Judgment : This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent dated 15.03.2010 in Letter No.F.10-9/2007-U.3(A) and of the second respondent dated 05.04.2010 in Letter F.No.U.12012/328/2006-ME(P-II); quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law in respect of the claim of the petitioner for issue of appropriate notification under Section 3 of the U.G.C.Act, for bringing the A.C.S.Medical College and Hospital under the ambit of Dr.M.G.R.Educational and Research Institute (Deemed University) with retrospective effect from the academic year 2008-2009 as recommended by the University Grants Commission so as to enable regularization of the admissions made by the petitioner for the academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and also to enable the grant of Renewal of Permission for the academic year 2010-2011 well before 15.07.2010, the cut-off date proscribed, without reference to the issue of derecognition of 44 Deemed Universities which are pending before the Honble Supreme Court in Viplav Sharmas case (W.P.No.142 of 2006), with interim orders of status quo being in force. 2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition are as follows : 2.1. Dr.M.G.R.Educational and Research Institute is a Deemed University notified under Section 3 of the U.G.C.Act and the said status was conferred in March 2003. The said Deemed University was sponsored by Dr.M.G.R.Educational and Research Institute Trust, in furtherance of the object of the parent Trust, namely, Tmt.Kannammal Educational Trust. The Deemed University wanted to start a Medical College under the name A.C.S.Medical College and Hospital as a constituent college of the Deemed University and submitted proposals to the University Grants Commission to bring the said Medical College under its purview. Accordingly, the Deemed University obtained Essentiality Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Government on 11.06.2007 in the name of the Deemed University for starting the college from the academic year 2007-2008. Thereafter, the proposals were submitted to the second respondent for grant of necessary permission under Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act. Simultaneously, proposals were also sent to UGC for inclusion of the proposed Medical College under the ambit of the Deemed University. Medical Council of India inspected and recommended to Central Government for the issue of Letter of Permission. Simultaneously, proposals were also sent to UGC for inclusion of the proposed Medical College under the ambit of the Deemed University. Medical Council of India inspected and recommended to Central Government for the issue of Letter of Permission. Thereafter, the second respondent by its order dated 04.07.2008 permitted the establishment of the medical college under the name and style "A.C.S.Medical College and Hospital at Chennai" for the academic year 2008-2009. Subsequently, the petitioner made admissions so as to start the college for the academic year 2008-2009 as per the approved time bound programme. At that stage, the first respondent inspected the petitioner college for grant of renewal of permission for the academic year 2009-2010 and recommended to the Central Government to renew permission for the second batch. Due to the pendency of the proposal with UGC, the first respondent decided to recall the recommendation already made for grant of renewal of permission for the academic year 2009-2010, based on which the second respondent also passed an order dated 10.08.2009, indicating the fact that the petitioner should not admit any fresh batch of students for the academic year 2009-2010 until the institute is brought within the ambit of the Deemed University. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.No.13419 of 2009, wherein this Court directed the first respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with the resolution within a period of six weeks. Aggrieved over the inaction on the part of first and second respondents in not accepting the recommendations of UGC, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court in W.P.No.349 of 2009 wherein the Supreme Court has directed the respondents to take appropriate decision within a reasonable period, whereupon, the second respondent, by his letter dated 05.04.2010, pointed out that the question of grant of renewal for 20092010 and 2010-2011 does not arise inasmuch as the notification for bringing the college under the ambit of the Deemed University is still to be decided by the Central Government. Since the question of derecognition is sub judice with status quo order being continued, the petitioner is entitled to have the renewal for 2010-2011 for admission of students. Hence, this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter, stating as follows: 3.1. Since the question of derecognition is sub judice with status quo order being continued, the petitioner is entitled to have the renewal for 2010-2011 for admission of students. Hence, this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter, stating as follows: 3.1. Petitioner is not a recognized constituent college of Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute and has neither filed any proposal nor is it competent to file any proposal with the respondents for inclusion under the ambit of Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute, Chennai. It is only Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute, Chennai, an institution deemed to be university, which had submitted and could submit its proposal for inclusion of the petitioner institution under its ambit. 3.2. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act,1956 (3 of 1956), the Central Government, on the advice of the University Grants Commission, declared Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute,Chennai, as an institution deemed to be university for the purpose of the aforesaid Act, vide Notification No.F.9-1/2002/U.3 dated 21.01.2003, subject to the conditions that the institution deemed to be university will adhere to the guidelines/instructions issued by University Grants Commission (UGC) and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) from time to time as applicable to the institutions deemed to be universities. Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute, Chennai, an institution deemed to be university, vide its letter dated 29.06.2007 submitted a proposal for inclusion of a new department, namely, Faculty of Medicine (ACS Medical College and Hospital), Chennai, under its ambit. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, vide letter No.F.10-9/2007-U.3 (A) dated 09.07.2007, requested UGC, New Delhi, to examine the proposal on merits and send its recommendations to the Ministry. Accordingly, the recommendations of UGC vide its communication No.F.6-6/2002 (CPP-I) dated 30.09.2009 were received by the Ministry on 05.10.2009. In the meantime, the Central Government, following public perception regarding decrease in academic standards in certain institutions deemed to be universities, on 04.06.2009, directed the University Grants Commission to review all existing institutions deemed to be universities with regard to availability of adequate infrastructure and faculty. In the meantime, the Central Government, following public perception regarding decrease in academic standards in certain institutions deemed to be universities, on 04.06.2009, directed the University Grants Commission to review all existing institutions deemed to be universities with regard to availability of adequate infrastructure and faculty. In addition, independent of the review by UGC, the Central Government had constituted a Review Committee on 06.07.2009, comprising eminent academic experts to review the functioning of all the existing institutions deemed to be universities to ensure that standards of higher education and research are maintained by such institutions so as to justify their continuance as institutions deemed to be universities, and thus the review of institutions deemed to be was in progress by the time UGCs recommendations were received by the Central Government. The recommendations of UGC dated 30.09.2009 were considered by the Central Government. Several deficiencies/infirmities were observed and were conveyed to UGC by the Central Government. One of the deficiencies was that the medical college in question had already admitted students to its MBBS Course for the academic session 2008-2009 even before the medical college in question was approved by the Government as a constituent unit of Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute, an institution deemed to be university, under Section 3 of the UGC Act, which was in violation of the UGC Guidelines,2000, and therefore the Government vide its letter dated 11.11.2009 asked UGC to reconsider its recommendations to take appropriate action to remove the deficiencies in respect of the proposals. 3.3. It is also stated in the counter that as a matter of policy, no college can admit students to its academic degree programmes unless it is either affiliated to a State University or is formally included under the ambit of an institution deemed to be a university, as its constituent college. As per the information gathered from records, till date, ACS Medical College is neither affiliated to any State University nor is formally included under the ambit of any institution deemed to be a university, including Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute, as a constituent college. The Review Committee constituted by the Government has mentioned in its Report that 44 institutions, including Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institution, which neither on past performance nor on their promise for the future have attributes to retain their status as institutions deemed to be universities. The Review Committee constituted by the Government has mentioned in its Report that 44 institutions, including Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institution, which neither on past performance nor on their promise for the future have attributes to retain their status as institutions deemed to be universities. The matter is, however, sub judice in the Honble Supreme Court of India in W.P(C)No.142 of 2006 in Viplav Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 4. Respondent 4 has filed a counter affidavit, stating as follows: 4.1. Pursuant to the Executive Committee meeting of Medical Council of India (MCI) dated 08.04.2009, recommending renewal of permission to the petitioners college for the academic year 2009-2010, the office of MCI had received a letter on 09.04.2009 from the petitioner inter alia stating that their college had not yet been inspected by UGC for grant of permission to bring petitioners college into the ambit of MGR Deemed University. No student could have been admitted by the petitioner college until it is permitted by UGC to be brought within the ambit of the Deemed University. The Inspectors of MCI inspected the ACS College and found glaring deficiencies and therefore declined to grant renewal of permission of the admission to Second Batch, vide letter dated 10.08.2009. 4.2. With a view to check the unregulated and uncontrolled mushrooming growth of the medical colleges/institutions, most of them with dubious track records and in order to safeguard the interests of the students and to maintain the lofty standards of education, the legislature made amendments in the Act and incorporated new provisions making it absolutely mandatory and obligatory for any person desirous of establishing a medical college and/or to start a new or higher course of study in the existing medical college, to obtain prior permission from the Central Government. The petitioner is not able to get affiliation from any university which is in contravention to Section 2 (4) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, which enunciates that the consent of affiliation in form 3 for the proposed medical colleges has to be obtained by the applicant from a University whereas in the instant case this mandatory requirement was not adhered to. 5. 