Y. BHASKAR RAO, CJ. ( 1 ) THESE writ appeals are filed by the Managements and post graduate Degree and Diploma students of J. J. M Medical College, davangere and Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belgaum, assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the. Writ petitions. After disposal of the Writ Petitions, some of the. students who were not parties to the earlier Writ Petitions, have also filed the writ Petitions. The appellants in W. A. Nos. 5231-64/1999 and W. A. No. 5329/1999 are aggrieved by the Communication of the Medical council of India (MCI) vide; letter dated 1. 9. 1997 (Annexure-K) in respect of the Post Graduate students for the academic year 1996- 97 fixing the admission capacity. They have also questioned the consequential order at Annexure-J dated 21. 10. 1997 of the Rajiv gandhi University of Health Sciences, directing to discharge the students alleging that they are admitted in excess of the intake fixed by the MCI in respect of J. N. Medical College, Belgaum. Similar orders were passed in respect of JJM Medical College, Davangere. All the cases were heard by the learned Single Judge and disposed of by a common order. Assailing that order, the present writ appeals are filed and Writ Petitions are filed challenging the orders impugned in the Writ Petitions. Therefore, we are disposing of all the cases by a common judgment. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the two medical colleges involved in these cases, have started their post graduate degree and diploma courses when they were affiliated to the Kuvempu University prior to constitution of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. The J. N. Medical College, Belgaum started its post graduate courses in degree and diploma in various subjects from the academic year 1978-79. All the courses were started with the permission of the state Government and Karnataka University and MCI. The MCI has not fixed the intake to the courses from time to time. The regulations framed by the MCI provided certain norms to be followed. All the courses were started with the permission of the state Government and Karnataka University and MCI. The MCI has not fixed the intake to the courses from time to time. The regulations framed by the MCI provided certain norms to be followed. On the basis of the said regulations, University used to find out the infrastructure of these colleges from the local enquiry Committee and the intake capacity used to be fixed by the University or the government in accordance with Section 53 (10) of the Karnataka state Universities Act and Section 4 (1) (b) of the Karnataka educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, (for short, 'state Capitation Fee Act ). Thus, the Belgaum J. N. Medical colleges, has increased its intake capacity for instance, in the subject of medicine to 23 from the academic year 1992-93 onwards. Similarly, jjm Medical College, Davangere, also fixed the intake at eleven for instance in M. S. Optholmology for the academic year 1991-92. On the same lines, intake capacity regarding other disciplines of the degree and Diploma courses in P. G. were increased correspondingly. The students who have passed P. G. courses from these institutions from the beginning have been qualified and enrolled themselves as doctors as per the Regulations of the MCI. ( 3 ) IN the year 1996, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS for short) was constituted which came into existence from 1. 6. 96 and all the Medical and Dental Colleges were brought under the purview of this University. In the meanwhile, the IMC Act was also amended by insertion of Sections 10a, 10b and 10c which came into effect from 27. 8. 1992 after replacing the ordinance issued earlier. Afterwards, though inspections were conducted by the inspectors of MCI, no objection was raised for the intake capacity of the Colleges. ( 4 ) WHILE so, after the disposal of A CITIZEN OF INDIA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA a learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 29. 11. 1996 directed RGUHS to determine the intake for p. G. Courses in the light of law laid down in Citizen's Case (ILR 1996 KAR 3136 ). The RGUHS had determined the intake capacity of the colleges conducting P. G. degree and diploma courses by its communication dated 18. 12. 1996, in respect of which a G. O. was also issued later. The RGUHS had determined the intake capacity of the colleges conducting P. G. degree and diploma courses by its communication dated 18. 12. 1996, in respect of which a G. O. was also issued later. ( 5 ) ASSAILING the said communication dated 18. 12. 1996 and the subsequent G. O. Writ Petition Nos. 33781997 and connected matters were filed in this Court. Another learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the rival contentions and entire material on record, by order dated 11th April 1997 disposed of the Writ Petitions with certain directions. Thereafter, the MCI and University have issued impugned communications fixing the intake capacity of the colleges and directing the colleges to discharge the excess students. Assailing that, present Writ Petitions are filed. ( 6 ) THE colleges contested before the learned Single Judge that the post graduate degree and diploma courses have been started much prior to the incorporation of Sections 10a, 10b and 10c and the same has been continued from year to year. The students also, after completion of the course, have passed the examination and enrolled themselves as Doctors under MCI regulations. The medical colleges have got all the required facilities according to the norms fixed by the MCI regulations to continue the intake capacity which the colleges is have been doing. The MCI has not given any opportunity or notice before reducing the intake capacity of the colleges to the above said courses. Therefore the proceedings of the MCI and university are violative of the principles of natural justice. The post graduate Committee which is constituted under the MCI regulations, is not competent to consider the intake capacity of the colleges. As per the MCI regulations, a Special Committee has to be appointed by the MCI and after the Committee gives the report, the MCI has to consider the same. After considering the said report, if MCI wants to pass any order which is prejudicial to the interest of the colleges like reducing seats or directing to delete some courses from the colleges as per the provisions of the MCI Act and regulations, the same has to be referred to Central Government. Thereafter, Central Government has to issue notices to the colleges, and after hearing the affected colleges it has to pass appropriate orders. In the present case, hone of the above said procedure is followed. Thereafter, Central Government has to issue notices to the colleges, and after hearing the affected colleges it has to pass appropriate orders. In the present case, hone of the above said procedure is followed. It is a fact that a learned Single Judge of this Court gave a direction to the MCI to get a report as to the intake capacity of the colleges, but the order never directed to decide the intake without following the procedure prescribed under the Act and regulations. Therefore, the entire proceedings without following the procedure are in gross violation of the provisions of the Act and Regulations. It was further contended before the learned Single Judge that the MCI has to carried out the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in W. P. Nos. 3378/97 and connected cases to consider whether any improvement is needed in the infrastructure of the colleges and in case such requirement is not there, to give direction to improve the same and to consider regularisation of students who have already been admitted for the academic year 1996-97. Thus, the impugned proceedings are illegal and arbitrary and not in consonance with the regulations or provisions of the Act and directions issued by the learned Single Judge and are liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, MCI contended that after incorporation of Sections 10a, 10b and 10c and even earlier to that regulations framed under the Act, except MCI, no other authority either the State government or the University, has got any jurisdiction to fix the intake capacity. The appellants-colleges have no sufficient infrastructure. Therefore, after the direction of this Court, the MCI has taken into consideration the report submitted by the Inspectors and after considering the same, intake capacity of the colleges are fixed having regard to the infrastructure available with them. Therefore the contention that they have got sufficient infrastructure and as such reduction of the intake capacity is illegal, is not tenable as the report of the Inspectors itself speaks of the same. The MCI is more concerned with the maintenance of standards of medical education especially post graduate courses, as after completion of their courses they will go to public at large to treat them for different diseases. Unless they are well qualified and trained, they cannot be good doctors in specialised fields. The MCI is more concerned with the maintenance of standards of medical education especially post graduate courses, as after completion of their courses they will go to public at large to treat them for different diseases. Unless they are well qualified and trained, they cannot be good doctors in specialised fields. The procedure adopted by the MCI in carrying out the directions of this Court is quite legal and proper. ( 8 ) THE learned Single Judge after considered the rival contentions of the parties, held that after incorporation of Sections 10a, 10b and 10c of the Act, neither State Government nor the University has got any power to fix the intake capacity of the colleges. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ petitions. Assailing that, the present Writ appeals are filed. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the Appellants contended befdre us that the colleges started post graduate courses much earlier to the incorporation of Sections 10a, 10b and 10c after obtaining permission/ratification of the MCI. Thereafter also periodical inspections were made by the MCI and they have noticed that the intake capacity of the colleges were increased with the permission of the State Government and University and it was never objected to nor any deficiency was pointed out in the infrastructure of the hospital and other requirements of the Colleges. The intake capacity fixed from the year 1992-93 in JN Medical College, Belgaum, and much earlier to this date in respect of JMM Medical College, davangere, continued even after the incorporation of Sections 10a, 10b and 10c of the Act and no objections was taken. The students who completed the courses upto 1996-97 have passed out of the colleges and enrolled themselves as Doctors under the MCI regulations to which neither the MCI nor the University has taken any objections and they are pursuing their profession. ( 10 ) FURTHER, the Post Graduate Committee has no power or jurisdiction to consider the intake capacity to the colleges as only the Special Committee appointed by the MCI has to consider the same. Non-consideration by the Special Committee to be appointed by the MCI and further, non-consideration by the MCI itself applying its mind independently, except depending on the report of the Post graduate Committee, is in violation of the Act and the Regulations. Non-consideration by the Special Committee to be appointed by the MCI and further, non-consideration by the MCI itself applying its mind independently, except depending on the report of the Post graduate Committee, is in violation of the Act and the Regulations. The MCI or the Post Graduate Committee has not considered the report of the Special Committee in proper perspective. The MCI or the P. G. Committee neither heard the colleges nor the affected students and no reasons are given for fixing the intake capacity much lower than the existing intake which the colleges were taking admission. The report of the Inspecting Inspectors was not independently considered by the MCI. The consideration of the report by the P. G. Committee which has no power or jurisdiction is against the cannons of law. The MCI has not given any reasons while reducing the intake capacity and directing discharge of students on the ground they are in excess of the intake capacity. The MCI has not considered the directions given by the learned Single Judge, directing to improve the infrastructure, if there are any deficiency, and to regularise the students admitted for the academic year 1996- 97 in case they are in excess, who were undergoing the courses, and by the time the MCI communication was received, they were on the verge of completion of courses and some of the Diploma students had completed the course and appeared for examinations. Under these circumstances, reducing the intake capacity and a direction to discharge the students would cause untold hardship to the students as well as institutions. The life of the students who have completed the course bona fide believing that the courses are validly started and continued, would be marred. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the MCI pn the other hand contended that the MCI Act and the Regulations are enforced since a long time. The MCI Regulations prescribe the norms for maintaining standards of the medical colleges including the standards of medical education. The standard of Medical education includes intake capacity depending upon the infrastructure available in the colleges. The inspectors report clearly show that sufficient infrastructure is not available to continue the earlier intake. Therefore, the MCI, after considering the PG Committee report, has rightly fixed the intake capacity. The standard of Medical education includes intake capacity depending upon the infrastructure available in the colleges. The inspectors report clearly show that sufficient infrastructure is not available to continue the earlier intake. Therefore, the MCI, after considering the PG Committee report, has rightly fixed the intake capacity. After incorporation of the abovesaid provisions in the Act, except the MCI neither the State Government nor the university has got any power or jurisdiction to deal with the recognition, starting of new courses including Post Graduate and diploma and also to fix the intake capacity of the courses in the colleges. Therefore, the contention of the Appellants that the university and State Government have fixed the intake capacity is not tenable and valid. The MCI has rightly considered the PG committee Report and after considering the pros and cons of the subject has fixed the intake keeping in view the standard of medical education and availability of infrastructure of the Colleges. The incorporated provisions came into force in the year 1992 and therefore it was incumbent on the colleges to obtain the permission of the MCI, even if they had started courses earlier to that. As they have not obtained the said permission it is deemed that the intake capacity of the college is more than the intake fixed by the MCI and is liable to be reduced. Therefore, the MCI and University have rightly determined the intake capacity and directed the discharge of excess students by the impugned communications. It is the primary consideration and concern of the MCI that standard in Medical education is essential for the healthy society. Otherwise, there will be deterioration in the standard of medical education which wilt affect the society at large. It is stated that though detailed reasons are not given by the MCI in its order, in the counter Affidavit filed in the Writ petition, detailed reasons are given to reduce the intake capacity. In view of the above, it is submitted there are no merits in the Appeals and Writ Petitions. ( 12 ) THE Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Karnataka were started under different Universities prior to 1996 according to their jurisdiction. The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) was constituted and the same came into force on 1. 6. 1996. ( 12 ) THE Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Karnataka were started under different Universities prior to 1996 according to their jurisdiction. The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) was constituted and the same came into force on 1. 6. 1996. Thereafter, all Medical and Dental colleges came within the purview of the RGUHS in the State of Karnataka. Prior to. this the admissions, fixing of the intake capacity of the colleges, fees payable by the students was fixed by the Government and the respective Universities as per the provisions of Section 53 (10)of the Karnataka State university Act and Section 4 (1) of the Karnataka Capitation Fees act and the Rules. Thus, the colleges after obtaining sanction of the universities and the Government, fixed their intake capacity of Post graduate Medical seats, in terms of the Government Orders which were communicated to the Universities for the relevant academic years. ( 13 ) THE Indian medical Council Act of 1956 (Act 102 of 1956) was enacted by the Parliament to centralise the admission of Medical education. The Act was enacted with a view to provide the Medical council of India the maintenance of Medical Register for India and for matter connected therewith. Section 3 of the Act provides constitution of composition of the Medical Council. Section 4 deals with the mode of Elections. Section 5 deals with restrictions and nomination of membership and Section 6 deals with incorporation of the Medical Council of India, Sections 8 and 9 deals with the composition of Councils and Officers of the Councils. Section 10 deals with the constitution of Executive Committee. Section 11 deals with the recognition of Medical qualification granted by Universities or the Medical Colleges or Institutions in India. Section 12 deals with the recognition of Medical qualifications by the Medical institutions in Countries with which there is a scheme of reciprocity. Sections 13 and 14 deals with the medical qualification. Section 15 deals with the enrolment of the person and personal medical qualification. Section 19 deals with the withdrawal of recognition, section 19a deals with the minimum standards of Medical Education. Section 20 deals with constitution of Post Graduate Medical education Committee for assisting in matters relating to Post graduate Medical Education. Section 32 deals with power to make rules. Section 33 deals with power to make Regulations. Section 19 deals with the withdrawal of recognition, section 19a deals with the minimum standards of Medical Education. Section 20 deals with constitution of Post Graduate Medical education Committee for assisting in matters relating to Post graduate Medical Education. Section 32 deals with power to make rules. Section 33 deals with power to make Regulations. Section 33 (J) provides that regulation can be framed to prescribe courses and period of study and practical training to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained, in the Universities or Medical Institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications; sub-claused) deals with the conduct of professional examination, qualifications and conditions of admission to such examinations. ( 14 ) MEDICAL Council of India Act was enacted in the year 1956 and from time to time some amendments were made. While so, in the year 1992, Sections 10a, 10b 10c were incorporated in the Act vide, Amendment Act 31 of 1993 which came into force from 27,8. 1992 onwards. The above stated amended sections puts an embargo that no person can start or establish a new medical college nor increase the admission capacity, nor open any new course without prior permission of the Medical Council. Further, Section 10b doth the council to derecognise the medical qualifications in certain cases. Section 10c deals with obtaining permission by the existing medical colleges to increase their admission capacity or open a new course. Though this amendment came into force in the year 1992, until the year 1996, most of the medical colleges in the Country used to follow the directions of the Universities particularly in the state of Karnataka. In the year 1996, a learned Judge of this Court entertained a Public Interest Writ Petition in the name of Citizen of india about the competency of the Medical Colleges in the State of karnataka to admit students as per the intake fixed by the State government and the Universities even after the incorporation of sections 10a, 10b and 10c. (a) The Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Act for medical Education were revised upto January, 1988. The said regulations provide that Universities shall get their post-graduate training facilities and courses at a given centre evaluated by the council before the courses are actually started. (a) The Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Act for medical Education were revised upto January, 1988. The said regulations provide that Universities shall get their post-graduate training facilities and courses at a given centre evaluated by the council before the courses are actually started. The Regulations provided general guidelines for the standards to be maintained for proper training of medical students in post graduate courses are as follows:" (1) For MD/ms Degree in clinical subjects, there shall be proper training in basic medical sciences related to the disciplines concerned as well as paper in these subjects at the examination. In the case of M. D. and M. S. in basic medical sciences there should be training on applied aspects of the subject and a paper on the subject. XXX xxx (4) The student teacher ratio should be such that the number of post-graduate teachers to the number of post-graduate students admitted per year be maintained 1:1. For the purpose of proper training of the post-graduate students, there should be a limit to the number of students admitted per year. For this purpose very unit should consist of atleast 3 full time post-graduate teachers and can admit not more than 3 students for the post graduate training per year, if the number of post graduate teachers in the unit is more than three than the number of students can be increased proportionately. For this purpose one student should associate with one post-graduate where the number of post-graduate teachers is less than 3 per unit, then the number of students should be reduced so as to keep the ratio to one student per teacher per year. In exceptional, cases, in a unit with I postgraduate teacher and another teacher with post-graduate qualification a maximum of 2 students can be admitted per year. In addition to students admitted to MD/ms courses, a maximum of 6 students per year can be admitted to diploma courses in such department where diploma courses are conducted. If the number of recognised post-graduate teachers in any department of a medical college/institution is more than three, the number of students for admission to the diploma course may be increase at a ratio of two students per additional recognised post-graduate teacher per year subject to a maximum of 12 students admitted in the department per year for the diploma courses. "minimum requirements for a postgraduate Teaching Centre provided by the Regulation are:" (A) Where both undergraduate and post graduate teaching is conducted, the centre must satisfy the minimum requirements for undergraduate training as prescribed by the Medical Council of india and in addition must fulfil additional requirements of postgraduate training depending on the type of work being carried out in the department. (b) In a department imparting only post-graduate training, facilities consistent with the requirements of all-round training including training in Basic Sciences relate to the subjects of training as recommended by the Medical Council of India should be provided. (c) The institution should make every effort to have as many autopsies, biopsies and cytopsies as possible for teaching purposes. In the organisation of a post-graduate department, it is necessary that all teaching facilities of ancillary department should be available for co-ordination of training. "the criteria for selection of candidates is as follows: (a) Students for post-graduate training should be selected strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the undergraduate course. All selection for post-graduate studies should be conducted by the Universities. (b) The candidates should have obtained full registration i. e. , they must have completed satisfactorily one year of compulsory rotating internship after passing the final MBBS examination and must have full registration with State Medical Council. (c) They must subsequently have done one year's housemanship in recognised hospital prior to admission to the post-graduate degree or diploma course. Housemanship should preferably be for one year in the same subject or atleast six months in the same department and the remaining six months in an allied department. Provided that in departments like Radiology/ anaesthesioiogy/physical Medicine and Rehabilitation where suitable candidates who have done housemanship in the respective subject for the respective speciality are not available then the housemanship in Medicine and/or in Surgery may be considered as sufficient. Work done by the District Epidemiologists in the P. Falciparum containment programme (PFCP) for a period of one year may be considered at par with the'requirements of house jobs required for admission to post-graduate course in Social and Preventive medicine. Work done by the District Epidemiologists in the P. Falciparum containment programme (PFCP) for a period of one year may be considered at par with the'requirements of house jobs required for admission to post-graduate course in Social and Preventive medicine. With a view to improve the quality of training both academic and practical, in post graduate medical education, the number of admissions to post-graduate courses is based on the following criteria: (a) The number of post-graduate students shall not exceed one candidate per recognised post-graduate teacher per year. (b) The number of teaching beds available for the training of the students in the subjects of training shall also determine the number of candidates to be admitted. (c) The out patient attendance; work turnover, the research work in the department, ambulatory care provided to patients and other variables will also be taken into consideration in fixing a ceiling on the number of candidates who may be admitted for training. (d) Broadly speaking, it is recommended that for the present three bed per post-graduate student should be the minimum available in the speciality concerned, in all such specialities where teaching beds are necessary for the training of the students. This may be further reviewed in the light of a careful assessment of the actual requirements. In this clause, post-graduate students refers to the total number of degree and diploma students in the speciality concerned undergoing training in particular year. The Regulations provide the infrastructure including the beds in the hospital, teaching professors and other amenities required for post graduate training. The Regulations emphasise that for a discipline in post-graduation minimum requirement of a Teacher- student ratio is 1:1. It further provides that every unit should consist of atleast 3 full time post graduate teachers and can admit not more than 3 students for PG Training per year. If the number of post graduate