G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was admitted to m. b. b. s. course in the respondent 2-al-ameen medical college, bijapur, during the academic year 1995-96 through the common entrance cell on 30-8-1995. According to her, subsequent to the said admission to the course, she developed serious kidney ailment and she is taking treatment with Dr. Dilip javali, a specialist at Bangalore, as also at victoria hospital, Bangalore under the urologist and physician of the said hospital. The petitioner has passed her first m. b. b. s. examination on 13-5-1997. According to her, she has been advised to have further follow up treatment only at Bangalore, which has to be undertaken every week. ( 2 ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner made an application to the medical council of India (in short, 'mci') on 24-9-1997 and again on 13-11-1997 seeking migration from respondent 2-al-ameen college, bijapur to respondent 3-sree siddartha medical college, tumkur, with no objection certificate from the principal of the 2nd respondent- college as also the registrar of the 4th respondent-rajiv gandhi university of health sciences, which is the affiliating university of the said colleges. But the said request of the petitioner for migration has been rejected by the mci under the impugned communication dated 14-7-1998 (Annexure-H), wherein it has been stated that the migration sub-committee of the council has rejected the request of the petitioner in its meeting held on 13-7-1998. The sub-committee's decision as has been communicated to the petitioner, is to the following effect. "the migration sub-committee in the light of regulations of the council notified with regard to migration from one college to another, decided not to allow migration of ms. C. p. prathima devi, from al-ameen medical college, bijapur to Sri siddhartha medical college, tumkur, since the reason/s given by the candidate is not covered by any proviso as enumerated and specified under note 2 i. e. , "compassionate grounds criteria" of migration rules of council regulation on graduate medical education, 1977". ( 3 ) MR. C. p. prathima devi, from al-ameen medical college, bijapur to Sri siddhartha medical college, tumkur, since the reason/s given by the candidate is not covered by any proviso as enumerated and specified under note 2 i. e. , "compassionate grounds criteria" of migration rules of council regulation on graduate medical education, 1977". ( 3 ) MR. P. s. rajagopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has questioned the validity of the impugned decision of the sub-committee on the grounds that it does not contain reasons, which has prevailed with the sub-committee to hold that the case of the petitioner is not covered under note 2 of regulation 6 of the medical council of India regulations on graduate medical education, 1997, framed by the medical council of India under Section 33 of the mci Act, 1956. His further submission is that if the materials placed by the petitioner would have been examined in its proper perspective, then the only reasonable conclusive would have been that the petitioner had been able to make out a case of disability to continue her studies at bijapur and therefore she had a right to ask for migration to the college at tumkur, a place which is quite near to Bangalore where the petitioner is undertaking treatment for her ailment. ( 4 ) ON the other hand Sri shailendra kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of mci has submitted that since all the materials submitted by the petitioner had been placed before the statutory sub-committee constituted for considering case of migration and the said sub-committee consisting of experts having come to the conclusion that the case was not covered by any of the compassionate grounds criteria under note 2 of regulation 6 of the regulations, then the same has to be held as conclusive and no judicial interference is called for. ( 5 ) REGULATION 6 of the regulations providing for migration reads as under. "migration (1) migration from one medical college to other is not a right of a student. However, migration of students from one medical college to another medical college in India may be considered by the medical council of india, only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds, provided following criteria are fulfilled. routine migrations on other grounds shall not be allowed. However, migration of students from one medical college to another medical college in India may be considered by the medical council of india, only in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds, provided following criteria are fulfilled. routine migrations on other grounds shall not be allowed. (2) both the colleges, i. e. , one at which the student is studying at present and one to which migration is sought, are recognised by the medical council of india. (3) the applicant candidate should have passed first professional mbbs examination. (4) the applicant candidate submits his application for migration, complete in all respects, to all authorities concerned within a period of one month of passing (declaration of results) the first professional bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery (mbbs) examination. (5) the applicant candidate must submit an affidavit stating thathe/she will pursue 18 months of prescribed study before appearing at ii professional bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery (mbbs) examination at the transferee medical college, which should be duly certified by the registrar of the concerned