5. The foremost contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders challenged in this Writ Petition dated 15.03.2010 and 05.04.2010 are not the subject matter of the Writ Petition pending before the Supreme Court; therefore, the question of inclusion of the petitioner college within the ambit of Deemed University will in no way affect the pendency of the Writ Petition before the Supreme Court, which is concerning the status of various universities; Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute Deemed University is one notified under Section 3 of the UGC Act, which notification is intact as on date and that the order of status quo granted by the Supreme Court has not taken away the right of the said Deemed University. It is also his strong contention that two other colleges, namely, Saveetha Medical College and Sathya Sai Medical College, who had made admissions without being brought under the ambit of the Deemed Universities or by obtaining provisional affiliation from Dr.MGR Medical University, have been granted permission by a notification bringing the said colleges under the ambit of Deemed Universities, thereby regularising the admissions made by them retrospectively. That being so, the claim of the petitioner institution has been delayed by the respondents. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel has made a consistent and persistent plea that instead of deciding anything on the impugned orders of the respondents, everything can be solved if the Union of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner without any delay based on the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, dated 30.09.2009, and in view of the fact that all facilities have been provided and found approved by the relevant authorities, there is no impediment for the first respondent to consider the UGC recommendations and pass orders granting approval for the petitioner college to be brought within the ambit of Dr.MGR Medical University with effect from 2008-2009. 6. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent specifically made a point that as a matter of policy, no college can admit students to its academic degree programmes unless it is either affiliated to a State University or is formally included under the ambit of an institution deemed to be a university, as its constituent college; till date, ACS Medical College is not affiliated to any of the above under the ambit of any institution deemed to be a university, including Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute, and they have no right of admitting the students. He would further contend that the admission of students to the course of MBBS 2008-2009 without the college being affiliated or notified as a constituent unit of Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute is not in conformity with the UGC Guidelines. Lastly, he would submit that Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute is one of the 44 institutions in W.P.No.142 of 2006 before the Supreme Court and therefore the matter is sub judice. 7. Learned counsel for fourth respondent/Medical Council of India submits that though no relief is claimed against MCI, pursuant to the Executive Committee meeting of Medical Council of India (MCI) dated 08.04.2009, recommending renewal of permission to the petitioners college for the academic year 2009-10, the office of MCI had received a letter on 09.04.2009 from the petitioner inter alia stating that their college had not yet been inspected by UGC for grant of permission to bring the petitioner college into the ambit of MGR Deemed University. Section 2 (4) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 clearly says that the consent of affiliation in Form 3 for the proposed medical colleges has to be obtained from a University whereas in the instant case the said mandatory requirement has not been complied with. 8. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the material documents annexed to the typed set of papers coupled with relevant orders of the Supreme Court. 9. It is seen that A.C.S.Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, the petitioner, is an institution, sponsored by Tmt.Kannammal Educational Trust. 8. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the material documents annexed to the typed set of papers coupled with relevant orders of the Supreme Court. 9. It is seen that A.C.S.Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, the petitioner, is an institution, sponsored by Tmt.Kannammal Educational Trust. The claim of the petitioner is for issuance of appropriate notification under Section 3 of the U.G.C.Act, for bringing it under the ambit of Dr.M.G.R.Educational and Research Institute (Deemed University) with retrospective effect from the academic year 2008-2009 as recommended by the University Grants Commission, dated 30.09.2009. Its claim is also for grant of Renewal of Permission for the academic year 2010-2011. 10. According to the petitioner, Dr.M.G.R.Educational and Research Institute is a Deemed University notified under Section 3 of the U.G.C.Act and the said status was conferred in March 2003. The said Deemed University was sponsored by Dr.M.G.R.Educational and Research Institute Trust, in furtherance of the object of the parent Trust, namely, Tmt.Kannammal Educational Trust. Therefore, they wanted to start the petitioner medical college under the name A.C.S.Medical College and Hospital and accordingly submitted proposals to the University Grants Commission to bring the said Medical College under the ambit of Deemed University. While the said proposal was pending consideration, the Deemed University obtained Essentiality Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Government on 11.06.2007 in the name of the Deemed University for starting the college from the academic year 2007-2008. Being a deemed University, it had issued the consent of affiliation by itself for the new Medical College. Thereafter, proposals were submitted to the second respondent for grant of necessary permission under Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act. Simultaneously, proposals were also sent to UGC for inclusion of the proposed Medical College under the ambit of the Deemed University. 