teachers in the unit is more than three, then the number of students can be increased proportionately. For this purpose one student should associate with one post graduate teacher. Where the number of post-graduate teachers is less than 3 per unit then the number of students should be reduced so as to keep the ratio to one student per teacher per year. In exceptional cases, in a unit with 1 post-graduate teacher and another teacher with post graduate qualification a maximum of 2 students can be admitted per year. Where the number of post-graduate teachers is less than 3 per unit then the number of students should be reduced so as to keep the ratio to one student per teacher per year. In exceptional cases, in a unit with 1 post-graduate teacher and another teacher with post graduate qualification a maximum of 2 students can be admitted per year. Similarly, Regulation 4 provides the criteria for admission of 1:1 student-teacher ratio and the number of beds, out-patient attendance, work turn-over, research work in the department, ambulatory care provided etc. If the above infrastructure is there, the college can admit one student for one teacher. Though regulations state that 3 students per unit can be admitted and teacher-student ratio is 1:1, there is no restriction on admission of maximum number of students when there is required teacher-student ratio; and sufficient unifs and infrastructure and beds are. there. After incorporation of Sections 10a, 10b and IOC in the Act, further regulations are issued. The MCI vide Notification dated 20th september, 1993 issued Regulations providing for permission of the central Government to establish a new medical college and to seek permission of the Central Government to start new disciplines in medical colleges. The Regulations also provide for seeking permission of the Central Government to increase the admission capacity in MBBS and higher courses including diploma and PG and higher specialities in the existing medical colleges or institutions after complying with requirements of Sections 10a to 10c of the act. After incorporation of Sections 10a to 10c of the Act and the above stated Regulations, no medical college or institution or any person could start a new medical college or start a new course or increase the admission capacity without complying with the requirement as provided under Section 10a to 10c. The amended regulations and amendments to Act came into force on 26th August, 1992. Until that time, though earlier Regulations and the Act were in force, MCI has not taken any action to control and actively supervise all medical colleges in the country by enforcing the Regulations strictly. Whenever cases arose in the field, the concerned High Court and Apex Court interpreted the scope and intent of the Act and regulations. Therefore, it is relevant to state the judgments of the apex Court. Whenever cases arose in the field, the concerned High Court and Apex Court interpreted the scope and intent of the Act and regulations. Therefore, it is relevant to state the judgments of the apex Court. In STATE OF KERALA vs KUMARI T. R ROSHANA the Apex court has stated as under: the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has constituted the medical Council of India as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. Obviously, this high-powered council has power to prescribe the minimum standards of medical education. It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions. Thus there is an overall invigilation by the Medical Council to prevent sub-standard entrance qualifications for medical courses. " the Supreme Court after considering the scope and ambit of the provisions of the Act and Regulations has held that the MCI has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions and there is requirement of overall invigilation to prevent sub-standard entrance for medical courses: in STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs KUMARI NIVEDITA JAIN and OTHERS the Bench consisting of three Judges of the Supreme court was considering the rules framed by the State of Madhya pradesh providing for a minimum of 50% as qualifying marks for the general category students for admission to the medical colleges of the State. But, for the students of SC/st the minimum qualifying marks were prescribed as 40%. As few candidates of these two categories could get admitted into Medical Colleges, the State government passed an order completely relaxing the conditions relating to the minimum qualifying marks for these two categories. Assailing that, a candidate belonging to general quota filed a Writ petition. The rule was struck-down as unconstitutional by the High court. Against that State of Madhya Pradesh filed an Appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while considering the scope of Regulations for admission to MBBS course held that Regulation 2 of 1he Regulations framed by the MCI was only recommendatory. Therefore, any relaxation in the Rules is not unconstitutional and allowed the Appeal. In Dr. Against that State of Madhya Pradesh filed an Appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while considering the scope of Regulations for admission to MBBS course held that Regulation 2 of 1he Regulations framed by the MCI was only recommendatory. Therefore, any relaxation in the Rules is not unconstitutional and allowed the Appeal. In Dr. AJAY PRADHAN vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND others the question that felt for consideration was whether in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules, there is a right of admission to a seat in the post graduate course falling vacant in the college in the midst or towards the end of the academic year. Further, question that arose was whether the State Government has power to transfer a seat in any of the discipline in the PG course in MD/ms reserved for a medical college to another medical college in the State in order to accommodate a particular post graduate student. The 2 Judges bench of the Supreme Court held that:"in most of the States Rules have been framed by the various state Government under Articles 162 of the Constitution regulating the manner of admission of students to the PG course studies in md/ms in the medical college in the State. The number of seats available for the PG courses in MD/ms and for the Diploma courses in various disciplines is therefore limited. There cannot be increase in the number of seats without the sanction of the medical Council of India and without corresponding increase in the strength of the teaching staff which necessarily involves financial implication". (emphasis supplied) thus, the emphasis is that whenever there is requirement of increase of seats, there must be corresponding increase in the staff strength and infrastructure which involves financial implications and that cannot be done without the sanction of the MCI. In AJAY KUMAR SINGH and OTHERS vs STATE OF BIHAR and others, a Bench consisting of three Judges of the Supreme Court was considering the question whether the Government has got power to make reservation in PG courses in Medical Colleges in the State of Bihar for the students of SC/st and other Backward Classes inview of the provisions of MCI Act and Regulations framed thereunder. Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy speaking for the Bench after considering the provisions of the Act and Regulations has held as follows: "a review of the provisions of the Act clearly shows that among other things, the Act is concerned with the determination and coordination of standards of education and training in medical institutions. Sections 16,17,18 and 19 all speak of "the courses of study and examinations to be undergone" to obtain the recognised medical qualification. They do not speak of admission to such courses. Section 19-A expressly empose the council to "prescribe the minimum standards of medical education" required for granting undergraduate medical qualification. So does Section 20 empower the council to prescribe standards of postgraduate medical education but "for the guidance of universities" only. It further says that the council "may also advise universities in the matter of securing uniform standards for postgraduate medical education throughout India". (The distinction between the language of Section 19-A and Section 20 is also a relevant factor, as would be explained later ). Clause (j) of Section 33 particularises the subjects with respect to which Regulations can be made by the council. It speaks of the courses and period of study and the practical training to be undergone by the students, the subjects of examination which they must pass and the standards of proficiency they must attain to obtain the recognised medical qualifications but it does not speak of admission to such courses of study. Indeed, none of the sections aforementioned empower the council to regulate or prescribe qualifications or conditions for admission to such courses of study. No other provisions in the Act does. It is thus clear that the Act does not purport to deal with, regulate or provide for admissions to graduate or postgraduate medical courses. Indeed, insofar as postgraduate courses are concerned, the power of the Indian Medical Council to "prescribe the minimum standards of medical education" is only advisory in nature and not of a binding character. In such a situation, it would be rather curious to say that the Regulations made under the Act are binding upon them. The Regulations made under the Act cannot also provide for or regulate admission to postgraduate courses in anv event. In such a situation, it would be rather curious to say that the Regulations made under the Act are binding upon them. The Regulations made under the Act cannot also provide for or regulate admission to postgraduate courses in anv event. (emphasis supplied) the Regulations made by the Medical Council in 1971 (revised upto January 1978 (sic 1988)) speak generally of students for postgraduate training being selected "strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the undergraduate course". This is more in the nature of advice and not a binding direction. (emphasis supplied ). The Regulation does not say that no reservations can be provided under Article 15 (4 ). The power conferred upon the State by Clause (4) of Article 15 is a constitutional power. The said power obviously could not have been overridden or superseded by a Regulation made by the indian Medical Council under the Act. The Regulation must be read consistent with Article 15 (4) and if so read, it means that the students shall be admitted to postgraduate training strictly on the basis of merit in each of the relevant classes or categories, as the case may be. Any other construction seeking to give an absolute meaning to the said Regulation would render it invalid both on the ground of travelling beyond the Act. It may also fall foul of Article 15 (4 ). In our opinion, the situation in the case before us is no different. The State will regulate the admission policy and at the same time adhere to the standards determined by the Indian medical Council. The proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment makes it clear that Regulations are only directory and not mandatory and the State has got power to regulate admissions in medical colleges. Until 1994 this was the position of law. ( 15 ) A learned Single Judge vide, judgment dated 20th September, 1996 in A CITIZEN OF INDIA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA and others has held that:"i. Section 53 (10) of the State Universities Act and Section 4 (1 ) (b) of the State Capitation Fee Act empowering the Universities and/ or the State Government to fix or increase the intake of the medical colleges, being repugnant to Sections 10a, 10b of the central Act, are held as void and inoperative. II. II. The power in relation to fixation and/or increase of the admission capacities of the medical colleges has to be governed strictly and exclusively under the provisions of Section 10a/10c of the Central Act. III. No medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the Council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the Central Government under and in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10a or Section 10c of the Central Act. IV. The regulations framed on the aspect of medical education referred to in Section 19a and 33 of the Central Act are mandatory in nature. V. The Central or the State Government cannot exercise their executive powers under Article 73 or 162 of the Constitution of india in respect of any aspect of medical education for which provisions have been made under the Central or State legislation. VI. Even the High Courts in exercise of their extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct, regularise or approve admissions in excess of the legally permissible admission capacities of the medical colleges on the ground of 'judicial sympathy' towards the students. " ( 16 ) THUS, for the first time it was held by this Court that except medical Council of India, no other Authority including State government or the Universities have any power to fix the admission capacity or increase the admission capacity or sanction new courses which are not there in their colleges. An appeal was filed against this Order and Division Bench Judgment of this Court in STATE OF karnataka vs CITIZEN OF INDIA has held that: (I) Prior to introduction of Section 10a and 10c to IMC Act, neither the Central Government nor Indian Medical Council could fix the admission capacity and determination of admission capacity in the medical colleges were governed by provisions of Section 53 (10) of the Karnataka State Universities Act and Section 4 (1 ) (b) of Karnataka Educations Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) act, 