GODA RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) MAMATA Educational Society, Khammam ( mamata society for short), filed Writ Petition no. 22675 of 1998 seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent-NTR University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh ( university of Health Sciences for short), in denying admission of 100 students who have come out successful and secured ranks in the EAMCET, into the first year mbbs course in Mamata Society College for the academic year 1998-99, is illegal and arbitrary. ( 2 ) THE said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 11-11-1998 directing the University of Health Sciences to allot candidates to the college without reference to the letter of the Government of india dated 7-7-1998. It was also directed that as the college has already paid affiliation fees for the academic year 1998-99, the university of Health Sciences shall consider the same and take appropriate action. ( 3 ) THE Medical Council of India, which was not a party to Writ Petition no. 22635 of 1998, filed an application wpmp No. 835 of 1999 seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11-9-1998. This Court granted leave by order dated 2-4-1999. Consequently Writ appeal No. 535 of 1999 was filed by the medical Council of India assailing the order dated 11-9-1998 in Writ Petition No. 22675 of 1998. ( 4 ) INTER alia, by order dated 2-4-1999 in Writ Appeal No. 535 of 1999, this Court directed that no further admissions be made from the date of the order onwards for any academic year without express consent of the concerned authorities and by a further order dated 28-4-1999 the earlier direction not to make any further admissions for the ensuing academic year was reiterated with a further rider that no such admissions shall be made without the leave of the Court. In said order the college was given liberty to approach the medical Council of India and the Central government for permission for admitting the next batch students in the light of the pleaded augmented infrastructure facility, without prejudice to the contentions of the college and without prejudice to the contentions advanced in the writ appeal by the Medical Council of India. By the earlier order dated 2-4-1999 students who have been admitted in excess have been directed to be impleaded as parties to the writ appeal. By the earlier order dated 2-4-1999 students who have been admitted in excess have been directed to be impleaded as parties to the writ appeal. ( 5 ) PURSUANT to an inspection conducted, the Medical Council of India by its proceedings dated 3-6-1999 informed the mamata Society as under :"i am directed to convey that upon consideration of the entire matter it has been thus decided that your college is due for grant of renewal of annual permission for 100 admissions annually and specially in view of the fact that you have already admitted 200 students, the recommendations to the Central government have been made that the renewal of the annual permission which was initially granted by the Central government on 19th May, 1998 with prospective effect, be granted to the college by the Central Government only on the condition that they should not admit any further student for the academic session 1999-2000. It has further been recommended to the central Government that the students who have been admitted by the college in January, 1999 be deemed to be admitted for the present academic session 1999-2000 and the University examinations taken accordingly. This would be on the same pattern by which a practical solution was found in the case of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government medical College, Tanda, Himachal pradesh, referred to hereinabove. " ( 6 ) THE Government of India on receipt of recommendations of the Medical Council of India in terms set out in the Medical council of India s proceedings dated 3-6-1999 above, by its proceedings dated 9-6-1999 called upon the Mamata Society to furnish the necessary undertaking to enable consideration of renewal of permission. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the proceedings dated 3-6-1999 and 9-6-1999 of the Medical council of India and Government of India respectively, Writ Petition No. 12393 of 1999 was filed by the Mamata Society. ( 8 ) THE writ appeal and writ petition involving as they do inter-related questions of fact and substantively common principles of law have been heard and are disposed of together by this common judgment, with the consent of the parties. Background facts : the Mamata Society was registered in 1992 under the A. P. (Telangana Area) Public societies Registration Act, 1350-Fasli. Background facts : the Mamata Society was registered in 1992 under the A. P. (Telangana Area) Public societies Registration Act, 1350-Fasli. With a view to establish an institution to impart medical education the Mamata society made an application and was awarded permission to establish Medical college by the State Government along with other Societies which were similarly awarded permission. This Court invalidated all such permissions granted by the State government and the said decision was also confirmed by the Supreme Court. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court, the Government of India issued "establishment of New Medical Colleges regulations, 1993" (for short, 1993 regulations ). The Mamata Society made an application for establishing a Medical college at Khammam. ( 9 ) THE State Government in G. O. Ms. No. 371, dated 21-9-1996 issued an essentiality Certificate to the Mamata society for establishing new Medical College at Khammam, subject to conditions contained therein including a condition that the mamata Society should ensure conformity with the conditions laid down in the scheme relating to Medical Colleges framed under the provisions of the Indian medical Council Act, 1956 (for short the Act ). ( 10 ) BY its communication dated 4-11-1996 addressed to the Mamata Society, the university of Health Sciences intimated that they have no objection to consider the application for affiliation for a new Medical college to be started at Khammam for 100 admissions into MBBS course after permission is obtained from the Government of India (emphasis supplied ). This communication also made it clear that this letter of consent does not confer any right for grant of affiliation and has been issued only for fulfilling the qualifying criteria to apply to the Central Government for permission to establish a new Medical college as per the 1993 Regulations. The university of Health Sciences by the above letter categorically informed the Mamata society that after permission is accorded by the Government of India to start the Medical college, the Management may apply for affiliation in the prescribed application form and as per the statute of the University before actually starting the college and admissions are made. The University of health Sciences categorically informed the mamata Society hat "under no circumstances the Management shall admit the students before affiliation is granted by the University of Health Sciences". The University of health Sciences categorically informed the mamata Society hat "under no circumstances the Management shall admit the students before affiliation is granted by the University of Health Sciences". ( 11 ) THE Government of India issued a letter of intent dated 16-10-1997 to the mamata Society, in principle permitting an annual intake of 100 admissions together with intimation of the conditionalities to be complied with. Para 4 of this letter categorically informed the Mamata Society that students should not be admitted till the formal permission is accorded by the government of India and that action to grant formal permission for establishment of medical College at Khammam with an annual intake of 100 admissions will be initiated on receipt of a letter accepting the conditions enumerated and after bank guarantees in the required sums are received. ( 12 ) THE Mamata Society addressed a letter dated 4-11-1997 to the Government of india intimating acceptance of conditions set out in the letter dated 16-10-1997 and specifically stating in Para 5 that the conditions set out in the letter of intent that no admissions will be made till formal permission is accorded by the Government, shall be adhered to. ( 13 ) BY its proceedings dated 15-12-1997, the Medical Council of India addressed the Government of India intimating the decision of the Executive Committee of the medical Council of India to recommend to central Government to issue letter of permission for starting a Medical College at khammam by Mamata Society with an annual intake of 100 admissions. Events leading to the present litigation : after the recommendation dated 15-12-1997 was addressed by the Medical council of India to the Government of India, apprehending delayed action in the matter of grant of permission by the Government of India and aggrieved by the non-allotment of candidates despite the counselling process having commenced, the Mamata society filed Writ Petition No. 1413 of 1998 before this Court seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents in denying admissions to its College despite the recommendation of the Medical council of India contained in its letter dated 15-12-1997, is illegal and arbitrary. To this writ petition the Mamata Society impleaded as respondents the Government of India, the State Government and University of health Sciences but not the Medical council of India. To this writ petition the Mamata Society impleaded as respondents the Government of India, the State Government and University of health Sciences but not the Medical council of India. Despite the clear provisions of the Act, the 1993 Regulations thereunder, the express intimation contained in the letter of consent of the University of Health sciences dated 4-11-1996, the letter of intent of the Government of India dated 16-10-1997 and contrary to its own undertaking contained in its letter dated 4-11-1997 addressed to the Government of india that no admissions shall be made till formal permission is accorded by the government of India, the Mamata Society moved for interlocutory relief in Writ Petition no. 1413 of 1998. ( 14 ) IN WP MP No. 1595 of 1998 the mamata Society sought a direction to the state Government to allot candidates for admission into MBBS course to the Medical college to be started by the petitioner society and in WP MP No. 1596 of 1998 sought a direction to the University of Health Sciences to grant affiliation to the Medical College to be started. ( 15 ) BY ex parte