11. It appears that UGC, by its letter dated 31.07.2007, expressed no objection for inclusion of the proposed Medical College under the ambit of the Deemed University, subject to certain conditions. Under those circumstances, expecting that the petitioner college would form part and be a constituent of the Deemed University, the petitioner pursued the proposal with the second respondent and on the basis of the recommendations of the Medical Council of India, on inspection, the second respondent issued a letter of intent dated 20.06.2008, for starting the medical college from the academic year 2008-2009. It was followed by letter of permission by the second respondent on 04.07.2008. However, letter of permission was issued in the name of "Tmt.Kannammal Educational Trust" and not in the name of the deemed university thereby leading to the necessity that the college should be brought under the purview of the Deemed University. Permission was based on the time bound programme approved by the Central Government. During the pendency of the proposal with UGC for bringing the petitioner college under the ambit of Deemed University, no action was taken by the respondents and a persuasion was made by the petitioner. Under compelling circumstances, the petitioner admitted the students before 30.09.2008 for the academic year 2008-2009 and a list of admitted students was also sent, as required by MCI for approval, but the same was not acted upon by MCI. However, two other colleges, namely, Saveetha Medical College and Sathya Sai Medical College, which are similarly placed as that of the petitioner, have been granted approval and a notification has been issued, bringing them under the ambit of Deemed Universities, thereby regularising their admissions, whereas, in the case of petitioner, the same is not done. 12. It also transpires that based on the report of the Expert Committee, the Government of India has derecognised the status to 44 Deemed Universities, as those Deemed Universities were found unfit to be Deemed Universities and they have challenged the action of the Government in W.P.(C)No.142 of 2006. In the said Writ Petition, the Supreme Court, on 25.01.2010, while issuing notice to the 44 institutions, ordered that "during the interregnum period, status quo, as of today shall be maintained as far as forty four institutions, which have been enumerated in Annexure 5 at page 346." Subsequently, on 08.03.2010, the Supreme Court extended the interim order till 13.04.2010. Thereafter, on 20.04.2010, the same was extended till 06.05.2010. On 06.05.2010, the Supreme Court passed an order to list the matter on 3rd August,2010, extending the interim order till the next date of hearing. Therefore, the order of status quo granted by the Supreme Court is in force until 03.08.2010. 13. In the above circumstances, the petitioner institution shall not have any hindrance, as it has already admitted the students for the academic year 2008-2009, which is not in dispute. Therefore, the order of status quo granted by the Supreme Court is in force until 03.08.2010. 13. In the above circumstances, the petitioner institution shall not have any hindrance, as it has already admitted the students for the academic year 2008-2009, which is not in dispute. Now that the regularisation is required for the subsequent batch of students, the petitioner having, no other alternative, approached the first respondent for granting approval. Earlier, the petitioner had moved the Supreme Court in I.A.No.3 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.349 of 2009 and the same was withdrawn by it on 05.07.2010, stating that it had filed an independent writ petition in the Madras High Court, i.e., the present writ petition. 14. Though the petitioner has challenged two of the proceedings, as the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has made a consistent and persistent plea that instead of deciding the vires of the proceedings impugned in the writ petition all issues can be resolved if the Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi, takes a decision on the claim of the petitioner, I am not inclined to traverse into the merits and demerits of the case at this stage on the above factual pleadings and circumstances. As the petitioner institution claims that it has admitted the students for the academic year 20082009 as per the approval and only for the academic year 2009-2010 the issue in question is hanging over and in the meanwhile the cases of 44 Deeded Universities are also taken cognizance by the Supreme Court and the order of status quo has been granted and their status of Deemed University contemplated under Section 3 of the UGC Act is in force and they continue to enjoy the status of Deemed Universities, I am of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner for granting approval pending before the first respondent has to be considered in accordance with law. This is also in view of the fact that two other institutions, namely, Saveetha Medical College and Sathya Sai Medical College, which are similarly placed as that of the petitioner, have been included in the Deemed Universities, which are among the 44 Deemed Universities, derecognised by UGC, and subsequently approval also has been granted with retrospective effect for the said colleges, regularising their admissions. 15. 15. Under the circumstances, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the claim of the petitioner based on the recommendations made by the University Grants Commission dated 30.09.2009 and 01.01.2010 for granting approval, thereby bringing the petitioner college within the ambit of Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute Deemed University, as was done in the case of two other institutions, namely, Saveetha Medical College and Sathya Sai Medical College, which are similarly placed as that of the petitioner. After passing such orders by the first respondent, the second respondent shall act on the same and proceed in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that this order is subject to the outcome of W.P.(C)No.142 of 2006, which is pending before the Supreme Court. 16. With the above direction and observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 and 3 of 2010 are closed.