1984. After introduction of Section 10a to 10c to IMC Act, the enactments of the State will yield to the provisions of the imc Act to the extend of repugnancy. Therefore, it is unnecessary to declare the same to be void. (II) The exercise of the power to fix admission capacity is under Section 10a to 10c of the IMC Act. After introduction of Section 10a to 10c to IMC Act, the enactments of the State will yield to the provisions of the imc Act to the extend of repugnancy. Therefore, it is unnecessary to declare the same to be void. (II) The exercise of the power to fix admission capacity is under Section 10a to 10c of the IMC Act. The Central government on advice of Indian Medical Council can rely upon regulations framed under Sections 19a and 33 of the IMC Act. (III) There is no need (o deliberate on the scope of powers under Article 226 of the constitution of India in the matter of admission to medical or other colleges and such questions would be decided as and when the occasion arises depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Whether any equity should be extended or should provisions of law be rigorously adhered to are all matters over which no hard and fast rule can be laid down in vacuum. ( 17 ) AGGRIEVED by that judgment, the Medical Council of India, state of Karnataka and others appealed to the Hon'ble Supreme court. Supreme Court after elaborately considering the rival contentions reversed the judgment of the Division Bench and affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge with some observations. While upholding the Judgment of the learned Single Judge the supreme Court in MCI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA has held that:"in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was right in his view that no Medical College can admit any students in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the Medical Council subject to increase thereof as approved by the Central Government and that Sections 10a, 10b, and 10c will prevail over Section 53 (10) of the State Universities Act and Section 41 (b) of the State capitation Fee Act. "it is further stated that:"to say that number of students as permitted by the State government and/or University before June 1, 1992 could continue would be allowing an illegality to perpetuate for all time to come. "it is further stated that:"to say that number of students as permitted by the State government and/or University before June 1, 1992 could continue would be allowing an illegality to perpetuate for all time to come. The Division Bench, in our opinion, in the impugned judgment was not correct in holding that admission capacity for the purpose of increase or decrease in each of the medical colleges/institutions has got to be determined as on or before June 1, 1992 with reference to what had been fixed by the State Government on the admission capacity fixed by the medical colleges and not with reference to the minimum standard of education prescribed under Section 19-A of the Medical Council Act on the ground that the Medical Council is only recommendatory body". ( 18 ) THUS, till the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the law finally by reversing the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the question whether the State Government and Universities can regulate the intake capacity of Medical Colleges was in fluid state. ( 19 ) AS already stated supra, some of the Institutions in the present cases filed Writ Petitions in W. P. No. 3378/99 and other connected matters assailing the communication received from the Rajiv Gandhi university of Health Sciences fixing the admission capacity of colleges for Post Graduate Degree/diploma for the academic year 1996-97. In these Writ Petitions, the learned Single Judge (Thakur j.) by order dated 11,4,1997 disposed of the Writ Petitions after hearing both parties by directing:" (I) the Medical and Dental Council of India to take immediate and appropriate steps for the inspection of the Petitioner Medical and Dental Colleges as the case may be with a view to determining their admission capacity for the academic year 1996-97 under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act and dentists Act. The process of inspections and fixation of the admission capacities shall be completed within four months from today that is, 11. 4. 1997; (ii) The Petitioner-colleges shall within two weeks from today deposit with the council concerned a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each towards the inspection fee of the respective Institutions and furnish all such information as the council or the experts/inspectors deputed by them may demand from them. 4. 1997; (ii) The Petitioner-colleges shall within two weeks from today deposit with the council concerned a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each towards the inspection fee of the respective Institutions and furnish all such information as the council or the experts/inspectors deputed by them may demand from them. The petitioners shall also extend all other facilities and co-operation to the councils to ensure that the Inspectors and consequent fixation of the capacities are completed within the time allowed; (iii) Regularisation and approval of the admissions already made by the petitioner-colleges shall await the determination of their admission capacities by the council concerned, and, the interim order of status quo continue to remain operative till formal orders are passed by the councils; (iv) The petitioner-colleges shall not make any admission for the coming academic session i. e. 1997-98 except in accordance with the admission capacities determined by the council concerned. In case however the process of determination of the said capacities is not for any reason completed the admissions to the Post-Graduate Course shall not be in excess of the capacities determined by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health sciences; (v) While fixing the admission capacities of the petitioner- institution the Medical and Dental Councils of India may also consider the desirability of regularising the admission of the candidates already undergoing different courses, if admission of such candidates are found to be in excess of the admission capacity determined by them. While doing so, the councils may impose such conditions as regards the infrastructure and other facilities as the councils may deem fit and proper to prescribe; (emphasis supplied) (vi) Depending upon the determination of the admission capacity by the council concerned, the petitioners may if so advised seek enhancement of the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Central enactments on the subject". ( 20 ) THE learned Single Judge directed the Council to consider the case of the students who are admitted in excess and also to consider the desirability of regularisation of the candidates who are already undergoing different courses in the colleges. ( 21 ) IN pursuance to the directions of the Single Judge, the P. G. Committee has considered the inspection reports. ( 21 ) IN pursuance to the directions of the Single Judge, the P. G. Committee has considered the inspection reports. Thereafter, it fixed the admission capacity of the Medical Colleges of the Post Graduate diploma and Degree Course and after approval by MCI issued annexure-K and communicated the same to the concerned colleges and University, In turn the University has communicated to the appellants the impugned orders. Against that, the Present Writ petitions are filed. ( 22 ) THE Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of Dr. PREETHI SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS has specifically over-ruled the judgments in Nivedita Jain and Ajay Kumar Singh's case and approved the judgment in MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS. Thus, until this judgment, application of the provisions of the MCI Act and Rules was held to be directory. 22 (a) In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to note the situation prevalent about the position of law regarding control of the Medical Colleges in the State from time to time. The Medical and Dental Colleges in the State were supervised and controlled by the respective Universities in whose jurisdiction the colleges were situated, until the RGUHS was constituted in the. year 1966. The intake capacity of the colleges were fixed by the State Government and the University concerned from time to time as per Section 53 of the Karnataka State universities Act and Section 4 (1) (b) of the Karnataka State Capitation fee Act. This situation continued until learned Single Judge of this court in A CITIZEN OF INDIA case gave a direction. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division bench. The Division Bench has reversed the judgment of the learned single Judge in some respects. Further, the Apex Court in the judgment reported in Ajay Kumar Singh and Others vs State of Bihar and Others (supra) has held that the provisions of the Act and regulations are only directory in nature and the State Government and the University has got the power and jurisdiction to supervise and control the colleges. (b) The decision disclose that the major control was vested with the State Government and Universities, and MCI was only, an advisory body. (b) The decision disclose that the major control was vested with the State Government and Universities, and MCI was only, an advisory body. This judgment ruled the field until the Judgment n medical Council of India vs State of Karnataka (Supra) was pronounced by the Supreme Court reversing the judgment of the division Bench of this Court and restoring the order of the learned single Judge, The judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Thakur J.) giving direction to MCI to consider the cases of the colleges was delivered on 11. 4. 1997 and it had become final as no appeal was filed by the MCI against the said order. ( 23 ) IN pursuance of the said directions, the MCI has considered and sent the impugned communication on 1. 9. 1997. By that time, the students admitted for the academic year 1996-97 were already continuing their courses as per the intake capacity earlier fixed. The said communication of the MCI and the consequential order of the university were challenged in the Writ Petitions. The said Writ petitions were disposed of on 5. 7. 1999. By that time, most of the students were on the verge of completion of the course and some of the diploma course students had completed the course and even appeared for examination. This is the factual position of the case, ( 24 ) THEREFORE, we have to examine whether the MCI has considered the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in proper perspective. It is relevant to extract direction Nos. (l), (Hi) and (v) at the cost of repetition: (I) The Medical and Dental Councils of India shall take immediate and appropriate steps for the inspection of the petitioner Medical and Dental Colleges as the case may be with a view to determining their admission capacity for the academic year 1996-97 under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council act and Dentists Act. The process of inspections and fixation of. the admission capacities shall be completed within four months from today. (III) Regularisation and approval of the admissions already made by the Petitioner-colleges shall await the determination of their admission capacities by the Council concerned, and the interim order of status quo continue to remain operative tilt formal order are passed by the Councils. the admission capacities shall be completed within four months from today. (III) Regularisation and approval of the admissions already made by the Petitioner-colleges shall await the determination of their admission capacities by the Council concerned, and the interim order of status quo continue to remain operative tilt formal order are passed by the Councils. (V) While fixing the admission capacities of the petitioner- institutions the Medical and Dental Councils of India may also consider the desirability of regularising the admission of the candidates already undergoing different courses, if admissions of such candidates are found to be in excess of the admission capacity determined by them. While doing so the Councils may impose such conditions as regards the infrastructure and other facilities as the Councils may deem fit and proper to prescribe. The above directions show that a direction was issued to MCI to inspect the colleges and after completion of inspection process, of fix the admission capacity and directed to mention status quo regarding the intake capacity of the colleges until the MCI passes formal orders. Further direction is issued to consider the desirability of regularizing the admissions of the candidates already undergoing in different courses, if admissions of such candidates are found to be in excess of the admission capacity determined by them, by imposing appropriate conditions as regards infrastructure and other facilities as the Council may deem fit and proper. Thus, there is a positive direction to consider regularisation of students who are already admitted and giving direction to the colleges to improve the infrastructure if required, ( 25 ) IN the communications sent by the MCI and University, no reasons are given. In the affidavit filed by the MCI, it is stated that there are some defects in the infrastructure of the Hospital which are narrated in the affidavit as follows: "kle Society Hospital OPDs are basically super speciality service such a Cardiology, Neurology, Diabetes, Endocrinology, Asthama allergy, Nephrology, etc. meaning thereby that these clinical matrial was basically pertaining to super specialists whereas the recognition for the course as stated is for MD General Medicine. The