ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the proceedings of the first respondent made in Ref. E. No. V.12017/38/ 2006-DE (Vol. II) dated 21.5.2007 including the report of the second respondent dated 15.4.2007 in No. DE 15 (70) 2007 A 537 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner for starting MDS Course in 4 branches namely, Prosthodontics, Conservative Dentistry, Periodontics and Orthodontics. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is as under: The petitioner which is a Dental College and Hospital was established in the year 1987 for imparting courses leading to a degree in Dentistry. Since 15 batches of students have passed out from their College after having obtained the B.D.S. degree, the petitioner, desirous to start a post-graduate course in Dentistry, namely, course leading to the M.D.S. Degree, applied for a NOC from the State Government to start M.D.S. Course in 4 specialties, namely, Prosthodontics, Conservative Dentistry, Periodontics and Orthodontics. The State Government accorded permission to the petitioner to start the M.D.S. Degree Course, by its order dated 12.9.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a letter of consent for affiliation, which was issued by Dr. M.G.R. Medical University on 28.11.2001. (ii) Although the petitioner had obtained permission from the State Government to start MDS degree Course in the 4 specialties, they submitted an application for permission, along with a scheme, to the Central Government to start MDS course in Orthodontics alone on 23.1.2003, Since the Central Government had returned the scheme directing the petitioner to apply afresh along with new scheme, the petitioner submitted a fresh scheme to the Central Government for grant of consent to start the MDS Course on 23.4.2003. The Central Government, by their letter dated 5.6.2003, pointed out a deficiency in respect of the attachment of the College to the Hospital, which was also complied with by the petitioner in June 2, 2003. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a fresh application along with a Scheme to the Central Government on 13.5.2005 for permission to start MDS Course in Orthodontics along with the Essentiality Certificate issued by the State Government and the Letter of Consent for affiliation issued by the University. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a fresh application along with a Scheme to the Central Government on 13.5.2005 for permission to start MDS Course in Orthodontics along with the Essentiality Certificate issued by the State Government and the Letter of Consent for affiliation issued by the University. Following the same, the petitioner submitted 3 separate schemes to the Central Government on 18.5.2005 for grant of permission to start MDS Course in Prosthodontics, Conservative Dentistry and Periodontics and the said applications were complete in all respects. After nearly 7 months, i. e., on 28.12.2005, the Central Government forwarded the schemes submitted by the petitioner to the second respondent for their recommendations, but the latter did not recommend the schemes due to certain deficiencies. (iii) Thereafter, on the request of the Central Government, dated 16.6.2006, the petitioner submitted a letter of confirmation to the effect that their scheme to start PG courses be considered for the year 2007-2008. On 31.7.2006, the Central Government directed the petitioner to send Registration fees of Rs. 2 Lakhs for starting MDS Course in Orthodontics and the petitioner complied with the said direction on 8.8.2006. In spite of the fact that the petitioner had complied with all the requirements, no action was taken by the Dental Council of India to conduct an inspection. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 41277 of 2006 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to conduct inspection and this Court, recording the letter produced by the second respondent Dental Council of India, undertaking to conduct inspection before the end of September 2006, disposed of the writ petition, leaving it open to the Dental Council of India to conduct an inspection and pass appropriate orders within a period of 4 weeks from the date of completion of inspection. (iv) On 8.2.2007, the Dental Council of India appointed 4 separate inspection teams to inspect the petitioner institution in respect of each specialty and after inspecting the petitioner institution in all the 4 specialties, the inspection team had submitted separate reports in respect of each branch to the Dental Council of India. Although the said reports have pointed out only minor deficiencies, the second respondent had addressed the Central Government on 28.2.2007, refusing to recommend the scheme submitted by the petitioner, by pointing out certain deficiencies, which had not been pointed out by the inspection teams. Although the said reports have pointed out only minor deficiencies, the second respondent had addressed the Central Government on 28.2.2007, refusing to recommend the scheme submitted by the petitioner, by pointing out certain deficiencies, which had not been pointed out by the inspection teams. In reply to the letter of the Central Government, dated 21.3.2007 to comply with the deficiencies pointed out by the Dental Council of India, the petitioner submitted a detailed report on 22.3.2007 to the Central Government with a copy marked to the Dental Council of India. Subsequently, an Inspector appointed by the Dental Council of India visited the petitioner Institution on 14/15.4.2007 after 4.00 p.m. and inspected all the materials available to establish that they had all the infrastructural facilities. (v) To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, they received a communication from the Central Government, dated 21.5.2007, by which the Central Government disapproved the scheme submitted by the petitioner for starting MDS course in the 4 specialties, aggrieved by which the present writ petition. 3. The second respondent has filed its counter contending that the petitioner submitted its application to the first respondent for 2 seats in Orthodontics on 13.5.2005, and for 3 seats each in the streams of Prosthodontics, Periodontics and Conservative Dentistry on 18.5.2005, who in turn forwarded the same to it on 28.12.2005. Its decision of the Executive Committee Meetings held on 29.4.2006 and 30.6.2006 recommending return of the scheme was informed to the first respondent vide its letter dated 30.4.2006 bearing reference No. DE-15(70)-2006/1368. Though the first respondent wrote to the petitioner College vide its letter dated 12.5.2006 requesting them to furnish the compliance report on the deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent, the petitioner College failed to submit the compliance report within the specified time frame. Thereafter, the petitioner College complied with the deficiencies as pointed out by the respondents 1 and 2 regarding the teaching faculty and submitted a compliance report only on 16.6.2006. After the conduct of inspection by the second respondent, certain deficiencies were pointed out and the petitioner College, while admitting the deficiencies, gave clarifications in respect thereof vide their letters dated 19.2.2007 and 20.2.2007. After the conduct of inspection by the second respondent, certain deficiencies were pointed out and the petitioner College, while admitting the deficiencies, gave clarifications in respect thereof vide their letters dated 19.2.2007 and 20.2.2007. Thereafter, an inspection was again carried out on 12.4.2007 at the petitioner College and the first respondent by its letter dated 21.5.2007 informed the petitioner College about the decision of the second respondent and disapproved the scheme of the petitioner College. 4. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the scheme submitted by the petitioner College to the Central Government for 3 Specialties was forwarded by the Central Government to the second respondent by letter dated 28.12.2005 and the second respondent placed the scheme in the Executive Committee meeting held on 15.1.2006. 5. In the reply affidavit to the counter and the additional counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the petitioner has stated as follows: (i) the respondents have referred to the inspections conducted in February 2006, April 2006, August 2006, February 2007 and April 2007 and have pointed out deficiencies in the petitioner institution, which have not been complied with by the petitioner. The respondents have also referred to the name of one Dr. Saradha as having been wrongly shown as working as Professor and has sought to justify the impugned action. (ii) there was no inspection in July 2006 as alleged in the counter affidavit. There had been a detailed inspection by the second respondent in December 2006 and a report had been submitted which clearly disproves the allegations made by the respondents and falsifies the reports of the earlier inspections. (iii) Apart from the fact that the second respondent rejected the proposal of the petitioner without real basis, they have been approving schemes in respect of various Colleges all over the country without the requisite staff. If the second respondent is directed to produce the list of colleges with the faculty approved by them, it would be evident that the facts stated by the petitioner are true and the statement made by the respondents are false. 6. Heard Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the first respondent and Mr. P. Chandrasekaran, learned Standing counsel for the second respondent. 7. 6. Heard Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the first respondent and Mr. P. Chandrasekaran, learned Standing counsel for the second respondent. 7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that having regard to the gross delay on the part of the respondents in considering the scheme submitted by the petitioner, the said scheme shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Government in terms of Section 10(A)(5) of the Dentist Act. He further contended that the schemes submitted by the petitioner on 13.5.2005 and 18.5.2005 are deemed to have been approved and consequently the impugned orders rejecting the proposals deserve to be set aside. Attacking the conclusion of the Dental Council as reflected in their letters dated 28.2.2007 and 15.4.2007, the learned senior counsel submitted that they are vitiated by mala fides. On the point of deficiency that one Dr. Sharada was not a Professor in Oral Pathology, the learned senior counsel has contended that on coming to know that there was impersonation in this regard, the petitioner has filed a criminal complaint before the Komarapalayam Police on 7.6.2007 and has also kept the second respondent apprised of this in its compliance report. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, while drawing the attention of this Court on the aspect that the petitioner is equipped with necessary infrastructural facilities for starting the MDS course in all the 4 branches, submitted that the second respondent has been inventing and adding to the alleged deficiencies which were not part of the report of the inspection team and has been rather keen to disapprove the proposals of the petitioner institution for collateral purposes. 9. Contending contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the first respondent, at the foremost, has submitted that, by the impugned order dated 21.5.2007, the first respondent has not rejected the claim of the petitioner in entirety, but, it has decided not to grant recognition only for the academic year 2007-2008 and the doors are still wide open to the petitioner to get recognition for the next academic year by rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent within the specified time. In reply to the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the first respondent can grant recognition to the petitioner even disregarding the deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent, it is the earnest submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the first respondent cannot disregard or bye-pass the recommendations of the second respondent which is a statutory authority established for the purpose of monitoring the functioning of Dental Colleges in the country. He has also argued that when the Supreme Court has held at least in more than one case that the Central Government has to strictly adhere to the time schedule prescribed in the Dental Council of India Regulations, 2006, the first respondent has rightly expressed its inability to consider the case of the petitioner for the academic year 2007-2008. 10. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel for the second respondent has contended that despite having been given an opportunity to comply with the deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report, the petitioner failed to submit the compliance report within the time frame specified by the first respondent and since the petitioner submitted the compliance report only on 16.6.2006, the first respondent wrote to the petitioner College that its proposal could be considered only for the next academic year, 2008-2009. According to the learned Standing counsel, the petitioner, having agreed to the above said proposal of the first respondent, has chosen to proceed further. 11. In support of his contention that this Court cannot issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus as sought by the petitioner straightaway and this Court can only remit the matter to the second respondent for consideration afresh, the learned Standing counsel for the second respondent has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dental Council of India v. Subharti K. K. B. Charitable Trust and Another Dental Council of India v. Subharti K. K. B. Charitable Trust and Another Dental Council of India v. Subharti K. K. B. Charitable Trust and Another AIR 2001 SC 2151 : (2001) 5 SCC 486 : “ 8. At the outset, we would reiterate that under Section 10-A of the Dentists Act, 1948, it is the function of the Central Government to accord approval for establishing the Dental College and the High Court ought not to have passed the order straightaway according the approval despite the inspection report submitted by the DC and the order refusing to grant such permission passed by the Central Government. In such cases, if the High Court finds that the order passed by the Central Government is dehors the statutory provisions or arbitrary for some reason, the course open to it is to remit the matter to DCI for re-inspection of the establishment and for reconsideration by the Central Government rather than to issue a writ of mandamus as quoted above.” But, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the above ruling of the Supreme Court cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as the above referred to appeal was filed by the second respondent. 12. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 21.5.2007 passed by the first respondent, it can be seen that the petitioner's application seeking permission for starting of MDS course in four specialties has not been considered since the petitioner has not rectified the deficiencies despite being afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. 13. While deciding the case on hand, it would be useful to refer to the Gazette Notification dated 16.1.2006 which prescribes the time-table for each stage of processing of an application and the same runs thus: S. No. Stage of processing Time Schedule for MDS 1. Receipt of applications by the Central Government From 1st May to 30th June of any year 2. Forwarding of applications by the Central Government of the Dental Council of India for technical scrutiny Upto 31st July of any year 3. Recommendations of DCI to the Central Government Upto 28th February of any year 4. Issue of Letter of Permission by Central Government Upto 31st March 14. From a perusal of the records available before this Court, it can apparently be seen that, the first respondent has forwarded the petitioner's application to the second respondent on 28.12.2005 as against the deadline of 31.7.2005, i. e. with a delay of about five months and no reason whatsoever is assigned by the first respondent for this delay. From a perusal of the records available before this Court, it can apparently be seen that, the first respondent has forwarded the petitioner's application to the second respondent on 28.12.2005 as against the deadline of 31.7.2005, i. e. with a delay of about five months and no reason whatsoever is assigned by the first respondent for this delay. Secondly, it can also be seen that though the first respondent has forwarded the petitioner's application on 28.12.2005, no action was taken by the respondents, except the action of the Central Government in writing a letter on 12.5.2006 to the effect that the Dental Council of India has not recommended the Scheme on account of certain deficiencies and here again, no reason whatsoever has been attributed by the first respondent for this delay of about five months in writing to the petitioner to conduct inspection. Thus, when the respondents themselves have not adhered to the time schedule prescribed in the Dental Council of India Regulations, 2006, as rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the laches on the part of both the respondents. Of course, the petitioner could have come before this Court immediately after the first respondent failed to adhere to the time schedule. But, at the same time, the first respondent cannot cite, as an excuse, the failure of the petitioner to approach this Court. 15. Similarly, while referring to the order dated 15.4.2007 passed by the second respondent based on which the first respondent had disapproved the petitioner's scheme for starting MDS courses, it is seen that the second respondent has pointed out certain deficiencies in the four branches, viz., Prosthodontics, Conservative Dentistry, Periodontics and Orthodontics and the petitioner also has given certain explanation. 16. Similarly, while referring to the order dated 15.4.2007 passed by the second respondent based on which the first respondent had disapproved the petitioner's scheme for starting MDS courses, it is seen that the second respondent has pointed out certain deficiencies in the four branches, viz., Prosthodontics, Conservative Dentistry, Periodontics and Orthodontics and the petitioner also has given certain explanation. 16. As already stated, considering the fact that the respondents themselves have not adhered to the time schedule prescribed in the Dentists Act and since the manner in which the second respondent has caused inspection of the petitioner College and Hospital needs to be looked into, this Court quashes the impugned order passed by the first respondent insofar as disapproving the petitioner's scheme for starting of MDS course and since this Court feels that the case of the petitioner deserves a re-look as the petitioner should not be penalised for the laches on the part of the respondents, without going into the vires of the order passed by the second respondent, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioners case afresh and accordingly, send its recommendations to the first respondent in accordance with Rule 10(A) of the Dentists Act. Thereafter, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application in accordance with the rules and regulations and grant permission to the petitioner for starting MDS Course in 4 branches namely, Prosthodontics, Conservative Dentistry, Periodontics and Orthodontics based on the second respondent's recommendations. In fine, the writ petition is allowed in part with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2007 is closed. Writ petition allowed in part.