ORDER This appeal by special leave calls in question judgment and order dated 24-3-1999 of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 833/1998. The controversy centres around fixation of intake capacity of the appellant college. In view of certain undisputed facts it is not necessary for us to go into the details giving rise to filing of this appeal. 2. The appellant college was set up in 1963-64 and in 1985-86 with the approval of Medical Council of India (M.C.I.) it had increased its seats upto 130. With the permission of the University and the State Government, appellant increased the seats from 130 to 195. Appellant sought approval/regularisation of the increase in seats from M.C.I. Despite the recommendation of its Executive Committee to allow increase upto 200, General Council of M.C.I. permitted increase only upto 150 instead of 200. It was this order of M.C.I. which led to filing of writ petition by the appellant, which has led to the filing of this appeal, by special leave. 3. It is not disputed that the Medical Council of India, constituted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act ) is a statutory body which is charged with an obligation to ensure maintenance of highest standards of medical education in the country. Whereas prior to 1993, a medical college could be established without seeking any permission from any central authority or the M.C.I., but, with a view to check unregulated and uncontrolled mushroom growth of medical colleges and institutions in the country certain amendments came to be made by the Parliament in the Act through Medical Council of India (Amendment) Act, 1993 and Sections 10A, 10B and 10C were introduced. Regulations were also amended. Explanation 2 to Section 10A(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of Section 10A "admission capacity" in relation to any course of study or training (including post-graduate course of study or training) in medical courses means the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being admitted to such courses or training. Section 10A of the Act further lays down that no medical college can be opened or higher courses of study or training introduced which would enable a student of such course of training to qualify himself for the award of any recognised medical qualification and further that no medical college shall increase its admission capacity, except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Medical Council of India which under Section 19A of the Act is charged with the obligation to maintain highest standards of education, after taking note of the amendment in the law, particularly brought about by the Section 10A of the Act, as already noticed, regularised the intake capacity of the appellant college to 150 from 130. While fixing this intake capacity, the M.C.I. based itself on the provisions of the Amended Act of 1993. The cogent factors for fixing the intake capacity were taken into consideration by the M.C.I. 4. The Medical Council of India being an expert body, after applying its mind to all relevant considerations, has come to the collusion that admissions upto 150 only would be in the interest of object sought to be achieved under the Act, i.e., for maintenance of the highest standards of medical education in the conclusion. It was after taking all these factors into consideration that the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment upheld the decision of the Medical Council to fix the intake capacity at 150 under Section 10-A of the Act. The Division Bench has further observed by way of a safeguard for the appellant: "It is also to be noticed that the fixation of 150 as maximum capacity is not a permanent feature. As and when the MCI comes to conclusion or brought to its notice that the requirement for increase of seats is necessary, in the interest of medical education, it is empowered to amend the regulation to suit and future situation". 5. The Division Bench rightly did not sit in appeal over the expert opinion of M.C.I. to fix the intake capacity of the appellant, after taking note of only relevant factors into consideration. The opinion of the M.C.I. is based on cogent grounds and is in accordance with the mandate to the statute. 5. The Division Bench rightly did not sit in appeal over the expert opinion of M.C.I. to fix the intake capacity of the appellant, after taking note of only relevant factors into consideration. The opinion of the M.C.I. is based on cogent grounds and is in accordance with the mandate to the statute. No fault can be found with the order of the M.C.I. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and for what we have said above, we are not persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. *************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : J.N. Medical College, Belgaum v. Medical Council of India, 2001(6) Supreme 300 : 2001 (2) SCSLJ 400 00024