interim orders dated 3-2-1998 this Court directed the University of Health Sciences to allot candidates to the Mamata Society s institution in the first year MBBS course in accordance with the Rules pending affiliation by the 1st University of Health Sciences and without insisting for permission from the government of India. The Society was also directed to file a necessary application before the University of Health Sciences for affiliation in the prescribed form together with the requisite fees and other requirements. ( 16 ) WRIT Petition No. 1413 of 1998 was "closed" by the orders of this Court dated 30-4-1998 in the following terms : "it is submitted by the learned Counsel for both sides that in view of the orders issued by the Government of India subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. Hence the writ petition is closed. " There was no adjudication or any finding or conclusion on any of the issues urged in the writ petition. Hence the writ petition is closed. " There was no adjudication or any finding or conclusion on any of the issues urged in the writ petition. ( 17 ) AT the hearing of these applications neither the Counsel for the Mamata society not the Counsel for the University of Health Sciences have been able to inform this Court as to which orders of the Government of India were in contemplation and submission made to this Court seeking "closure of Writ Petition no. 1413 of 1998" ( 18 ) WE are also constrained to observe, that the conduct of the University of Health Sciences in apparently not sensitising this Court that in law no allotment of students could be made without the previous permission of the government of India and affiliation by university and in not atleast taking recourse to an appellate remedy against such an interim order of this Court, constitutes a failure to its obligation in public interest as a statutory body and has contributed not in the least to the present imbroglio, engendered substantially by the frenzy on the part of the Mamata Society to obtain admissions to a Medical College in utero. ( 19 ) CONTRARY to the contents of its letter of consent dated 4-11-1996 the university of Health Sciences by its proceedings dated 20-4-1998, intimated the mamata Society that provisional permission is accorded for affiliation of first year mbbs course with an intake of 100 students for the year 1997-98, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions/deficiencies set out in the annexure to the letter. It is worthwhile noticing that the University of health Sciences appears to have granted provisional affiliation for a period of one year to a Medical College that did not exist in the eye of law as no formal permission of the Government of India was issued by the date of this decision by the University of Health Sciences. In fact by its earlier letter of consent dated 4-11-1996 the University took the unequivocal stand that the question of affiliation would be considered after permission from the Government of India is obtained for establishment of Medical college. In fact by its earlier letter of consent dated 4-11-1996 the University took the unequivocal stand that the question of affiliation would be considered after permission from the Government of India is obtained for establishment of Medical college. (Emphasis supplied) ( 20 ) THE Government of India by its proceedings dated 19-5-1998 conveyed to the Mamata Society, approval to the scheme submitted for establishment of a new medical College at Khammam with an annual intake of 100 admissions, under section 10-A of the Act, with prospective effect. It is clearly recorded and intimated that the approval is initially for a period of one year and will be renewed on yearly basis after verification of the physical and other infrastructural facilities as per the norms and regulations of the Medical council of India. ( 21 ) ADMISSIONS into first year MBBS course in the State of A. P. for the academic year 1997-98 commenced in december, 1997. Pursuant to the interim direction of this Court dated 3-2-1998 in writ Petition No. 1413 of 1998 the University of Health Sciences allotted 100 students for admission to the petitioner s college of which 59 students had been admitted prior to 19-5-1998 (date of permission for establishment of the college by the government of India) and 41 were admitted subsequent to the said date and by 26-6-1998. It is relevant to note that the allotment of students and the admission of 59 students who were admitted prior to 19-5-1998 by the college engendered by the Mamata Society at Khammam was w. e. f. 6-5-1998 (subsequent to the closure of wp No. 1413 of 1998 by the orders of this court dated 30-4-1998 ). ( 22 ) ADMISSIONS for the first year MBBS academic session 1998-99 in the State were made in January, 1999. No students were being allotted to the Mamata Medical college and constrained thereby the mamata Society filed Writ Petition No. 22675 of 1998 seeking a declaration that the action of the sole respondent-University of health Sciences in denying admissions of 100 students for admission into first year mbbs course for the academic year 1998-99 is illegal and arbitrary. By way of interim relief, in WP MP No. 27270 of 1998, a direction was sought to the University of Health Sciences to allot candidates for the academic year 1998-99 to the petitioner institution. By way of interim relief, in WP MP No. 27270 of 1998, a direction was sought to the University of Health Sciences to allot candidates for the academic year 1998-99 to the petitioner institution. By the interim order dated 13-8-1998 the University of Health Sciences was directed by this Court to allot candidates to the petitioner college. ( 23 ) SUBSEQUENTLY by the orders dated 11-11-1998, Writ Petition No. 22675 of 1998 was disposed of. While disposing of the writ petition this Court recorded the objection of the University of Health sciences that the Government of India had issued instructions not to make allotment of students to 4 colleges as they have not obtained permission from the Central government. These colleges were rangaraya, Kakatiya and Kurnool Medical colleges of Kakinada, Warangal and kurnool, respectively, and the Medical college of Mamata Society. The Court also recorded submissions of Counsel that allotment of candidates was made to the other three colleges on the ground that they are Government colleges. Holding that there cannot be discrimination for the purpose of renewal between Government colleges and a private college, this Court observed that there exists no reason why allotment could not be made to the private colleges. On that premise this Court directed allotment of candidates to the college of the Mamata Society without reference to the letter of the Government of india dated 7-7-1998. Noticing that the society has already paid affiliation fee for the academic year 1998-99 this Court further directed the University of Health Sciences to consider the same and take appropriate action. ( 24 ) HAVING regard to the nature of the relief sought for and in the circumstances in which such relief is sought, the Mamata society was obligated in law and fairness to implead the Government of India, the medical Council of India and the State government in Writ Petition No. 22675 of 1998. The Mamata Society was however rest content with impleading only the University of Health Sciences as the sole respondent. ( 25 ) HAVING regard to the manner in which the writ petition was disposed of, the facts relating to Rangaraya, Kakatiya and Kurnool Medical Colleges warrant consideration. The Mamata Society was however rest content with impleading only the University of Health Sciences as the sole respondent. ( 25 ) HAVING regard to the manner in which the writ petition was disposed of, the facts relating to Rangaraya, Kakatiya and Kurnool Medical Colleges warrant consideration. The Government of India by its proceedings dated 26-3-1998 accorded formal permission to the aforesaid 3 government Colleges for increase of seats in the first year MBBS course from the academic year 1997-98 from the existing 100 seats to 150 seats, for a period of one year. While the question of allotment of students for the academic session 1998-99 was under consideration the Medical Council of India addressed a letter dated 7-7-1998 to the Government of A. P. with a copy marked to University of Health Sciences directing ensurance that no admissions are made to the 3 Government Colleges above on the increased intake from 100 to 150 and no admissions to the second batch of MBBS course to Mamata Medical College, without obtaining a letter from the Central government regarding renewal of permission for the second session 1998-99 for increase of admissions/admission to the MBBS course, as the case may be. This letter was issued by the Medical Council of India in view of the fact that there was no permission of the Government of India for the increased intake to the 3 Government medical Colleges and no permission for the second batch to the Mamata Medical college. ( 26 ) BY its letter dated 4-9-1998 the government of India addressed the State government conveying renewal of permission for admission in respect of the increased intake for the second batch of students for the academic year 1998-99, to the Government Medical Colleges, Kakatiya, kurnool and Rangaraya. Copy of this letter was marked to the Medical Council of India as well as to the University of Health sciences. ( 27 ) AS we have noticed earlier, Writ petition No. 22675 of 1998 was disposed of on 11-11-1998 over 9 weeks after the government of India s letter dated 4-9-1998 conveying renewal of permission to the 3 Government Medical Colleges in respect of increased intake of admissions. ( 27 ) AS we have noticed earlier, Writ petition No. 22675 of 1998 was disposed of on 11-11-1998 over 9 weeks after the government of India s letter dated 4-9-1998 conveying renewal of permission to the 3 Government Medical Colleges in respect of increased intake of admissions. The university of Health Sciences however, failed to sensitise this Court as to this fact and consequently this Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that while all the four colleges including Mamata College did not have the renewal permission, students were however allotted to the 3 Government medical Colleges and this constituted discrimination. The failure on the part of the University of Health Sciences in bringing this fact to the notice of this Court is a matter of grave concern. Had this fact been brought to the notice of this Court, there could have been no ground to characterise the action of allotment of