K. L. E. Society Hospital does not have a regular Out Patient department for general patients. meaning thereby that these clinical matrial was basically pertaining to super specialists whereas the recognition for the course as stated is for MD General Medicine. The K. L. E. Society Hospital does not have a regular Out Patient department for general patients. In view of this, the three units claimed at the K. L. E. Society Hospital in the Department of general Medicine could not be found in any way useful for training of Post Graduate students in General Medicine, nor could it be said to qualify for training of Post Graduate students in this department at this Hospiiap. The above reasons are not mentioned in the MCI order. ( 26 ) THE learned Single Judge observed that the MCI has to give direction to the colleges if they are found wanting. Therefore, the mci ought to have adhered to the directions given by the learned single Judge. Instead of regularising the students, the MCI has directed to discharge them even without giving an opportunity to the colleges or students. We have gone through the Inspectors report as well as counter affidavit filed by the MCI. When we read the contents of the Affidavit, some of the deficiencies pointed out in the infrastructure of the hospital are not co-related to the Inspector report and does not seem to be true in toto. Therefore, the MCI ought to have given a time bound direction to improve the infrastructure facilities in the first instance instead of directing the students to be discharged who are on the verge of completion of this course on the date of intimation. ( 27 ) AS per Section 10a of the IMC Act, the college which is seeking enhancement of intake capacity, has to submit a scheme to the Central Government in the requirement proforma for obtaining permission, and the Central Government should forward the same to the MCI for recommendation. After receipt of the scheme by the council, the Council had to obtain such other particulars as may be necessary from the colleges concerned and after obtaining the same, if it is found that the scheme is defective and does not contain necessary particulars, give a reasonable opportunity to the college for making written representation and it shall be open to the college to rectify the defects, if any, specified by the Council. Thereafter, the mci has to make a recommendation to the Central Government. Thereafter, the mci has to make a recommendation to the Central Government. After receipt of the report, the Central Government, if necessary, after obtaining other particulars, if any, may approve or disapprove the scheme. But, however, if disapproval is made by the Central government, it has to give an opportunity to the concerned pollege of being heard. Where a scheme is disapproved, it is not a bar to file a fresh scheme. This is the procedure provided for considering the intake capacity of the medical courses in the college. Therefore, as per the scheme provided under Section 10a (3) and (4) of the act, it is the bounden duty of the MCI and Central Government to give reasonable opportunity to the concerned College. In the present case, it is a fact that the learned Single Judge in para 2 (1) has issued a specific direction as follows:" (I) The Medical and Dental Councils of India shall take immediate and appropriate steps for the inspection of the petitioner medical and dental colleges as the case may be with a view to determining their admission capacity for the academic year 1996-97 under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act and Dentists Act. . . " (Emphasis supplied) ( 28 ) THUS the direction is very specific to consider the matter as per the provisions of the Act. When the Act provides to refer the matter to the Central Government as a statutory obligation, non compliance of the mandatory requirements has resulted in an irregularity. If the MCI had referred the matter to the Central government, the Central Government atleast would have given an opportunity to the affected parties before passing any final order. It is evident that such a course was not at ail adopted by the MCI. No reason or explanation is forthcoming in the impugned orders nor in the counter affidavits regarding non-compliance of the statutory obligations. Even taking that the direction given in the order has to be understood that MCI alone was directed to consider, and none others, Section 10a (3) (a) mandates to give an opportunity to the concerned college where the scheme is defective. The direction given by this Court to consider the intake capacity of the colleges itself ought to have been treated as a scheme submitted by the College. This opportunity to the college is not given before sending the impugned communications. The direction given by this Court to consider the intake capacity of the colleges itself ought to have been treated as a scheme submitted by the College. This opportunity to the college is not given before sending the impugned communications. Therefore, on that ground also, the impugned communications are in violation of the provisions of the act and also the principles of natural justice particularly, when the career of many students was involved. ( 29 ) THE second point to be considered is whether the MCI alone is the authority or any other body can consider the admission capacity of a medical institution. As stated supra, Sections 10a, 10b and 10c of the Act read with relevant regulations make it clear that MCI is the only authority which has to consider. If necessary, it can appoint a Special Committee to report to it. In the present case, no special committee is appointed. The PG Committee is also a Committee constituted under Section 20 of the IMC Act to assist the MCI in the matter of prescribing standards to the PG courses and getting them uniform standards in PG courses throughout India as provided under section 20 of the Act. The P. G. Committee is constituted under the act itself for discharging the work enumerated in Section 20 itself. Whereas, as per Section 10a, 10b and 10c of the Act, the MCI itself has to consider as provided under the Act, before making any recommendations to the Central Government. ( 30 ) IN the present case, the PG Committee considered the inspector's report which itself gave a direction to the Universities to discharge excess students and the same was in turn communicated by the University to the Colleges. This decision a'nd communications to discharge students is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act as any increase or decrease in the intake capacity has to be decided by the MCI independently by applying its mind to the report called for, if any. The consideration by the MCI and PG committee's decision and the communication to the University, cannot be said to be a proper consideration under the Act. This is also one of the infirmities in the present proceedings. Annexure-P. 1 which is the decision of the MCI shows that MCI has simply accepted the recommendation of the PG Committee without independently considering the merits of the case. This is also one of the infirmities in the present proceedings. Annexure-P. 1 which is the decision of the MCI shows that MCI has simply accepted the recommendation of the PG Committee without independently considering the merits of the case. ( 31 ) IT is well known principle of law that when a statute prescribed a particular procedure to be followed and obligates a particular authority to do a particular thing, it must be done in the manner prescribed in the statute, even in case where discretion is to be exercised. On this proposition it is relevant to refer to the following case laws on the subject: in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BOMBAY vs GORDHANDAS bhanji it has held: "turning now to the language used we are clear that by no stretch of imagination can this be construed to be an order which in effect say:"i, so and so, by virtue of the authority vested in me, do hereby order and direct this and that". If the Commissioner of police had the power to cancel the licence already granted and was the proper authority to make the order, it was incumbent on him to say so in express and direct terms. Public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them, and persons to whose detriment orders are made are entitled to know with exactness and precision what they are expected to do or for bear from doing and exactly what authority is making the order. The jurisdiction conferred by that section is very special in kind and is strictly limited in extent though the ambit of the powers exercisable within those limits is wide. Among the limitations imposed are the following; First, the order can only direct some specific act to be done or some specific act to be forborne. It is not possible therefore to give a mere declaratory relief as under section 42. Next, because of the proviso, the order can only be made if the doing or the forbearing is clearly incumbent upon the authority concerned under any law for the time being in force. And thirdly, there must be no other specific and adequate legal remedies available to the applicant. Next, because of the proviso, the order can only be made if the doing or the forbearing is clearly incumbent upon the authority concerned under any law for the time being in force. And thirdly, there must be no other specific and adequate legal remedies available to the applicant. "in MAHADAYAL PREMCHANDRA VS COMMERCIAL TAX officer, CALCUTTA AND ANOTHER it was held: "from the detailed narration of the facts regarding this particular assessment it is quite clear that the first respondent did not exercise his own judgment in the matter of the assessment in question. Even though he was convinced to the contrary, be asked for the instructions of the Assistant Commissioner (C. S.) and followed the same and assessed the appellants to sales-tax in respect of the disputed transactions. The order which he ultimately passed on 15th January 1955, further showed that he was merely voicing the opinion of the Assistant Commissioner (C. S) without any conviction of his own and the only thing he had to say in regard to the various grounds mentioned in the letters dated 21st November 1953, and 19th June 1954, was that they appeared to him to be "not at all satisfactory". This was hardly a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter, If the Assistant commissioner (CS) has been dealing with the same he could have by all means given in the assessment order which he made his reasons for doing so and these reasons would have been open to scrutiny in further proceedings taken by the appellants either by way of appeal or otherwise. The Assistant Commissioner (C. S.) however, had delegated this work of assessment to the first respondent and then it was the duty of the first respondent to make the assessment order giving his own reasons for doing so. The file of the assessee, however, shows that even though the 1st respondent was satisfied on the materials placed by the appellants and their representative before him that the appellants were not liable to pay sales-tax in regard to these transactions, he referred the matter first for instructions and then for obtaining the "valued opinion" of his superior, the Assistant Commissioner (C. S) arid the latter expressed his opinion that the appellants were liable in respect of these transactions. All this was done behind the back of the appellants and the appellants had no opportunity of meeting the point of view which had been adopted by the Assistant Commission (C. S. and the first respondent quietly followed these instructions and advise of the Assistant commissioner (C. S ). We are really Surprised at the manner in which the first respondent dealt with the matter of this assessment. It is clear that he did not exercise his own judgment in the matter and faithfully followed the instructions conveyed to him by the Assistant commissioner (C. S) without giving the appellants an opportunity to meet the points urged against them. The whole procedure was contrary to the principle of natural justice. The procedure adopted was, to say the least, unfair and was calculated to undermine the confidence of the public in the impartial and fair administration of the sale-tax Department concerned. We would have, simply on the ground, set aside the assessment order made by the first respondent and remanded the matter back to him for his due consideration in accordance with law, but as the matter is old and a remand would lead to unnecessary harassment of the appellants, we have preferred to deal with the appeal on merits. In BARIUM CHEMICALS LTD. AND ANOTHER vs COMPANY law BOARD AND OTHERS, it was held: " The order dated May 19, 1965 was passed by the Chairman of the Company Law Board. Mr. Setalvad submitted that only the board could pass an order under Section 237, the Central government could delegate its function under Section 237 to the board but it had no power to authorise the Chairman to sub- delegate this function to himself and consequently, the Company law Board (Procedure) Rules, 1964 made by the Central government on February 1, 1964 and the Chairman's order of distribution of business, dated February 6, 1964 delegating the function of the Board under Section 237 to the Chairman are ultra vires the Companies Act and the impugned order is invalid. The learned Attorney General disputed these submissions. As a general rule, whatever a person has power to do himself, he may do by means of an agent. This broad rule is limited by the operation of the principle that a delegated authority cannot be redelegated, delegatus non protest delegare. The learned Attorney General disputed these submissions. As a general rule, whatever a person has power to do himself, he may do by means of an agent. This broad rule is limited by the operation