seats was justified solely on that ground. "The college should try to adopt more villages around and the Doctors make a daily round of these villages in the morning bringing patients who require treatment and admissions to the college. This will not only generate growth but also draw enough clinical material. "The college should try to adopt more villages around and the Doctors make a daily round of these villages in the morning bringing patients who require treatment and admissions to the college. This will not only generate growth but also draw enough clinical material. The clinical material has improved as was told to us but it is still not adequate for 100 admissions." We are afraid this observation by the experts cannot be read in isolation and the compliance report will have to be assessed in totality and after so assessed, we are of the view that it goes in favour of the petitioner college and supports its contention that the facilities provided were adequate for 100 admissions and much better qualitatively and quantitatively as compared to the earlier facilities. 31.Mr. Deshpande, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on enquiry, candidly stated that the building construction is under progress so as to provide 700 beds under one roof and though this building could not be completed by the end of March, 1997, he has assured the Court that the construction work will be over by December, 1997 and the petitioners are taking all the steps to fulfil this commitment. Shri Deshpande, in the alternative submitted that even the beds made available at the Railway Hospital and Government Hospital at Nagpur are required to be considered by the M.C.I. for the purpose of counting 700 beds because these are all facilities available with the State hospital and the State is bound to extend such help to the newly established private Medical Colleges. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of (Unni Krishan, J.P. v. State of A.P.)6, reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178: "Again aid may take several forms. For example a Medical College does necessarily require a hospital. We are told that for a 100 seat Medical College, there must be a fully equipped 700 bed hospital. Then alone the Medical College can be allowed to function. A private Medical College may not have or may not establish a hospital of its own. For example a Medical College does necessarily require a hospital. We are told that for a 100 seat Medical College, there must be a fully equipped 700 bed hospital. Then alone the Medical College can be allowed to function. A private Medical College may not have or may not establish a hospital of its own. It may request the Government and the Government may permit it to avail of the services of a Government Hospital for the purpose of the college free of charge ....." Though this observation of the Apex Court was in regard to the private educational institutions which were aided by the State, they are equally applicable to the non aided private educational institutions as well, urges the learned Counsel for the petitioners. There is sufficient merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel and we, therefore, agree that the Medical Council ought to have considered the Additional facilities made available by the Railway Hospital and the Government Hospital at Nagpur for the petitioner College established when the administrative control has been agreed to be given to the petitioner college as observed by the team of Experts of M.C.I. in its compliance report of September/October, 1996. 32.There is one more aspect which requires to be considered. The Government of Maharashtra had granted permission to the petitioner No. 1 Society to establish the petitioner No. 3 College with admission capacity of 100 seats relying upon an order passed by this Court in Notice of Motion No. 1911 of 1989 in Writ Petition No. 1545 of 1984 and the terms and conditions as stipulated therein were also made applicable to the present petitioner as is clear from the State Government order dated 22-6-1990. It is not the case of the M.C.I. at any stage that either the Nagpur University or the Government of Maharashtra was not authorised in fixing the number of admission capacity of the petitioner No. 3 college prior to the amendments of 1993 in the I.M.C. Act 1956. We have already held that as the petitioner college was established prior to 1-6-1992 section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act is not applicable to the said college and the authority of the State Government in fixing the admission capacity of 100 seats has not been challenged by the M.C.I. under the Scheme of the I.M.C. Act prior to its amendment in 1993. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted, and rightly so, that prior to the amendment of 1993, the M.C.I. had admittedly the powers of granting approval/recognition to any new Medical College though it was affiliated to a University which was enlisted in the First Schedule of the Act, the M.C.I. did not have the powers to reduce the admission capacity once the same was fixed by the State Government in consultation with the University concerned and for 6 years the College was allowed to admit 100 students to the M.B.B.S. Course. The petitioner college has submitted to the directions given by the M.C.I. and taken due steps to remove the deficiencies, as pointed out, in the major areas like Teaching staff and number of beds which seems to have escaped the attention of the Executive Committee of M.C.I. as observed by us earlier. 33.We, therefore, for the reasons stated hereinabove hold that the decision of the M.C.I. in reducing the admission capacity from 100 to 50 seats is arbitrary and without application of mind to the facts on record. We are also convinced that the compliance report of September/October, 1996 and the all round facilities provided by the petitioner college as stated in its letters dated 11-1-1997 and 15-1-1997 do not seem to have been considered by the M.C.I. while taking the said decision. The M.C.I. is required to reconsider its decision of reducing the admission capacity of the petitioner college in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 34.The Government of Maharashtra by its own order dated 22-6-1990 had fixed the admission capacity of the petitioner college at 100 seats and the same was allowed to be continued till 1996-97. Solely in pursuance of the impugned decision of the M.C.I., the State Government has issued the notification dated 21-5-1997 and reduced the admission capacity of the petitioner college from 100 to 50 seats notwithstanding the fact that its own letter dated 30-4-1997 was still pending with the Government of India for reply. Solely in pursuance of the impugned decision of the M.C.I., the State Government has issued the notification dated 21-5-1997 and reduced the admission capacity of the petitioner college from 100 to 50 seats notwithstanding the fact that its own letter dated 30-4-1997 was still pending with the Government of India for reply. A perusal of the said letter also suggests that the Government of Maharashtra had all along presumed that the decision of the M.C.I. was only a recommendation to the Central Government and a Notification was required to be issued by the Central Government if it had accepted the said decision of the M.C.I. Even the letter of the Central Government as referred to in para 13 above, also indicates that the role of the M.C.I. for the purpose of section 11 of the I.M.C. Act is recommendatory and it is only the Central Government which is required to take the final decision regarding the recognition of a Medical College or Medical Institution. It is further clear from the said letter that even for the purposes of section 19 of the I.M.C. Act, the role of M.C.I. is only of recommendatory in nature for the considerations of the Central Government and the withdrawal of recognition or granting of recognition to any new institution is finally to be decided by the Central Government. The letter concludes by stating that the question of recognition or de-recognition of any degree or any Medical College by the M.C.I. does not arise. Even the amended scheme of the I.M.C. Act makes it clear that the role of M.C.I. in respect of the Medical College/Institutions established on or after 1-6-1992 is only advisory in nature and the final decisions either on establishing a new Medical College or fixing the admission capacity or any other terms and conditions to be set out in that regard is finally ought to be taken by the Central Government by issuing a Notification. It was necessary for the State Government to await reply from the Central Government on its letter dated 30-4-1997 and we, therefore, hold that the State of Maharashtra prematurely issued the Notification dated 21-5-1997. It was necessary for the State Government to await reply from the Central Government on its letter dated 30-4-1997 and we, therefore, hold that the State of Maharashtra prematurely issued the Notification dated 21-5-1997. We also hold that the decision of M.C.I. as communicated to the State Government and the petitioner college vide its letter dated 21-3-1997 was recommendatory and the State of Maharashtra ought not to have acted on the said decision unless it received a final Notification/decision from the Government of India. 35.From the Rules for admissions to the Medical Courses 1997-98, as authorised by the State Government we are surprised to note that the petitioner-College has been shown as one of the Medical Colleges which has not been recognised by the M.C.I. This clearly was to show that the State Government has not taken cognizance of the decision of M.C.I. granting recognition to the petitioner college, as communicated to the State Government by the M.C.I. vide its letter dated 21-3-1997. The State Government has thus totally ignored the decision of M.C.I. granting recognition to the petitioner college retrospectively and acted upon the other decision of the M.C.I. in reducing the admission capacity from 100 to 50 seats. This action of the State Government to ignore the first basic decision of granting recognition and acting upon the record decision of reducing the admission capacity deserves to be set aside as being unfair, arbitrary and against the public interest. The State has resorted to a pick and choose policy in respect of the petitioner college and the same is impermissible in the eyes of law. This is yet one more reason to set aside the notification dated 21-5-1997 issued by the State Government. 36.Shri Bhangde, the learned Counsel appearing for the M.C.I. has vehemently submitted that the petitioners were estopped from challenging the decision of the M.C.I. in respect of reducing the admission capacity in view of the fact that an undertaking was already submitted on 10-1-1997 to reduce the admission capacity from 100 to 50 seats during the academic session 1997-98. In reply, Shri Deshpande, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the undertaking was furnished under the bona fide belief that the M.C.I. will consider the up-date compliance reports and the decision of the M.C.I. would not go against the interest of the petitioners. In reply, Shri Deshpande, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the undertaking was furnished under the bona fide belief that the M.C.I. will consider the up-date compliance reports and the decision of the M.C.I. would not go against the interest of the petitioners. As we have already observed that the decision of the M.C.I. in reducing the admission capacity was arbitrary and was not