students only to the 3 Government Medical Colleges, as arbitrary and this was the only recorded ground for the direction to allot students to mamata Medical College. What is more, this Court directed allotment of students without reference to the letter of the government of India s dated 7-7-1998. The parties concerned have also failed to bring to the notice of this Court that the letter dated 7-7-1998 was not of the Government of India but of the Medical Council of India. Therefore, the direction of this Court dated 11-11-1998 while finally disposing of the writ Petition No. 22675 of 1998 was issued without the Mamata Medical College having either a permission for admitting second batch students or an affiliation from the university of Health Sciences and the action of the State Government and the University of Health Sciences in not allotting the students to it came to be erroneously characterised as discriminatory by implication without the relevant fact of allotment of students having been done to the 3 Government Colleges pursuant to their obtaining a permission from the government of India being noticed by this court. In these interactive circumstances, the failure on the part of the Mamata society to implead the Government of india, the Medical Council of India and the State Government must inevitably be characterised as an abuse of the process of the Court and an act of overreaching the due process of law. In these interactive circumstances, the failure on the part of the Mamata society to implead the Government of india, the Medical Council of India and the State Government must inevitably be characterised as an abuse of the process of the Court and an act of overreaching the due process of law. ( 28 ) AGAINST the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 22675 of 1998, Writ appeal No. 535 of 1999 has been preferred by the Medical Council of India with the leave of this Court. During the course of preliminary hearing of the appeal, the respondent college was directed to implead the students who have been admitted as they would likely be affected by the decision in the lis. Accordingly the students admitted, for what the college considers, 1997-98 academic session and 1998-99 academic session have been impleaded as parties to the appeal by way of WA MP Nos. 1115 of 1999 and 1178 of 1999. ( 29 ) IN view of the application made by the Mamata Medical College and the observations recorded by this Court in Writ appeal No. 535 of 1999 in the orders dated 2-4-1999 and 28-4-1999, the University of health Sciences inspected the infrastructure of the college, without prejudice to the contentions regarding the illegality of the admissions made by the said college, alleged by the Medical Council of India in the writ appeal. Such inspection was made on 9th and 10th April, 1999. The report on the aforesaid inspection recorded the following conclusions :"5. As stated above, as of today there are 200 students in the Khammam medical College. The first batch of 100 students who got admission in May and june, 1998 are undergoing first MBBS professional teaching and training of 18 months. The second batch of 100 students who have been admitted in january, 1999, due to change in the statutory regulations prescribing curriculum are required to undergo first professional teaching and training of 12 months instead of 18 months as was existing earlier. Resultantly, all the above mentioned 200 students of two batches would complete their first professional (18 months for the first batch and 12 months for the second batch) in the month of December, 1999 to be trained simultaneously by the staff which is just adequate for 100 students. Resultantly, all the above mentioned 200 students of two batches would complete their first professional (18 months for the first batch and 12 months for the second batch) in the month of December, 1999 to be trained simultaneously by the staff which is just adequate for 100 students. This would completely defeat the entire scheme for imparting proper medical education and training as per the statutory terms. In fact the anomaly which is going to continue in future would be more disastrous. In this manner there would be 200 students in the second medical professional which will include para clinical and clinical courses i. e. , inclusive of patients management, and will commence from January and till completion of the MBBS course. Again for a infrastructure of 100 students, there are going to be 200 students in every year for the remaining MBBS course for both the batches. This would be in gross violation of the statutory requirement and norms and would defeat the entire purpose. Against the availability of infrastructure for 100 students the college would be required to impart education and training to 200 students, which is not permissible. " ( 30 ) THE Medical Council of India by its proceedings dated 3-6-1999 addressed the Mamata Society stating that as the society has already admitted 200 students, the Medical Council of India has recommended to the Central Government that the renewal of annual permission which was initially granted by the Central government on 19-5-1998 with prospective effect, be granted to the college only on condition that they should not admit any further students for the academic session 1999-2000 and that it has further recommended that the students who have been admitted by the college in january, 1999 be treated as having been admitted for the present academic session 1999-2000 and the University examinations be taken accordingly. This recommendation was made in view of a similar procedure adopted by the Medical Council of India in respect of a Medical College established by the Himachal Pradesh Government, involving similar circumstances. This recommendation was made in view of a similar procedure adopted by the Medical Council of India in respect of a Medical College established by the Himachal Pradesh Government, involving similar circumstances. ( 31 ) ON the basis of the above recommendations of the Medical Council of india, the Government of India by its letter dated 9-6-1999 addressed the Mamata society intimating that permission of the central Government for admission of the second batch of students at Mamata Medical college may be renewed for 1999-2000 provided the college authorities undertake that 100 students admitted in January, 1999 in the 2nd batch are treated as the 100 admissions for the current academic year 1999-2000 and the college does not admit any more students during 1999-2000. The central Government directed the Mamata society to furnish necessary undertaking in this regard. ( 32 ) ASSAILING the recommendations of the Medical Council of India contained in its letter dated 3-6-1999 and the communication of the Government of india contained in its letter dated 9-6-1999, writ Petition No. 12393 of 1998 has been filed by the Mamata Society. Legislative and Regulatory Environment : the Act: the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short the Act ), is an Act of Parliament referable to the field of Legislation enumerated in Entry 66 of List I in Seventh schedule read with power to legislate set out in Article 246 (1) of the Constitution of India. The Act was amended by the indian Medical Council (Amendment) ordinance, 1993 (Ordinance No. 2 of 1993), which was later enacted by way of Indian medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Central Act 31 of 1993 ). Inter alia the amendment introduced Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C and sub-sections (fa), (fb), (fc) to section 33 of the Act. ( 33 ) FORTIFIED by a non obstante provision, Section 10-A of the Act ordains that no Medical College shall be established except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the section. (Emphasis supplied ). Sub-section (2) of section 10-A of the Act obligates a person intending to establish a Medical College to submit to the Central Government a scheme as provided in sub-section 2 (b) which scheme shall be referred by the central Government to the Medical council of India for its recommendations. (Emphasis supplied ). Sub-section (2) of section 10-A of the Act obligates a person intending to establish a Medical College to submit to the Central Government a scheme as provided in sub-section 2 (b) which scheme shall be referred by the central Government to the Medical council of India for its recommendations. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) states that the scheme shall be in such form and contain such particulars and shall be preferred in such manner and accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed. "prescribed" has been defined in Section 2 (g) to mean as prescribed by the regulations made by the medical Council of India under Section 33 of the Act. Other provisions in sub-section (2) of Section 10-A set out the manner and method in which the scheme submitted is to be processed by the Medical council of India, calling for particulars and the submission of its recommendations to the Central Government Section 10-A (4) enables the Central Government, after considering the scheme and the recommendations of the Medical Council of india and having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7), to either approve (with such conditions if any as it may consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme and posits that any such approval shall be permission under sub-section (1 ). Section 10-A (7) ordains the Council while making recommendations and the Central government while approving or disapproving the scheme to have regard to the factors set out therein which are as under :"10-A. Permission for establishment of new Medical College, new course of study, etc: (7) The Council, while making its recommendations under clause (b) of sub-section (3) and the Central government, while passing an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub-section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors, namely : (a) whether the proposed Medical college or the existing Medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training, would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of medical education as prescribed by the council under Section 19-A or, as the case may be, under Section 20 in the case of post-graduate medical education; (b) whether the person seeking to establish a Medical College or the existing medical College seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training or to increase its admission capacity has adequate financial resources; (c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the Medical college or conducting the new course of study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme; (d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number of students likely to attend such Medical college or course of study or training or as a result of the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time limit specified in the scheme; (e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such Medical College or course of study or training by person having the recognised medical qualifications; (f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine; and (g) any other factors as may be prescribed. " ( 34 ) SECTION 10-B (1) mandates that when any Medical College is established except with the previous permission of the central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-A no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical College shall be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act. " ( 34 ) SECTION 10-B (1) mandates that when any Medical College is established except with the previous permission of the central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-A no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical College shall be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act. ( 35 ) SECTION 19 of the Act enacts the substance and procedure in the matter of withdrawal of recognition. ( 36 ) SECTION 32 empowers the Central government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act and Section 33 empowers the Medical Council of India to make regulations to carry out the purpose of the act with the previous approval of the Central government. ( 37 ) WITHOUT prejudice to the generality of the power to make regulations to carry out the purpose of the Act, Section 33 enumerates areas for which regulations may provide for. By the Amendment Act 31 of 1993 sub-sections (fa), (fb) and (fc) have been added and these are extracted hereinafter as they have relevance to the issues arising in this lis as also sub-section (n) of Section 33 : "section 33. Power to make regulations :the Council may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of this Act, and without prejudice to the generality of this power, such regulations may provide for (fa) the form of the scheme, the particulars to be given in such scheme, the manner in which the scheme is to be preferred and the fee payable with the scheme under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10-A; (fb) any other factors under clause (g) of sub-section (7) of Section 10-A; (fc) the criteria for identifying a student who has been granted a medical qualification referred to in the explanation to sub-section (3) of Section 10-B; (n) any matter for which under this Act provision may be made by regulations. " the 1993 Regulation : the Medical Council of India in exercise of power available under Section 10-A read with Sections 33 of the Act made "the establishment of New Medical Colleges, opening of higher courses of study and increase of admission capacity in Medical colleges Regulation 1993". The 1993 regulation incorporated a scheme setting out the modalities, criteria, procedure and incidental provisions for establishment of medical Colleges. The 1993 regulation incorporated a scheme setting out the modalities, criteria, procedure and incidental provisions for establishment of medical Colleges. ( 38 ) THE scheme inter alia sets out provisions regulating grant of permission for establishment of Medical Colleges, as under:"grant of permission :the Central government on the recommendation of the Medical Council of India, may issue a letter of intent to set up a new Medical college with such conditions by modification in the original proposal as may be considered necessary. The formal permission will be granted after the above conditions and modifications are accepted and the performance bank guarantees for the required sums are furnished by the applicant the formal permission will include a time bound programme for the establishment of the Medical College and expansion of the hospital facilities. This permission will also include a clear-cut definition of preliminary requirements to be met in respect of buildings, infrastructural facilities, medical and allied equipment, faculty and staff etc. , before admitting the 1st batch of students. The permission will also define annual targets to be achieved by the applicant to commensurate with the intake of students during the following years. The above permission to establish a new medical College and admit students will be granted initially for a period of one year and will be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets and revalidation of the performance bank guarantees. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the Medical College and expansion of the hospital facilities is completed and a formal recognition of the Medical College by the Medical Council of India is granted. Further admissions are liable to be stopped at any stage unless the requirements for various steps of development are to the satisfaction of Medical Council of India. (Emphasis supplied ). H. R. :the Council may obtain any other information from the proposed medical College as it deems fit and necessary. Further admissions are liable to be stopped at any stage unless the requirements for various steps of development are to the satisfaction of Medical Council of India. (Emphasis supplied ). H. R. :the Council may obtain any other information from the proposed medical College as it deems fit and necessary. "contentions of the respective parties, in brief: contentions of the Mamata Society: (A) That in view of the recommendations of the Medical Council of India dated 15-12-1997 for establishment of new medical College at Khammam with an annual intake of 100 students, permission of the Government of India under Section 10-A of the Act and the 1993 Regulation was a mere formality which was being unduly and irrationally delayed causing loss and prejudice to the Mamata Society as also to the interests of the public at large. In these circumstances WP no. 1413 of 1998 was filed and the interim order dated 3-2-1998 obtained directing allotment of students. The admissions made by the Mamata medical College in May and june, 1998 are referable to the authority flowing from the aforesaid interim order. (B) That having regard to the permission granted by the Government of India dated 19-5-1998 the College was entitled to allotment of 100 students. No allotment having been made nor affiliation granted by the University of Health Sciences, Writ Petition no. 22675 of 1998 was instituted. Interim order dated 13-8-1998 was obtained in the above writ petition directing allotment of students for the 1998-99 session. Thus, while admissions made in May/june, 1998 were referable to the interim order ofthis Court in Writ Petition no. 1413 of 1998, admissions made in January, 1999 were referable to the permission granted by the government of India dated 19-5-1998 fortified by the interim and final orders of this Court dated 13-8-1998 and 11-11-1998, respectively, in Writ petition No. 22675 of 1998. (C) That the interim order dated 3-2-1998 in Writ Petition No. 1413 of 1998 continued in force despite the closure of the said writ petition without adjudication, by the order dated 30-4-1998, remained intact and was not effected by the prospective permission dated 19-5-1998 granted by the Government of India for admission of 100 students. (D) That having regard to the established infrastructure and provided facilities, the Government of India and Medical Council of India were duty bound to recommend and grant, respectively, renewal permission for the second session 1999-2000. (D) That having regard to the established infrastructure and provided facilities, the Government of India and Medical Council of India were duty bound to recommend and grant, respectively, renewal permission for the second session 1999-2000. (E) That having regard to the text and structure of the provisions of the act, in particular Sections 10-A, 10-B and 19 permission for establishment of Medical College, is in the statutory scheme, by a necessary implication, a one time affair. No periodical or annual renewals having been provided for by the Act, the provision of 1993 Regulation insofar as it ordains grant of initial permission for a year and annual renewals thereafter, is ultra vires the provisions of the Act, ab initio void and inoperative and consequent on this interpretive premise, the permission granted on 19-5-1998 by the government of India should be regarded as a permission of a permanent nature neither warranting nor necessitating annual renewals. (F) That the recommendation of the medical Council of India contained in its proceedings dated 3-6-1999 and the consequent decision of the government of India contained in its proceedings dated 9-6-1999 are invalid. The substantive reason given by the Medical Council of India to deny admissions for the academic year 1999-2000 is that the first batch of students admitted in May, 1998 and the second batch admitted in january, 1999 would both be completing the first year curriculum almost simultaneously since the duration of the first professional course was 18 months for 1997-98 batch and has been reduced to 12 months for the 1998-99 batch and thus 200 students would simultaneously enter second year course for which the facilities available or provided by the college would be insufficient. This reasoning of the Medical Council of India is incorrect and fallacious. The first batch admitted in May, 1998 would complete their 18 months course in october, 1999 while the second batch of students admitted in January, 1999 would complete their 12 months course in April, 2000, in the context of the fact that the University conducts examinations twice a year in April and October. Consequently the batch admitted in January, 1999 would enter the second professional course only after July, 2000, 9 to 10 months after the first batch admitted in May, 1998 enter the second professional course. Consequently the batch admitted in January, 1999 would enter the second professional course only after July, 2000, 9 to 10 months after the first batch admitted in May, 1998 enter the second professional course. (G) That the recommendations of the medical Council of India and the decision of the Government of india contained in proceedings dated 3-6-1999 and 9-6-1999, respectively, are arbitrary and illegal. By the said proceedings students who have actually studied for a considerable amount of time belonging to academic sessions 1998-99 are required to be treated as belonging to the year 1999-2000 and by this not only are the students affected in their academic career but the college and the staff working therein would be rendered idle and huge amounts in salaries and overheads would have to be incurred by the institution. Contentions on behalf of the students admitted for 1997-98 and 1998-99 academic session : (A) The above parties have adopted and reiterated the contentions urged on behalf of the Mamata Society and have further urged that even if the society has committed an error in seeking an order for allotment of students from this Court without there being a permission from the government of India they should not be made to suffer as they are not parties to any of the litigation and are innocent and bona fide admitants to the course who have paid huge amounts towards fees and also forgone admissions into other Medical colleges on basis of having been admitted here. (B) Students belonging to 1997-98 session have submitted that notwithstanding the chronology of events, the government of India having granted permission on 19-5-1998, the said permission should be construed as having validated the admission of all the students after 1997-98 session whether admitted prior or subsequent to 19-5-1998 and that the admissions prior to 19-5-1998 under the purported authority of the interim orders of this court dated 3-2-1998 should be regarded as a mere irregularity which stood cured by the permission of the government of India. (C) On behalf of the students belonging to 1998-99 session it has been urged that since their admissions are the first batch of admissions that have been made subsequent to the permission of the Government of India dated 19-5-1998, their admissions cannot be faulted and are perfectly valid and legal. (C) On behalf of the students belonging to 1998-99 session it has been urged that since their admissions are the first batch of admissions that have been made subsequent to the permission of the Government of India dated 19-5-1998, their admissions cannot be faulted and are perfectly valid and legal. It has also been contended that the recommendations of the Medical Council of India and the decision of the Government of india contained in the proceedings dated 3-6-1999 and 9-6-1999 deciding to treat their admissions as for the session 1999-2000 is arbitrary and would effect their academic career for no fault of theirs and that they should not be traumatised by being made to undergo the course for a duration longer than academically prescribed, for the fault of the university of Health Sciences and mamata Society in having made allotments and admissions, contrary to the provisions of the Act and regulations thereunder. Contentions of the Medical Council of India: (A) That the judgment under appeal is void ab initio and inoperative as the writ petition could not have been entertained and the order therein passed without impleading the necessary and proper parties viz. , government of India and Medical council of India. (B) That the judgment under appeal is invalid and inoperative inasmuch as it has been passed contrary and without reference to the relevant and governing statutory environment viz. , provisions of the Act and the 1993 regulation. (C) That the order under the appeal directing allotment and the consequent admission of 100 more students for the academic session 1998-99 is invalid in view of the fact that 100 admissions already having been made by the Mamata Society college in May/june, 1998, a further 100 students could not be admitted without renewal by the Government of India. The permission of the government of India dated 19-5-1998 allowed admission of only 100 students. (D) That the order contained in the judgment under appeal is clearly without jurisdiction inasmuch as it is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Regulation thereunder. The order in substance amounts to grant of permission by the High Court itself, an area specifically consecrated to the exclusive jurisdiction of the government of India and on the recommendation of the Medical council of India. The order in substance amounts to grant of permission by the High Court itself, an area specifically consecrated to the exclusive jurisdiction of the government of India and on the recommendation of the Medical council of India. (E) That the judgment under appeal is clearly subversive of the provisions of the Act and the 1999 Regulation thereunder and as such is outside the pale of the jurisdiction available to this Court under Article 226 of the constitution. (F) That the earlier interim orders of this Court dated 3-2-1998 in WP MP nos. 1595 and 1596 of 1998 did not survive on closure of WP no. 1413 of 1998 by the orders dated 30-4-1998. In this view of the matter, allotments made by the medical Council of India/state government and the consequent admissions made by Mamata Medical college during May/june, 1998 are all invalid and the medical qualification granted to the students so admitted are not entitled to recognition in view of the express provisions in Section 10-B (1) of the act. (G) That in view of observations/orders of this court dated 2-4-1999 and 28-4-1999 in Writ Appeal No. 535 of 1999, the recommendations made by medical Council of India as contained in its proceedings dated 3-6-1999 was a mere alternative solution to the gross statutory violations committed by the Mamata medical College in admitting students in the first instance without a valid permission and in the second instance without a valid renewal and that in these circumstances neither the recommendations of the Medical council of India dated 3-6-1999 nor the consequent decision of the government of India contained in the proceedings dated 9-6-1999 could be termed arbitrary and unreasonable. This alternative solution was without prejudice to the substantive contention of the Medical Council of India in writ Appeal No. 535 of 1999. (H) That in any view of the matter the decision of the Medical Council of india, an expert body constituted to determine the standards of medical education under the provisions of the act, with regard to the infrastructure and facilities available in the Mamata medical College cannot be subjected to evaluation by this Court, as though sitting in appeal over the decision of the Medical Council of India. (I) That the Mamata Society is not entitled to challenge the vires of the provisions of the 1993 Regulation. In the affidavit filed in support of WP no. (I) That the Mamata Society is not entitled to challenge the vires of the provisions of the 1993 Regulation. In the affidavit filed in support of WP no. 22675 of 1998 while referring to the permission granted by the government of India by its order dated 19-5-1998 for a period of one year, it is pleaded that it is not known why it should be for yearly basis when we have fulfilled all the conditions . The statement in the affidavit is misleading. The Mamata Society was aware that by the proceedings dated 19-5-1998 permission was granted prospectively and was also aware that inspection had been made of the infrastructure of the college in the year 1998. Mamata Society was also aware that the permission of the government of India as well as the affiliation by the University of Health sciences was only for a period of one year. Having not chosen to either plead or seek a relief with respect to the vires of 1993 Regulation, the mamata Society cannot be heard to contend that the 1993 Regulation is ultra vires the Act. (J) That without prejudice, the 1993 regulation is wholly intra vires the provisions of the Act. On a true and fair construction of the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act, the government of India on the recommendations of the Medical council of India is empowered to grant an initial permission for a period of one year with periodical renewals so as to monitor and confirm that the college is being established and is proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In view of the provisions of section 10-A (4) and section 33 (fa), (fb) and (n) of the act, the 1993 Regulation insofar as it provides for grant of permission initially for a period of one year, and consideration of annual renewals till the establishment of Medical college and hospital facilities is complete and only thereafter, grant of a formal recognition, is wholly intra vires the text and structure of the Act. (K) That the chronology of events leads to the irresistible inference that the mamata Society has abused the processes of the Court, subverted the provisions of the Act and Regulation thereunder and has consistently obtained orders from this Court by volitional misrepresentation of the true factual and legal position and is thus disentitled to any relief in Writ petition No. 12393 of 1999. The mamata Society is not entitled to any indulgence from this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. Interactive analysis of factual and legal scenario, to the extent relevant and material for the purpose of the case on hand: section 10-A (1) of the Act mandates that no person shall establish a Medical college except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the section. (Emphasis supplied) ( 39 ) SUB-SECTIONS (2) and (3) of section 10-A of the Act set out the provisions relating to submission of scheme by a person seeking to obtain permission, the format and details for submission of the scheme and the like and the power of the Medical Council of India to obtain particulars in regard to the scheme and other such similar house keeping provisions including the obligation of the Medical council of India, to consider the scheme with reference to the factors enumerated in section 10-A (7) and forward the scheme together with its recommendations to the government of India. ( 40 ) SECTION 10-A (4) empowers the central Government, to consider the scheme together with recommendations of the Medical Council of India, obtain further particulars and to either approve (with such conditions if any, as it may consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme, having regard to the factors enumerated in Section 10-A (7 ). ( 41 ) SECTION 10-A (7) obligates the medical Council of India, while making its recommendations and the Government of india while considering approval or disapproval of the scheme, to have due regard to the factors enumerated in clauses (a) to (g ). Inter alia, clause (c) obligates the medical Council of India and the government of India to consider whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the Medical College have been provided or would be provided within the time limits specified in the scheme. Inter alia, clause (c) obligates the medical Council of India and the government of India to consider whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the Medical College have been provided or would be provided within the time limits specified in the scheme. Similarly clause (d) warrants satisfaction with regard to whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number of students likely to be admitted into such medical College, have been provided or would be provided within the time limit specified in the scheme and clause (g) warrants satisfaction with regard to any other factors which may be prescribed. The prescriptions in this regard could be enumerated by way of regulations by the Medical Council of India in view of the definition of the expression prescribed occurring in Section 2 (g) of the Act. ( 42 ) THE Act is a piece of a regulatory legislation conceived and enacted inter alia to co-ordinate and determine the standards in institutions of higher education and technical institutions. Engendering quality and standards in the field of medical education is the Legislative animus for the act and in the premises the power conferred on and inhering in the Medical Council of india and the Government of India is a power coupled with a duty to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The regulatory provisions of the Act need thus receive a broad and purposive interpretation to enable achievement of the objects of the Act. A synoptic interpretation should thus be adopted. ( 43 ) HAVING regard to the express legislative edict that the Central Government may approve or disapprove the scheme after considering the scheme and recommendations of the Medical Council of india and having due regard to the factors enumerated, with conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary, we are of the considered view that the provisions of the act do enable grant of permission initially for a period of one year with periodical renewals and enable grant of a formal recognition after satisfaction that the institution has achieved a legal of development and progress entitling it to a permanent permission/recognition. ( 44 ) IT has been contended by Sri D. D. Thakur that the scheme of the Act in particular Sections 10-A, 10-B and 19 warrant the interpretation that the permission that could be granted is of the scheme and as such the Act does not enable the grant of a temporary permission and periodical renewals. It has also been contended that since the permission/recognition granted could be withdrawn under Section 19 of the Act, no irreversible public mischief would ensue if an untenured permission/recognition is granted, as such recognition could be withdrawn if the institution falls below the requisite standards. It has also been urged that having regard to the huge infrastructure and financial outlay already committed, it would be inequitable to construe the provisions of the Act as enabling grant of a permission for a year with periodical renewals as it would enable the Damocles Sword of executive discretion to perpetually hang on the institution and would further inhere arbitrary power in the medical Council of India and the government of India, to grant or refuse renewals. ( 45 ) ESTABLISHING of an institution for imparting medical education is inter alia a cost intensive proposition and in the Indian context it is not normally possible for a full fledged institution to come into being prior to grant of permission. The institution will thus necessarily have to start functioning after a minimum level of development, facilities and infrastructure and evolve gradually over a period of time to a full level of development, facilities, staff, equipment and the like. It is in recognition of this factual scenario that Section 10-A (4) has specifically enabled the Government of india to approve the scheme with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary and a grant of permission for a period of one year with annual renewals inheres in the Government a rational discretion to grant permission to a medical institution even without full fledged development and at the same time impregnates adequate safeguards at the time of considering annual renewals to monitor whether the institution is functioning and evolving in conformity with the objects of the Act. Such conditionalities imposed do not in our view detract from the statutory provisions contained in Section 19 enabling withdrawal of recognition to an institution not confirming to the standards prescribed by the Government of India. Such conditionalities imposed do not in our view detract from the statutory provisions contained in Section 19 enabling withdrawal of recognition to an institution not confirming to the standards prescribed by the Government of India. ( 46 ) THE provisions of 1993 Regulations enabling grant of permission initially for a period of one year and consideration of further renewals on yearly basis subject to evaluation of the achievements of annual targets till the establishment of the Medical college and expansion of hospital facilities is complete, are in our view provisions which are eminently in harmony with the provisions of the Act and are in the nature of provisions intended to structure the discretion already vouchsafed to the Medical Council of India and Government of India by the provisions of the Act. ( 47 ) ON this analysis we are clearly of the view that the provisions of the Act do enable the grant of initial permission for a period of one year and yearly renewals thereafter. We are further of the view that the provisions of 1993 Regulations are intra vires and neither expand the scope of the act nor run in any way repugnant to the provisions of the Act. ( 48 ) LEGISLATION generally and in particular Legislation in the nature of the indian Medical Council Act is intended to cater to a variety of complex and emerging situations. Having regard to the fact that in the scheme of the Act a substantive role in the area of regulating standards of medical education is concecrated in an expert body - the Medical Council of India, the Legislature has, of necessity, laid down broad and open textured guidelines and standards, indicated the generic factors to be considered in granting the permission and left the interstitial spaces, for participatory exercise by way of subordinate Legislation by the Medical council of India, to effectuate the purpose of the Act and to meet unforeseen, unpredictable and dynamic situations, within the framework of the power entrusted to it by the Legislation. On this reckoning of the realities of the modern Legislation we are of the view that the provisions of the 1993 Regulation do wholly comport with the provisions of the Act. On this reckoning of the realities of the modern Legislation we are of the view that the provisions of the 1993 Regulation do wholly comport with the provisions of the Act. ( 49 ) ON behalf of the Mamata Society sri D. D. Thakur, learned senior Counsel has adverted to a large number of authorities to contend that a subordinate Legislation cannot run repugnant to the provisions of the parent act, subordinate Legislation cannot enlarge the scope of the legislative provisions and that a subordinate Legislation or a rule cannot be so framed as to confer arbitrary power in the Executive. ( 50 ) THESE principles are too well settled to need a reiteration and elaborate analysis. A subordinate law making body is bound by the terms, by its delegated or derived authority and Courts will not, as a general rule, effectuate subordinate legislation if satisfied that it is repugnant to the provisions of the Act. A subordinate legislation that enlarges the scope of the parent Act would be ultra vires. This concept is but nuance of the general principles of ultra vires. Lord Guest in the opinion delivered for the Privy Council in Utah construction and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Pataky, (1965) 3 All. ER 650, reiterated the classical statement of law rendered by the High Court of Australia in shanahan v. Scott, (1957) 96 CLR 250, as under: "the result is to show that such a power does not enable the authority by regulations to extend the scope or general operation of the enactment but is strictly ancillary. It will authorise the provision of subsidiary means of carrying into effect what is enacted in the statute itself and will cover what is incidental to the execution of its specific provisions. But such a power will not support attempts to widen the purpose of the act, to add new and different means of carrying them out or to depart from or vary its ends. " ( 51 ) TO the same effect is the decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in re M. P. Kumaraswami Raja, AIR 1955 mad. 326 . Other decisions relied upon on behalf of Mamata Society are Chintamanrao and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, air 1951 SC 118 , The State of Madras v. V. G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 . State of MP. 326 . Other decisions relied upon on behalf of Mamata Society are Chintamanrao and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, air 1951 SC 118 , The State of Madras v. V. G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 . State of MP. v. Kumari Nivedita Jain and others, AIR 1981 SC 2045 , Sri Kashi Prasad Saksena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1967 All. 173 , dr. Arun H. Bakle v. Union of India and 7 others, AIR 1986 Bom. 230 and V. M. Raghavalu Naidu and Son v. Corporation of madras, AIR 1930 Mad. 648. As we are in respectful agreement with all these well settled principles, we do not dilate on the decisions cited. The interpretation of the legislative environment would however depend on the text, structure and setting of each unit of legislation that falls for construction by the Court. In view of the specific provisions of the Indian Medical council Act, 1956 and the 1993 Regulation made by the Medical Council of India we reiterate the view already expressed that the Regulation is not ultra vires the provisions of the Act and is intended to effectuate the purposes of the Act well within the contours of the plenitude of the grant of power expressed in Section 33 of the Act. ( 52 ) THE Mamata Society urged that the admissions made in May/june, 1998 of the students belonging to 1997-98 session is referable to the interim orders of this court dated 3-2-1998 in Writ Petition no. 1413 of 1998 and that the admissions made in January, 1999 are referable to the interim order of this Court dated 13-8-1998 in Writ Petition No. 22675 of 1998 and the final orders in the said writ petition dated 11-11-1998, read with the permission by the government of India dated 19-5-1998 and that as a logical extension of the above premises the Medical Council of India and Government of India are obligated in law to grant renewal for admission of third batch of students for the academic year 1999-2000. It has also been urged that in view of the recommendation of the medical Council of India dated 15-12-1997 the permission of the Government of india was mere formality and the delay in grant of such permission would not detract from the entitlement of the Mamata society to establish the institution and make admissions and that it was for this purpose that Writ Petition No. 1413 of 1998 was filed and the interim order dated 13-2-1998 obtained. ( 53 ) WE are constrained to characterise this contention as extravagant and misconceived. The Government of India does not in exercising power under section 10-A (1) perform a mere ministerial act. While the recommendations of the medical Council of India, emanating as they do from an expert body are entitled to consideration and deference, the Government of India is also by the express provisions of the Act ordained to exercise its discretion and is further ordained to independently evaluate the scheme in the light of the factors enumerated in Section 10-A (7) of the Act. In this specified statutory environment it would be subversive of the legislative philosophy articulated by the specific provisions of the Act to construe the discretion inhering in the Government of india to approve or disapprove a scheme under Section 10-A (1) of the Act, as an uninformed ritual and an empty formality. We unequivocally hold that the prior permission of the Government of India is a sine qua non for the coming into being of a medical College de jure and that a medical institution operating without such prior permission is not a Medical College in terms of the provisions of the Act. In view of the provisions of Section 10-B (1) of the act, no medical qualification granted to any student admitted to a Medical College operationalised without the previous permission of the Govyernment of India is entitled to recognition. Every recognised principle of interpretation, in our view, warrants but this interpretation of the provisions of the Act. In view of the provisions of Section 10-B (1) of the act, no medical qualification granted to any student admitted to a Medical College operationalised without the previous permission of the Govyernment of India is entitled to recognition. Every recognised principle of interpretation, in our view, warrants but this interpretation of the provisions of the Act. ( 54 ) IN this view of the legal position, the conduct of the Mamata Society in instituting Writ Petition No. 1413 of 1998, seeking in main the declaratory relief that non-allotment of students is arbitrary and seeking and obtaining an ex pate interim relief on 3-2-1998 directing allotment of students, is clearly an abuse of processes of the Court and a volitional act of depredation of public interest qua the provisions of the Act and the 1993 Regulation thereunder. ( 55 ) THE contention on behalf of the mamata Society that the interim order of this Court dated 3-2-1998 in WP MP nos. 1595 and 1596 of 1998 directing allotment of students enures and is effective notwithstanding the "closure" of WP no. 1413 of 1998 without any adjudication whatsoever is fallacious and misconceived. An interim order of a Court cannot have a trajectory independent of the substantive adjudication involved in the main application. It is but a process in the nature of a step in aid for effectuating the substantive adjudication. It is well settled that an interim direction (an ex parte one at that) comes to an end with the dismissal of the substantive application - Kanoria chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. UPSEB, (1997) 5 SCC 772 . We are unable to lay down an unfair and inequitable proposition that the direction to allot students by way of an ex parte interim order exists and operates beyond the "closure" of Writ Petition no. 1413 of 1998 without adjudication on merits. We are additionally persuaded to this view by the fact that the direction to allot students was in respect of an institution which was not a Medical College in the eye of law, which had admittedly neither permission of the Government of india nor affiliation from the University of health Sciences on the date of the order. The statutory environment has been conceived and engendered in public interest and cannot be presumed to have been subverted sub silentio by an unreasoned curial fiat. The statutory environment has been conceived and engendered in public interest and cannot be presumed to have been subverted sub silentio by an unreasoned curial fiat. ( 56 ) THE Mamata Society was duty bound as a litigant in a public law area to sensitise this Court to the correct statutory environment and as against such ordinaed conduct has, in our view, in a blatant abuse of the processes of the Court sought and obtained by conscious and volitional suppression of the legal position, a direction to allot students to a Medical college yet to come into existence in law and what is more contrary to its own undertaking contained in its letter dated 4-11-1997 addressed to the Government of india. ( 57 ) THE record discloses that the university of Health Sciences allotted students to the Mamata Society's college subsequent to the closure of Writ Petition no. 1413 of 1998 and prior to the permission dated 19-5-1998 issued by the Government of India under Section 10 (1) of the Act. Admissions were made of 59 students prior to 19-5-1998 and of the others subsequent to that date. All these admissions are pursuant to an allotment by the University of Health Sciences contrary to the statutory position and without the authority of any extant order of the Court either. All these admissions are in our view contrary to law. An unbroken line of binding authority clearly enunciates the principle that directions to allot/admit students to unauthorised educational institutions cannot be issued, vide a. P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Government of AP. , (1986) 2 SCC 667 , state of T. N. v. St. Joseph Teachers' Training institute, (1991) 3 SCC 87 , State of maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, (1992) 4 SCC 435 , Guru Nanak Dev university v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401 , Central Board of Secondary education v. Nikhil Gulati, (1998) 3 SCC 5 and CBSE and another v: P. Sunil Kumar and others, (1998) 5 SCC 377 . ( 58 ) IN fact on more than an occasion the Supreme Court was constrained to deprecate the grant of such orders. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401 , Central Board of Secondary education v. Nikhil Gulati, (1998) 3 SCC 5 and CBSE and another v: P. Sunil Kumar and others, (1998) 5 SCC 377 . ( 58 ) IN fact on more than an occasion the Supreme Court was constrained to deprecate the grant of such orders. Having regard however to the occasional occurrence of the deprecated practice, we are constrained to reiterate what was stated by the Supreme Court in Guru nanak Dev University's case (supra), at para 7 : "we are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does not service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensure from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The Courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions. " ( 59 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid factual scenario and the clear position of law in the area, we are constrained to hold that the admissions made of the students in may/june, 1998, pursuant to an allotment made by the University of Health Sciences prior to the permission granted by the government of India dated 19-5-1998 are all illegal and unauthorised, whether the admissions have been factually made prior or subsequent to the date of the permission by the Government of India i. e. , 19-5-1998. We are not pursuaded to hold that the act of the Mamata Society in admitting students is a mere irregularity or violation of a directory procedure, which ought to be condoned. The discretion available under Article 226 of the Constitution does not extend to licensing the perpetuation of a clear illegality in subversion of the mandatory statutory provision. We are not pursuaded to hold that the act of the Mamata Society in admitting students is a mere irregularity or violation of a directory procedure, which ought to be condoned. The discretion available under Article 226 of the Constitution does not extend to licensing the perpetuation of a clear illegality in subversion of the mandatory statutory provision. ( 60 ) BE that as it may, in the confusion that was generated by the pliant action of the University of Health Sciences in allotting students and the Mamata Society in admitting them, the Medical Council of india construed the admissions made in may/june, 1998 as referable to the permission of the Government of India dated 19-5-1998. The Mamata Society then filed writ Petition No. 22675 of 1998 and obtained and ex parte interim order dated 13-8-998, directing the sole respondent-University of health Sciences to allot students to the petitioner's college. The said writ petition was disposed of by the orders dated 11-11-1998 passed on an inadequate appreciation of the true facts. We have already referred to these circumstances, earlier. ( 61 ) IN view of our conclusions that the admissions made in May/june, 1998 by the mamata Medical College are not referable to the permission of Government of india dated 19-5-1998, it logically follows that the admissions made in January, 1999 must be held to be referable to the permission of the Government of India dated 19-5-1998. We are constrained to so hold with a view to bring round the chaotic fact situation in harmony with the legal environment. We are conscious that there cannot be a wholly logical or surgically clean resolution of the chaotic facts engendered by the rapacious conduct of the mamata Society. ( 62 ) AS by the proceedings dated 20-4-1998 the University of Health Sciences has granted provisional affiliation for the first year MBBS course with an intake of 100 students for the year 1997-98, the college in question had no formal affiliation or permission of the University for intake of students of the 1998-99 batch and as such could have litigated for such permission on a reckoning that the Government of India's permission dated 19-5-1998 entitles them to allotment of students for the 1998-99 academic session. Instead of following the said course, the Mamata Society filed the second Writ Petition No. 22675 of 1998 impleading only the University of Health sciences and obtained an interim direction for allotment of students even without any affiliation or permission of the University of health Sciences. Admissions of the 1998-99 session students was thus without any affiliation from the University of Health sciences nor a recommendation of the medical Council of India or a permission from the Government of India for admitting the second batch of students for the first year course. The admissions made in january, 1999 of the students of 1998-99 batches have also thus been rendered illegal on account of the absence of any affiliation and permission of University of Health sciences for intake of students from the 1998-99 batch. ( 63 ) THE Medical Council of India in these circumstances assailed the judgment of this Court dated 11-11-1998, in Writ petition No. 22675 of 1998 by way of Writ appeal No. 535 of 1999. ( 64 ) DURING the course of interlocutory consideration of the above appeal and without prejudice to its contentions therein, the Medical Council of India got the mamata Society College inspected and the report of such inspection held on 9th and 10th April, 1999 was considered by the medical Council of India. Consequent on consideration of the said report, the Medical council of India addressed the Mamata society vide letter dated 3-6-1999 intimating that since 200 students have already been admitted on the basis of permission by the government of India and on affiliation of the University of Health Sciences enabling admission of only 100 students, recommendation has been made to the government of India that the renewal of annual permission initially granted on 19-5-1998 with prospective effect, be granted to the college only on condition that no further students be admitted for the academic session 1999-2000 and that the students admitted in January, 1999 be deemed to be admitted for the present academic session 1999-2000 and the University examinations taken accordingly. This intimation following the recommendations made by the medical Council of India to the Government of India was by way of resolving the imbroglio and containing the illegalities committed by the Mamata Society and with a view to finding a practical solution following the precedent followed by the medical Council of India in the case of dr. This intimation following the recommendations made by the medical Council of India to the Government of India was by way of resolving the imbroglio and containing the illegalities committed by the Mamata Society and with a view to finding a practical solution following the precedent followed by the medical Council of India in the case of dr. Rajendra Prasad Medical College, tanda (HP ). ( 65 ) RESPONDING to the application to the Mamata Society for permission for admission of second batch of students for the session 1999-2000, the Government of india addressed a letter dated 9-6-1999 to the Mamata Society. After referring to the recommendations of the Medical Council of india, set out in the previous para, the government of India called upon the mamata Society to furnish necessary undertaking that the 100 students admitted in January, 1999 in the second batch be treated as the 100 admissions for the current academic year 1999-2000 and that the college shall not admit any more students during 1999-2000, so as to enable the government of India to renew the permission. The Government of India's intimation dated 9-6-1999 is assailed in Writ petition No. 12393 of 1999 by the Mamata society, which also seeks a consequential direction to the Government of India to renew the permission to the college for an annual intake of 100 students for the year 1999-2000. ( 66 ) IT has been urged on behalf of the Mamata Society that the reasoning contained in the Medical Council of India's recommendation and intimation dated 3-6-1999 is faulty, found on a distortion of facts, inadequate appreciation of the commencement of the academic sessions in the peculiar fact situations obtaining in a. P. and without a prior appreciation of the fact that there would be no overlapping in the course of study as between the admissions that have been made in may/june, 1998 and January, 1999 for the academic sessions 1997-98 and 1998-99. It is also urged that for no one session have 200 students been admitted as erroneously presumed by the Medical Council of india. The admission of 100 students during may/june, 1998 was of students belonging to 1997-98 session and the admissions made in January, 1999 were of the students belonging to 1998-99 session, which latter session was delayed on account of the pending litigation in the State. The admission of 100 students during may/june, 1998 was of students belonging to 1997-98 session and the admissions made in January, 1999 were of the students belonging to 1998-99 session, which latter session was delayed on account of the pending litigation in the State. It is further contended that the Medical Council of India acted irrationally in reckoning the admissions made in May/june, 1998 as referable to the Government of India's permission dated 19-5-1998, while they were pursuant to the interim orders of this Court dated 3-4-1998 in Writ Petition No. 1413 of 1998. It is also urged that on account of the change in the duration of the first professional course from the initial 18 months to the present 12 months in respect of the 1998-99 session, there would be no overlapping between the students admitted during May/june, 1998 and January, 1999 and thus the infrastructure available with the college would be adequate and in conformity with the norms of the Medical council of India. It is also contended that the inspection report of April, 1999 on a faulty reasoning assumed a contrary state of facts. A lot of factual data was also urged to persuade this Court that the analysis of the facts by the Medical Council of India warrants re-appreciation and consequent invalidation by this Court. In conclusion the Mamata Society urged that it would suffer grave economic prejudice if permission was not accorded for admitting students to the 3rd batch in the year 1999-2000 and that in these circumstances Writ Petition no. 12393 of 1999 batch allowed as prayed for. ( 67 ) WE have earlier set out the chronology of facts and the synthesis of the operating legal environment and have come to the conclusion that the admissions made both in May/june, 1998 and January, 1999 are illegal for the reasons recorded. This illegality in the admissions is a direct consequence of the unstructured litigative propensities of the Mamata Society. It is with a view to find a solution that the medical Council of India has after an inspection of the Mamata Medical College enunciated the alternative as suggested in its recommendation dated 3-6-1999. This illegality in the admissions is a direct consequence of the unstructured litigative propensities of the Mamata Society. It is with a view to find a solution that the medical Council of India has after an inspection of the Mamata Medical College enunciated the alternative as suggested in its recommendation dated 3-6-1999. ( 68 ) EFFECTUATING the clear mandate of law would necessarily result in invalidation of the admissions made in May/june, 1998 and January, 1999 and the Medical Council of India would be well within its rights qua the provisions of Section 10-B of the Act to decline recognition of the degrees obtained by such students as would be the University of Health Sciences within its rights to decline permitting such students to sit at examinations. The hapless and poor students would thus be put to serious jeopardy for no fault of theirs. Their academic career would have to be sacrificed. Such a result, which would make the students suffer and the mamata Society and its college escape the consequences of illegal conduct, could not countenanced by this Court. The fact remains that 200 students had been admitted by the Mamata Society College on the strength of the permission of Government of India dated 19-5-1998, which allowed admission of only 100 students for the first year course. No other instruments recognised in law exist to validate the admission of the other 100 students. ( 69 ) WE are also unable to persuade ourselves that this Court should sit in appeal over the conclusions reached by the Medical council of India on a consideration of the inspection report and come to a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the medical Council of India. Such course of conduct is outside the Charter of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 70 ) IN the totality of circumstances, therefore, we see no merits in the Writ petition No. 12393 of 1999. The writ petition accordingly fails. ( 71 ) AS a result of the aforesaid analysis we hold as under : (A) The admissions made in may/june, 1998 by the Mamata Society are illegal as having been made pursuant to an allotment, which was prior to permission of the Government of India dated 19-5-1998, under section 10-A of the Indian Medical council Act, 1956. ( 71 ) AS a result of the aforesaid analysis we hold as under : (A) The admissions made in may/june, 1998 by the Mamata Society are illegal as having been made pursuant to an allotment, which was prior to permission of the Government of India dated 19-5-1998, under section 10-A of the Indian Medical council Act, 1956. (B) The admissions made in January, 1999 by the Mamata Society are illegal as having been made without affiliation and permission by the university of Health Sciences for admitting students for the academic session 1998-99. (C) Since, as a consequence of the above declaration of illegality of the admissions the 200 students so admitted would suffer for no fault of theirs, we hold that the solution evolved and the consequent recommendation made by the Medical council of India by its letter dated 3-6-1999 to treat the two sets of admissions as having been made for the academic sessions 1998-99 and 1999-2000, is rational, valid and proper. (D) We hold that the acceptance of the recommendations and the intimation sent by the Government of India to Mamata Society by its letter dated 9-6-1999 is valid and proper and we direct the Mamata Society to furnish the undertaking called upon by the Government of India in the said letter. The Mamata Society and its medical College shall not be entitled to admit students for the 1999-2000 session. (E) Writ Appeal No. 535 of 1999 is disposed of and Writ Petition no. 12393 of 1999 is dismissed, with the declarations and directions as above. ( 72 ) NO order as to costs.