university in which he/she is seeking transfer. The transfer will be applicable only after receipt of the affidavit. note 1: (i) migration during clinical course of study shall not be allowed on any ground. (ii) all applications for migration shall be referred to medical council of India by college authorities. No institution/university shall allow migration directly without the approval of the council. (iii) council reserves the right, not to entertain any application which is not under the prescribed compassionate grounds and also to take independent decisions where applicant has been allowed to migrate without referring the same to the council. note 2: compassionate grounds criteria: (i) death of a supporting guardian. (ii) illness of the candidate causing disability. (iii) disturbed conditions as declared by government in the medical college area". ( 6 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the mci, it has been stated that for the purpose of considering the request for migration of students the council has formed sub-committee which consists of experts from amongst the member of the council. These experts belong to the specialities of (i) general medicine (physician), (ii) gynaecologist, (iii) psychiatrist, (iv) ophthalmologist, and (v) surgeon. These experts belong to the specialities of (i) general medicine (physician), (ii) gynaecologist, (iii) psychiatrist, (iv) ophthalmologist, and (v) surgeon. It has further been stated that these experts while considering the matter on migration dwell in detail regarding the illness of the candidate as a ground under which migration is sought. The experts belonging to their particular speciality look into all the factors i. e. , the medical certificate, authority issuing the medical certificate whether a private practitioner or a government hospital and the investigations enclosed therein. There may be an instance where two candidates suffering from the same illness, may have different repercussions and having a bearing on the decision made by the migration sub-committee. The disability caused by any illness is taken into consideration from the point of view of amount, extent, progression (regression or stage nature ). To exemplify, a candidate suffering from hepatitis virus going into hepatic failure (liver failure) may be allowed migration since in such an illness the disability is progressing to an extent that the life of a person suffering from this illness is limited. In another example where a physically handicapped individual having progression of the disability leading into frequent falls which further aggravates the disability may be allowed migration. ( 7 ) IN the present case the petitioner has fulfilled all the procedural formalities for making application for migration. But the application for the said purpose has been rejected on the ground that the plea of ailment taken by the petitioner is not covered by note 2 i. e. , illness of the petitioner does not tantamount to causing disability. So far as this clause in note 2 is concerned, it does not elaborate what is meant by the disability of the candidate. Definitely it cannot mean a disability which incapacitates the candidate to continue the mbbs course, otherwise the question of seeking migration does not arise. So far as this clause in note 2 is concerned, it does not elaborate what is meant by the disability of the candidate. Definitely it cannot mean a disability which incapacitates the candidate to continue the mbbs course, otherwise the question of seeking migration does not arise. Keeping in view the object of the provision provided for migration, this clause can be reasonably construed only to mean that in proper cases the council can permit the migration if the candidate is found to be suffering from illness of the nature, for which there is no effective medical facility or treatment at the place of his study, causing disabilities on his part of continuing the same at that place and the migration of such candidate to other medical college becomes inevitable, so as to overcome that disability, keeping in view the medical facilities available at the proposed place of migration. for this purpose the mci can ask the candidate concerned to furnish dependable materials to show that at the place of his original admission such facilities are not available and the same are available only at the place where he is seeking migration. Apart from this the mci through its own agency can ascertain the said facts. On being satisfied about the aforesaid aspects, the council may exercise its discretion in a judicious manner befitting the case of the candidate to permit migration. ( 8 ) I further find sufficient substance in the arguments advanced by Mr. P. s. rajagopal, that while rejecting the application for migration the mci sub-committee must assign reasons for not accepting the request made by the candidate, so that the candidate as well as the court in which judicial review of the order is sought for, may ascertain the relevance of the same for rejection of the request of the candidate. This requirement is now well-established as one of the basic principles of natural justice. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, in my opinion, the order passed by the sub-committee cannot be sustained and accordingly it is quashed, with a direction to the mci/its sub-committee to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above and communicate its resolution within six weeks from the date of communication of the present order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .