JUDGMENT S. Siri Jagan, J. 1. The petitioner Trust established a dental college. It obtained a letter of intent from the Central Government as also formal permission to establish the college with an annual intake of 50 students for the academic year 2006-07. The University of Kerala granted provisional affiliation for the Dental College. The petitioner obtained permission from the State of Kerala for tie up with the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Chirayinkeezh, for clinical training of the students till completion of the hospital building within the campus. Now the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to grant renewal of permission for second year BDS course in the petitioner's dental college for the academic year 2007-08. This is not being recommended by the 2nd respondent as required under the Regulations applicable, on the ground that the petitioner has not provided the hospital building within the college campus as required under the Regulations. The petitioner submits that by virtue of the amended regulations which have come into force on 10/01/2006, the petitioner has three alternatives in this regard. The first is to have the petitioner owns hospital with not less than 100 beds. The second is to have a tie up with a medical college this recognised by the Medical Council of India and the third is to have a tie up with a Government hospital having a provision of at least 100 beds and located within a radius of 10 kms of the proposed dental college, which is extendable till the petitioner establishes own 100 bedded hospital in the same premises. Although in view of the earlier regulations which were in force prior to the present regulations, the petitioner had undertaken to complete the hospital building within one year, the petitioner was unable to complete the construction on the ground of some difficulties regarding the soil, which forced the petitioner to have pile foundation instead of concrete foundation. The petitioner, submits that since the amended regulations permitted the petitioner to have one of the three alternatives, the last of which the petitioner complied with, it was unreasonable on the part of the 2nd respondent not to recommend renewal of permission for the second year. 2. The learned Standing Counsel, for the 2nd respondent vehemently opposes prayers in the writ petition. According to him, as per Ext. 2. The learned Standing Counsel, for the 2nd respondent vehemently opposes prayers in the writ petition. According to him, as per Ext. R2(a) the petitioner had undertaken to have the hospital building within one year and therefore he has violated the undertaking as a result of which he has become disentitled to the permission sought for. He would also submit that once an applicant avails of one of the three alternatives mentioned in the regulations, he has to stick to that and he cannot change over to the other alternatives. The counsel relies on some clarifications issued by the Government of India in this regard. 3. I have considered the rival arguments in detail. 4. So far as the clarifications relied on by the counsel for the 2nd respondent is concerned, I am not satisfied that the Government of India or the Dental Council of India can issue and rely on any clarification contrary to the language of the regulations themselves. The eligibility and qualifying criteria are fixed by the Regulations dated 10/01/2006, clause 6(2)(h) of which reads thus: 6. Eligibility and qualifying criteria. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) The organizations under sub-regulation (1) shall qualify to apply for permission to establish a dental college if the following conditions are fulfilled: -- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (h) the applicant owns and manages a General Hospital of not less than 100 beds as per Annexure 1 with necessary infrastructure facilities including teaching pre clinical, para clinical and allied medical sciences in the campus of the proposed dental college, or the proposed dental college is located in the proximity of a Government Medical College or a Medical College recognised by the Medical Council of India and an undertaking of the said Medical College to the effect that it would facilitate training to the students of the proposed dental colleges in the subjects of Medicines, Surgery and Allied Medical Sciences has been obtained, or where no Medical College is available in the proximity of the proposed dental college, the proposed dental college gets itself tied up at least for 5 years with a Government General Hospital having a provision of at least 100 beds and located within a radius of 10 K.M. of the proposed dental college and the tie up is extendable till it has its own 100 bedded hospital in the same same premises. In such cases, the applicant shall produce evidence that necessary Infrastructure facilities including teaching pre clinical, para clinical and allied medical sciences are owned by the proposed dental college itself; xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx� A plain reading of clause 6(2)(h) would make it abundantly clear that an applicant seeking permission can avail any of the three alternatives and the third alternative is the one now chosen by the petitioner till he can complete the construction of his own hospital building. When the regulation itself provides for such a facility to the petitioner and there is no dispute that the petitioner has obtained appropriate sanction from the Government of Kerala for tie up with the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, I am not satisfied that the 2nd respondent can now rely on the earlier undertaking of the petitioner to deny the permission sought for. When the new Regulations give related conditions, the petitioner cannot be pinned down to the earlier undertaking given as per the old Regulations. 5. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to grant the permission sought for by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent shall forward their recommendation in this regard to the Central Government before 15th June, 2007, since the same is the last date for forwarding of recommendation of the Dental Council and the 1st respondent shall act on the same as directed above within two weeks of receipt of such recommendation. Writ petition is disposed of as above.