of the principle that a delegated authority cannot be redelegated, delegatus non protest delegare. The naming of a delegate 4 to do an act involving a discretion indicates that the delegate was selected because of his peculiar skill and the confidence reposed in him, and there is a presumption that he is required to do the act himself an cannot re-delegate his authority. As a general rule, "if the statute directs that certain acts shall be done in a specified manner or by certain persons, their performance in any other manner than that specified or by any other person than one of those named is impliedly prohibited" see Crawford on Statutory Construction, 1940 Edn. , Art. 195, p. 335. Normally, a discretion entrusted by Parliament to an administrative organ must be exercised by that organ itself. If a statute entrusts an administrative function involving the exercise of a discretion to a Board consisting of two or more persons it is to be presumed that each member of the Board should exercise his individual judgment on the matter and all the members of the board should act together and arrive at a joint decision. Prima facie, the Board must act as a whole and cannot delegate its function to one of its members. The learned Attorney-General submitted that a distribution of business among the members of the Company Law Board is not a delegation of its authority, and the maxim has no application in such a case. I cannot accept this submission. In Cook vs Ward, (1877) 2 CPD 255, the Court held that where a drainage board constituted by an Act of Parliament was authorised by it to delegate its powers to a committee, the powers so delegated to the committee must be exercised by them acting in concert and it was not competent to them to apportion those powers amongs 'themselves and one of them acting alone, pursuant to such apportionment, could not justify his acts under the statute. Lord coleridge, C. J. said at P. 262:"it was not competent to them to delegate powers, which required the united action of the three, to he exercised according to the unaided judgment of one of them". Again, in Vine vs National Dock Labour Board, 1957 AC 488, the House of Lords held that a local board set up under the scheme embodied in the schedule to the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Order, 1947 had no power to assign its disciplinary function under Clauses 15 (4} and 16 (2) of the scheme to a committee and the purported dismissal of a worker by the committee was a nullity. In my opinion, the distribution of , the business of the Board among its members is a delegation of its' authority. But the maxim "delegatus non protest delegare" must not be pushed too far. The maxim does not embody a rule of law. It indicates a rule of construction of a statute or other instrument conferring an authority. Prima facie, a discretion conferred by a statute on any authority is intended to be exercised by" that authority and by no other. But, the intention may be negatived by any contrary indications in the language, scope or object of the statute. The construction that would best achieve the purpose and object of the statute should be adopted. in THE PURTABPUR COMPANY LTD vs CAN COMMISSIONER of BIHAR AND OTHERS it was held that: "in the matter of exercise of the power under Rule 6 (1), the state Government and the Cane Commissioner are concurrent authorities. Their jurisdiction is co-ordinate. There was some controversy before us whether a Cane Commissioner who had reserved an area for a sugar factory for a particular period can alter, amend, or modify the area reserved in the middle of the period fixed. An seen earlier, 208 villages with which we are concerned in this case were reserved for the appellant for two seasons, ie. , 1966-67 and 1967-68. The contention was that the cane Commissioner could not have interfered with that reservation within that period. The High Court has come to the conclusion that the Cane Commissioner who had the power to make the reservation in question must be held to have had the power to alter or modify that reservation. , 1966-67 and 1967-68. The contention was that the cane Commissioner could not have interfered with that reservation within that period. The High Court has come to the conclusion that the Cane Commissioner who had the power to make the reservation in question must be held to have had the power to alter or modify that reservation. But it is not necessary for us to pronounce on this question as we are of the opinion that the impugned orders, though purported to have been made by the cane Commissioner, were, in fact, made by the Chief minister and hence they are invalid. We have earlier seen that the Cane commissioner was definitely of the view that the reservation made in favour of the appellant should not be disturbed but the Chief minister did not agree with that view. It is clear from the documents before us that the Chief Minister directed the Cane commissioner to divide the reserved area into two portions and allot one portion to the 5th respondent, in pursuance of that direction, the Cane Commissioner prepared two lists Ka' and' 'kha'. Under the orders of the Chief Minister, the villages contained in list 'ka' were allotted to the appellant and in list 'kha' to the 5th respondent. The Cane Commissioner merely carried out the orders of the Chief Minister, tt is true that the - impugned orders were issued in the name of the Cane commissioner. He merely obeyed the directions issued to him by the Chief Minister. We are unable to agree with the contention of Shri Chagla that though the Cane Commissioner was initially of the view that the reservation made in favour of the appellant should not be disturbed, he changed his opinion after discussion with the Chief Minister. From the material before us, the only conclusion possible is that the Chief Minister imposed his opinion on the Cane Commissioner. The power exercisable by the Cane commissioner under Clause 6 (1) is a statutory power. He alone could have exercised that power. While exercising that power he cannot abdicate his responsibility in favour of anyone not even. in favour of the State Government or the Chief Minister. It was not proper for the Chief Minister to have interfered with the functions of the Cane Commissioner. He alone could have exercised that power. While exercising that power he cannot abdicate his responsibility in favour of anyone not even. in favour of the State Government or the Chief Minister. It was not proper for the Chief Minister to have interfered with the functions of the Cane Commissioner. In this case what has happened is that the power of the Cane Commissioner has been exercised by the Chief Minister, an authority not recognised by cl. (6) read with Cl. (11) but the responsibility for making those orders was asked to be taken by the Cane Commissioner. . In ANIRUDHSINHJl KARANSINHJI JADEJA AND ANOTHER vs state OF GUJARAT it was held that: the case against the appellants originally was registered on 19. 3. 1995 under the Arms Act. The DSP did not give any prior approval on his own to record any information about the commission of an offence under TADA. On the contrary, he made a report to the Additional Chief Secretary and asked for permission to proceed under TADA. Why? Was it because he was relectant to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by the provision of Section 20-A (1)? This is a case of power conferred upon one authority being really exercised by another. If a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If the discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authority's instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. In other words, the discretion vested in the DSP in this case by Section 20-A (1) was not exercised by the DSP at all. Reference may be made in this connection to Commissioner of Police vs Gordhandas Bhanji ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ), in which the action of Commissioner of Police in cancelling the permission granted to the respondent for construction of cinema in Greater bombay at the behest of the State Government was not upheld, as the rules concerned had conferred this power on the commissioner, because of which it was stated that the commissioner was bound to bear his own independent and unfettered judgment and decide the matter for himself, instead of forwarding an order which another authority had purported to pass. It has been stated by Wade and Forsyth in Administrative law, 7th Edn. at pp. It has been stated by Wade and Forsyth in Administrative law, 7th Edn. at pp. 358-59 under the heading "surrender, abdication, Dictation" and sub-heading "power in the wrong hands" as below:"closely akin to delegation, and scarcely distinguishable from it in some cases, is any arrangement by which a power conferred upon one authority is in substance exercised by another. The proper authority may share its power with someone else, or may allow some one else to dictate to it by declining to act without their consent or by submitting to their wishes or instructions. The effect then is that the discretion conferred by Parliament is exercised, at least in part, by the wrong authority, and the resulting decision is ultra vires and void. So strict are the Courts in applying this principle that they condemn some administrative arrangements which must seem quite natural and proper to those who make them. . . Ministers and their departments have several times fallen foul of the same rule, no doubt equally to their surprise. . . "the aforesaid is however not all. Even if it be accepted that as an additional safeguard against arbitrary exercise of the drastic provisions, the State Government had provided by administrative instructions an additional safeguard whereunder the DSP was required to obtain the sanction/consent of the Government, we are of the view that in the present case the same was given by the State Government without proper application of mind. We have taken this view because the sanction/consent was given by the Government merely on the basis of the fax message dated 17. 3. 1995 of the DSP. The reason for our saying so is that though there is no record a fax message of Deputy Director General of police also, which is dated 18. 3. 1995 the sanction/consent order has mentioned above the fax message of the DSP only. Now, no doubt the message of the DSP is quite exhaustive, as would appear from that message which has been quoted above in full, we are inclined to think that before agreeing to the use of harsh provisions of TADA against the appellants, the Government ought to have taken some steps to satisfy itself whether what had been stated by the DSP was borne out by the records, which apparently had not been called for in the present case, as the sanction/ consent as given post-haste on 18. 3. 1995, i. e. , the very next day of the message of the DSP. It seems the DSP emphasised the political angle in the first two paragraphs of his message. The dispute or motive stated was that the Darbars were annoyed because they were refused loan and not because of any political rivalry. In the third paragraph there is reference to statements of accused after arrest which would ordinarily be inadmissible in evidence. Reference to avoid incident of the past not provide any nexus. The State Government gave the sanction without even discussing the matter with the investigating officer and wihout assessing the situation independently. All these show lack of proper and due application of mind by the State Government while giving sanction/consent. The Principle laid down in the above judgments makes it clear that where a statute confers an obligation on an authority, it alone has to do the Act in consonance with the provisions thereof. Where there is violation, it amounts to abdication of duty and the act is invalid. ( 32 ) THUS, on a careful consideration of the various principles enunciated by the Apex Court, we are of the considered view that the MC! has not followed the various directions of the learned Single judge issued by his order dated 11. 4. 1997. Therefore, impugned action of the MCI cannot be sustained. ( 33 ) THIS takes us to the next question as to whether the students who have been admitted, undergone the courses by virtue of the interim order of the learned Single Judge and completed the term and appeared for the examination are entitled for regularisation. ( 34 ) THE Apex Court and various High Courts have on different occasions, considered the regularisation or confirmation of the students who were admitted in excess of the intake fixed by the mci and in some cases where the eligibility qualification was lacking as fixed by the concerned educational institutions. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs Nivedita Jain (Supra), Nivedita jain challenged the reduction of marks for students belonging to reserved category though they were not qualified as they have not obtained the qualifying marks. The Council had reduced the qualifying marks to enable the candidates belong to SC/st to get admission. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs Nivedita Jain (Supra), Nivedita jain challenged the reduction of marks for students belonging to reserved category though they were not qualified as they have not obtained the qualifying marks. The Council had reduced the qualifying marks to enable the candidates belong to SC/st to get admission. That was challenged by her stating therein that if those candidates were not given admission by reducing the qualifying marks, she would have been entitled to get a seat and the High Court upheld that contention. She was given admission to MBBS Course. This was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the said judgment and held that reduction of qualifying marks for SC/st candidates is quite proper and within the power of the State government. But, the Supreme Court directed to continue the admission of Nivedita Jain in MBBS Course. In CHARLES K. SKARIA and ORS. vs Dr. C. MATHEW ORS. excess admission was made and when the question of regutarisation came up for consideration, the Supreme Court directed to increase the seats proportionately. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the students having covered substantial part of the course of their studies, it is not just and fair to discontinue them and directed to continue them. In RAJENDRA PRASAD MATHUR vs KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY and ANOTHER, The Supreme Court observed that ineligible students are admitted and allowed to pursue the course for a long time and held that the students cannot be punished for the fault of the colleges. In A. SUDHA vs UNIVERSTIY OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER, the candidate who had not obtained the qualifying marks of 50% in pcb examination was admitted. When it was challenged, she had completed I year of MBBS Course and in those circumstances, the supreme Court directed not to cancel the admission. In MRIDULA AVASTHI AND OTHERS ETC. vs UNIVERSITY OF delhi AND OTHERS and in Dr. DINEKSH KUMAR AND OTHERS vs MOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALLAHABAD AND others, the Supreme Court held that if the admission of student who are already prosecuting their studies are cancelled, it would cause immense hardship and it would disturb their career. Similarly, in PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE vs SANJAY GULATI AND others admissions were regularised. ( 35 ) IN Medical Council of India vs State of Karnataka and Others etc. Similarly, in PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE vs SANJAY GULATI AND others admissions were regularised. ( 35 ) IN Medical Council of India vs State of Karnataka and Others etc. (Supra), the Supreme Court after reviewing an earlier case law on the subject regarding excess admission held that after the MCI act came into force particularly after incorporation of Sections 10a, 10b and 10c, except MCI, no other authority including the State government or University have got any power to fix the intake capacity or qualification or of standard of education and further pointed out that continuing the courses which were permitted by the state Government and the University will amount to perpetuating illegality. Even the MCI had given an assurance to the Supreme court that they are not going to disturb the students who have already been prosecuting the studies and that the council did not wish to invalidate the admissions made in excess (vide para 30 of the judgment ). In all the above cases, the Supreme Court directed regularising the students even though in some cases admission were irregular and made even though candidates were ineligible. ( 36 ) THE other set of cases are in regard to candidates where the Court refused to regularise the students which are as follows: in Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs Karnataka University (Supra) the supreme Court held that the students are ineligible having failed to take necessary examination. In 1998 (6)SCC 250 , the Supreme Court held that the students are not entitled for regularisation as the candidates are ineligible due to lack of training. Similarly, in GURU nanak DEV UNIVERSITY vs PARMINDER KR. BANSAL AND others, the Supreme Court refused to regularise the students as the candidates are ineligible for admission as they had not passed the necessary examination. In 1995 (5} SCC 732, the Supreme Court refused to regularise the admission of candidates as the candidates are admitted in the absence of any guidelines and rules by the State. ( 37 ) THERE are two types of cases: In one type, the students are regularised and in another type, the Court refused to regularise. Now, we have to scrutinise the facts of the present case under which category the students will fall. ( 38 ) THE MCI Act was enacted in the year 1956. By virtue of the power conferred under Section 33 of the Act, the MCI framed regulations. Now, we have to scrutinise the facts of the present case under which category the students will fall. ( 38 ) THE MCI Act was enacted in the year 1956. By virtue of the power conferred under Section 33 of the Act, the MCI framed regulations. The Regulations prescribe the standard of medical education and also the norms to be followed in admitting the students. The criteria for admission to PG Course were laid down in regulation 4 in the Regulations framed by MCI Regulations of post graduate Medical Education revised upto January, 1988 which are as follows: 4. The number of admissions to post graduate courses should be based on the following criteria: a. The number of post graduate students shall not exceed one candidate per recognised post graduate teacher per year. b. The number of teaching beds available for the training of the students in the subjects of training shall also determine the number of candidates to be admitted. c. The out patient attendance; work turonver, the research work in the department, ambulatory care provided to patients and other variables will be taken into consideration in fixing a ceiling on the number of candidates who may be admitted for training. d. Broadly speaking, it is recommended that for the present three bed per post graduate student should be the minimum available in the speciality concerned, in all such specialities where teaching beds are necessary for the training of the students. This may be further reviewed in the light of a careful assessment of the actual requirements. In this clause, post graduate students refers to the total number of degree and diploma students in the speciality concerned undergoing training in a particular year. ( 39 ) EXCEPT the above stated guidelines for providing criteria for admission to PG course, fixation of number of candidates or intake capacity was not provided by the said Regulations. On the other hand, in every state, the State Government or Universities continued the fixation of intake capacity as per the said Act. In the present case, as per Section 53 (1) of the Karnataka State Universities Act and Section 4 (28) of the Karnataka Capitation Fees Act, the same is continued until the learned Single Judge of this Court declared that except MCI, no other authority including the State Government and University have any power to fix the intake capacity. In the present case, as per Section 53 (1) of the Karnataka State Universities Act and Section 4 (28) of the Karnataka Capitation Fees Act, the same is continued until the learned Single Judge of this Court declared that except MCI, no other authority including the State Government and University have any power to fix the intake capacity. In Citizens of India vs State of Karnataka which was party reversed by the division Bench on Appeal, the Supreme Court in Medical Council of india vs State of Karnataka reversed the Division Bench judgment and restored the Single Judge's order. Pending disposal of the case before the Single Judge, there was a stay. Even before the Division bench, stay was granted. The case deals with the under graduate students, ie. , MBBS students and ultimate!y; the MCI gave an assurance before the Supreme Court that they were not going to invalidate the admission of excess students. Thus, until the Supreme court declared the law in the case of MCI vs State of Karnataka (Supra) , it was not clear whether the State and University has no power to fix the admission. It is also relevant here to refer to the judgment 2 of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Singh and Others vs State of Bihar and Others (Supra ). In this cases, the Supreme court while considering the scope of Section 19a and Section 20 of the MCI Act which deals with admission to PG course has held in paras 18 and 21 as follows: "a review of the provisions of the Act clearly shows that among other things, the Act is concerned with the determination and coordination of standards of education and training in medical institutions. Sections 16,17,18 and 19 ail speak of" the courses of study and examination to be undergone" to obtain the recognised medical qualification. They do not speak of admission to such courses. Section 19a expressly empowers the council to "prescribe the minimum standards of medical education" required for granting undergraduate medical qualification. So does Section 20 empower the council to prescribe standards of postgraduate medical education but "for the guidance of universities" only. It further says that the council "may also advise universities in the matter of securing uniform standards for postgraduate medical education throughout India". So does Section 20 empower the council to prescribe standards of postgraduate medical education but "for the guidance of universities" only. It further says that the council "may also advise universities in the matter of securing uniform standards for postgraduate medical education throughout India". (The distinction between the language of Section 19-A and Section 20 is also a relevant factory, as would be explained later ). Clauseg) of Section 23 particularises the subject with respect to which Regulations can be made by the council. It speaks of the courses and period of study and the practical training to be undergone by the students, the subjects of examination which they must pass and the standards of proficiency they must attain to obtain the recognised medical qualifications but it does not speak of admission to such courses to study. Indeed, none of the sections aforementioned empower the council to regulate or prescribe qualifications or conditions for admission to such courses of study. No other provision in the Act does. It is thus clear that the Act does not purport to deal with, regulate or provide for admission to graduate or postgraduate medical courses. In deed, insofar as postgraduate courses are concerned, the power of the Indian Medical Council to "prescribe the minimum standards of medical education" is only advisory in nature and not of a binding character. In such a situation, it would be rather curious to say that the Regulations made under the Act are !binding upon them. The Regulations made under the Act cannot also provide for or regulate admission to postgraduate courses in any event. In State of M. P vs Nivedita Jain ( 1981 (4) SCC 296 ) a Bench of this Court comprising Y. V. Chandrachud C. J. , A. Varadharajan and A. M. Sen, JJ. held, dealing with a Regulation (similar to the one contained in the 1989 publication of the Regulation by the indian Medical Council) made by the Indian Medical Council that it is "merely directory and does not have any mandatory force". A. M. Sen, J. speaking for the Bench dealt with the scope of Entry 66 List I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution in the following words: (SCC pp. A. M. Sen, J. speaking for the Bench dealt with the scope of Entry 66 List I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution in the following words: (SCC pp. 313-314, para 22) "entry 66 in "list I (Union List) of the 7th Schedule to the constitution relates to 'coordination and determination of standard in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions'. This entry by itself does not have any bearing on the question of selection of candidates to the Medical colleges from amongst candidates who are eligible for such admission. On the other hand, Entry 25 in List III (Concurrent list) of the same Schedule speaks of - education, including technical education, medical education in universities, subject to entries 63,64,65 and 66 of List I. . . vocational and technical training of labour'. This entry is wide enough to include within its ambit the question of selection of candidates to medical colleges and there is nothing in the Entries 63,64, and 65 of List I to suggest to the contrary. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Regulation ii of the Council which is merely directory and in the nature of a recommendation has no such statutory force as to render the order in question which contravenes the said Regulation illegal, invalid and unconstitutional" thus, until the MCI case was decided by the Supreme Court recently, the view was that the provisions of the Act and regulations are only advisory and not mandatory and the State and University has got power to deal with admissions. It is a fact that recently in preethi Srivatsav's case an unreported judgment, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has overruled the earlier view. Until recently, there were contradictory views regarding fixation of intake capacity by the judgments of this Courts from time to time. ( 40 ) IT is an admitted fact that no notices were issued to the students before a direction to discharge them was given. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, equity has to prevail as held by the Apex Court in STATE OF KERALA vs t. P. ROSHANA (supra) ASHOK CHAND SINGHVI vs UNIVERSITY of JODHPUR AND OTHERS, wherein the Supreme Court permitted the ineligible students who were admitted to complete the course. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, equity has to prevail as held by the Apex Court in STATE OF KERALA vs t. P. ROSHANA (supra) ASHOK CHAND SINGHVI vs UNIVERSITY of JODHPUR AND OTHERS, wherein the Supreme Court permitted the ineligible students who were admitted to complete the course. ( 41 ) IN this case, the impugned communication issued to the colleges by the University directing to discharge the students were received only after the admission were completed for the year 1996. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in CITIZEN's OF INDIA case was delivered "by Justice G. C. Bharuka in the month of" november, 1996. Thus, the students bona fide believing that the intake capacity of the college was valid, have got themselves admitted. Though the MCI has made periodical inspections and noticed the number of students admitted in different disciplines of post graduate courses, it did not object. In view of the above circumstances and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we think it to be just and proper that the students deserve to be regularised, ( 42 ) LEARNED Counsel for the MCI contended that the admissions of the excess students cannot be regularised. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in a. P. CHRISTIANS MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs government OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER. In this case, the Supreme Court was dealing with admission made by the andhra Pradesh Christians Medical Education Society and the college was not having either the affiliation from the University or permission from the MCI or the Central Government. Considering these facts, the Court held that admission of students into such colleges which were started without affiliation or permission cannot be regularised. Learned Counsel also relied on the decision in UNION OF INDIA and ANOTHER vs KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC CO. LTD. 24 for the proposition that directions cannot be issued to disobey the regulations of statutory authority. There is no dispute about this proposition and we are not issuing any direction to dis-obey the statutory provisions. All that we have done is a direction to consider the cases in terms of the provisions of the Act and directions of this Court because the authorities have not given an opportunity before passing adverse orders. There is no dispute about this proposition and we are not issuing any direction to dis-obey the statutory provisions. All that we have done is a direction to consider the cases in terms of the provisions of the Act and directions of this Court because the authorities have not given an opportunity before passing adverse orders. ( 43 ) FURTHER, learned Counsel relied on the judgment in DENTAL council OF INDIA vs HARPREET KAUR BAL AND OTHERS. In this case, the institution itself was recognised. Therefore, the supreme Court considering the case of the admissions made by that institution held that they are not entitled for regularisation. In 1994 SC 594, the Supreme Court has observed that the regularisation is not a matter of right. But, in facts of that case is quite different from the facts of the present cases. Similarly is the case of C. B. S. E AND ANOTHER vs P. SUNIL KUMAR AND others where in the institution was unaffiliated. The Supreme court held that the students are not entitled for reqularisation. There is no comparison to the present institutions and the institution referred to in the above judgment cited by the learned Counsel. All the colleges involved in these cases were affiliated to the erstwhile university and subsequently to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health sciences. From time to time, the admission capacity and the courses started were regulated and recognised by the University and the state Government until the judgment in MCI vs State of Karnataka in the year 1998. ( 44 ) THE Court has to strike a balance between the competing force i. e. , the future of the student community who believing in the institution have got themselves admitted and completed the course by virtue of stay granted by this Court and the mandatory legal provisions which are incorporated from time to time which were finally decided recently. It is a fact that students were admitted in excess of the quota. The institutions themselves were not affiliated or unrecognised and the students have studied along with other students who were admitted within the quota. All of them studied in the institutions which have got the same infrastructure, same staff and technicians. Therefore, there cannot be an artificial barrier between the students who studied together under same circumstances. The institutions themselves were not affiliated or unrecognised and the students have studied along with other students who were admitted within the quota. All of them studied in the institutions which have got the same infrastructure, same staff and technicians. Therefore, there cannot be an artificial barrier between the students who studied together under same circumstances. ( 45 ) LEARNED Counsel for the MCI contended that after the enactment of the 1956 Act, the entire control vests in MCI. Further, the incorporation of Section 10a, 10b and 10c and the Regulations in pursuance of those provisions only make it clear that the power is vested in MCI only. Therefore, except MCI no other authority including the University or the State Government has power either to enhance the seats or permit to start new courses or enhance the strength of the existing courses. ( 46 ) THERE is no dispute in the above submission of the learned counsel that the MCI and the Central Government are the supreme authority as per the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. It is a fact that in State of Kerala vs Kum. T. P. Roshana (Supra), the Supreme Court held that the MCI has implicit power to supervise the qualification or eligibility standard for admission to 'medical institutions. Thus, there is an overall invigilance by the medical Council to prevent sub-standard students qualifying for medical course. Later in NIVEDITA JAIN's case AIR 1981 SC 2045 , the Supreme Court held that the provisions are only directory and not mandatory. In Dr. Ajay Pradhan vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (supra), the Supreme Court held that there cannot be increase in the number of seats without the sanction of the Medical council of India and without corresponding increase in the strength of the teaching staff which necessarily involves financial implications. In a later judgment in Ajay Kumar Singh and Others vs State of bihar and Others (Supra), the Supreme Court held that the regulations made by the Medical Council speak generally of students for postgraduate training being selected strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the undergraduate course. There is more in the nature of advice and not a binding direction. Thus, the supreme Court again reiterated that the provisions and Regulations are only directory and not mandatory. There is more in the nature of advice and not a binding direction. Thus, the supreme Court again reiterated that the provisions and Regulations are only directory and not mandatory. Therefore, until the Supreme court finally laid down that the provisions of the MCI Act and regulations are mandatory and except MCI no other authority has got power to deal with the medical and dental admissions and the supervision of such institutions in the country. ( 47 ) THEREFORE, dealing with the medical admissions and reservations provided in the medical institutions, the Supreme Court has finally come to the conclusion that the strength of admission and standard of education, mode of examination etc. in medical and dental colleges is within the exclusive purview of the MCI and Central government. Thus, until that time, the position was in a fluid state. ( 48 ) IN the present case, the students involved were admitted for the academic year 1996-97 and many students who were admitted during the academic year 1992-93 have passed out and have obtained P. G. degrees and for which no objection was taken by the mci apart from not taking any action. Therefore, in view of those circumstances, these cases have to be considered keeping in view the position of law as explained by the Apex Court and the High courts from time to time. ( 49 ) IT is secondly contended that when any of the provisions of the Act and Regulation is explicit and there is no ambiguity, it has to be interpreted to meant that the provisions are mandatory. We are in complete agreement with the said submission. As stated supra, the interpretation of the provisions of the Act and Regulations were in a fluid state until 1998 and in the meanwhile, students were admitted and when writs were filed in this Court, stay was granted for continuing th courses and students have continued in the courses and diploma holders have completed their courses and appeared for the exams and post graduate students have completed the course and they have appeared for exams. Therefore, the facts of each case has to be taken into consideration while applying the law. ( 50 ) IT is thirdly contended that the decision of the MCI is a decision taken as an authority under the Act. Therefore, the facts of each case has to be taken into consideration while applying the law. ( 50 ) IT is thirdly contended that the decision of the MCI is a decision taken as an authority under the Act. There is no provision forgiving opportunity as the decision taken was administrative and therefore, there was no requirement of giving any notice or affording any opportunity. Section 10 of the Act provides for issue of notice before the Scheme is rejected by the Central Government. MCI had to submit a report to the Central Government for examination, if necessary, calling for report and even the Central Government is obligated to issue notice before taking a decision. Thus, the statutory provisions provide for giving opportunity to the concealed colleges. Therefore, the contention that no notice no opportunity was required to be given is not tenable. Even when administrative decisions adversely affect the parties, a decision has to be taken only after giving notice as the principles of natural justice as to be read into the provisions in case where there is no provision providing for giving notice and when it affects the rights of the parties. ( 51 ) IT is further contended that if this Court issues a mandamus to regularise the students admitted by violating the provisions of the act and Regulations, it amounts to continuing illegality. There is no dispute about this also: In para 31 of its judgment in Medical Council of India vs State of Karnataka (Supra), the Supreme Court made a reference to the similar cases which were pending in the High Court at that time and observed that the said cases be considered separately. Therefore, these cases have to be considered as per their merit along with the provisions of the Act and Regulations. ( 52 ) IT was further contended that no judicial review lies where the experts have taken a decision. There is no dispute on this point. But, where an expert decision is taken not providing any opportunity which substantially affects the legal right of the parties and when the Act itself provisions for giving an opportunity before taking a decision which has adverse effects, the said decision is deemed to be violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the act. But, where an expert decision is taken not providing any opportunity which substantially affects the legal right of the parties and when the Act itself provisions for giving an opportunity before taking a decision which has adverse effects, the said decision is deemed to be violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the act. It has to be noticed, as stated by us earlier, that this Court gave a direction to the MCI to consider the cases according to law and the provisions of the Act and directed the MCI to submit a report to the Central Government and the Central Government after giving notice and if necessary, calling for further report has to pass an order. But in this case, because there is a time lag, the MCI itself has taken a decision. Therefore, in these circumstances and the peculiar facts of this case, the contention of the learned Counsel for mci is not tenable. ( 53 ) IN view of the above stated circumstances, we think it just and proper to confirm the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the provisions of Section 10a, 10b and 10c and the regulations framed thereunder are mandatory and except the MCI and the Central Government, no other authority including the university and the State Government has power to regulate the admissions to the medical and dental colleges. ( 54 ) BUT, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we quash Annexures-J and K and the impugned proceedings of the MCI and Post Graduate Committee rejecting the regularisation of the admissions of students and the admission capacity of colleges and further direct the colleges to file a fresh scheme for regularisation of those students within a period of six weeks from today. On filing such scheme, the Central Government is directed to consider the case of the colleges and students regarding regularisation of students, keeping in view the observations made by us in the judgment, within a period of four months from the date of filing the fresh scheme. ( 55 ) PENDING disposal of the Application by the Central government, the Appellant Colleges are directed to admit the students in P. G. Course as quota fixed by the MCI, which is impugned in the present Writ Petitions. ( 55 ) PENDING disposal of the Application by the Central government, the Appellant Colleges are directed to admit the students in P. G. Course as quota fixed by the MCI, which is impugned in the present Writ Petitions. ( 56 ) THE enrolment of the qualified Post-Graduate Degree Holders and Diploma Holders as Post-Graduate Doctors and Diploma holders will be subject to the result of the orders to be passed by the Central Government. ( 57 ) WE further direct the University to public the results of the students who have appeared for the examinations and in case any of the students, fail in any of the subjects, they are entitled to further appear for examination and complete the course. ( 58 ) WRIT Petitions and Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No orders as to costs. --- *** --- .