justified in view of the compliance report submitted by its own team of experts September/October, 1996, we do not agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the M.C.I. 37.There is one more aspect which has come to our attention during the course of hearing of this case and that is regarding implications of seeking admissions and completing the M.B.B.S. course from the unrecognised Medical College or a College which has not been approved/recognised by the M.C.I. As stated, hereinabove, there are 7 colleges which have not been recognised by the M.C.I. as per the rules published by the Government of Maharashtra for admission to Medical course for the year 1997-98. This Court in the case of Dr. Rahul Mahajan and others (supra) has held that-- (A) a student admitted in an unrecognised Medical College is not eligible to seek a transfer in a recognised Medical College after completing his first year of the M.B.B.S. Course; (B) a student, who has completed his M.B.B.S. course from a College which is not recognised by the M.C.I. is not eligible to seek admission in postgraduate course in any Government Medical College; (C) for All India Competitive Entrance Examination for postgraduate medical course the eligible candidates are only those who have obtained the M.B.B.S. degree from a recognised Medical College and the candidates who have obtained the M.B.B.S. degree from the colleges which are not recognised by the M.C.I., shall not be eligible for appearing at the All India Competitive Entrance Examination for admission to the postgraduate Medical Courses; (D) the candidates who have passed their degree from such unrecognised Medical Colleges are not enrolled by the M.C.I. as practitioners and they are left at the mercy of the Maharashtra Medical Council for registration as a practitioner only in the State of Maharashtra. This Court in Dr. This Court in Dr. Rahul Mahajan's case relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra)6, reported in 1995(1) Bom.C.R. 215 (S.C.) : 1993(1) S.C.C. 211 . The Supreme Court had, inter alia observed in the said case as under : "The qualitative difference between the non-recognised Medical Colleges generally as compared to the Medical Colleges recognised by the Medical Council of India, the recognition being based on certain objective Standards relating to medical education, and the competitive merit forming the basis for admission to a recognised Medical College justify as a reasonable such a restriction for grant of permission for migration/transfer from one Medical College to another. One of the purposes served by such a restriction is to permit this intercollege movement of students after passing the first M.B.B.S. examination only between students of recognised Medical Colleges and to prevent indirect entry into recognised Medical College of students who had failed initially to secure entry into a recognised Medical College ......" 38.In addition, by reading the scheme of section 12 of the I.M.C. Act, it is clear that even for foreign nationals, it is important to have passed their M.B.B.S. Course from a Medical College which is recognised by the M.C.I. If a foreign national or N.R.I. student has completed his M.B.B.S. Degree from the Medical College which is not recognised by the M.C.I., in addition to the above mentioned disabilities in India, he may also be faced with the same disabilities in the country of his origin in view of the provisions of reciprocity as set out in section 12 of the I.M.C. Act. 39.On perusal of the Rules for Admission to M.B.B.S. Course for the year 1997-98, as published by the State Government, we are shocked to see that the students seeking admissions to M.B.B.S. course are not made aware regarding the implications of seeking admission in and completing the M.B.B.S. degree from such Medical Colleges which have not been recognised by the M.C.I. We are of the considered view that the State Maharashtra is duty bound to let the students know the implications of taking admission in and completing the M.B.B.S. Course from such unrecognised Medical College before they finally accept admissions in such colleges and it will be totally unjust to such students to remain ignorant about the implication of their admissions in such unrecognised Medical Colleges. 40.In the result, we allow the petition and make the rule absolute in terms of the following order : (A) The notification dated 21-5-1997 by the Government of Maharashtra limiting the admission capacity of the petitioner No. 3 College to fifty seats for the academic year 1997-98 is hereby quashed and set aside and 100 seats to the petitioner college are restored. (B) The Medical Council of India is hereby directed to reconsider/review its decision to reduce the admission capacity of the petitioner No. 3 College from hundred to fifty seats in the light of the representations dated 11-1-1997 and 15-1-1997 made by the petitioner No. 3 College and the compliance verification report of September/October, 1996 submitted by its team of experts/Inspectors, within period of three months from today. The said decision of the Medical College of India shall be subject to confirmation of the Central Government by issuing notification in that regard. (C) The Government of Maharashtra is directed to take necessary steps forthwith to inform all the students seeking admission in M.B.B.S. Course 1997-98 regarding implication of taking admission in and completing M.B.B.S. Course from Medical Colleges, which are not yet recognised by the Medical Council of India. 41.We have noted the assurance given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and we expect the petitioners to do well to complete their building construction presently in progress, by the end of December, 1997. 42.In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. *****