JUDGMENT Accepting the reasons indicated in the affidavit filed along with the application, Misc. W. No. 11302 of 2009 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The second respondent in W.P. No. 12298 of 2008 is before us in Appeal No. 3877 of 2009 calling in question the order dated 19-8-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said common order in the said writ petition clubbed along with two other petitions, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition in part by setting aside the impugned order refusing permission for the academic year 2008-09 in respect of all the petitioner-colleges. However, only the order passed in favour the second respondent herein is called in question by the appellant herein. 3. Heard Sri N. Devadas, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.R. Naik, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri S. Raju, learned Counsel for the second respondent and perused the papers. 4. The rival contentions which were urged in the writ petition and elaborately noticed by the learned Single Judge were also urged before us and as such, it is unnecessary to record the same once over again except to notice the contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant to assail the order of the learned Single Judge. In this regard, the contention is that the appellant has laid down standards for compliance to maintain the standard of education. Since the same was not complied, the admission for the academic year 2008-09 was not approved. In this regard, the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that opportunity was not provided since the Act itself provided three years for compliance. Even otherwise notice dated 1-5-2007 was issued, it is further contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified in relying on the approval granted for the year 2009-10 and hold that it relates back since the said approval is conditional. The reliance placed on the decision in the case of Father Muller's Charitable Institution, Kankanady, Mangalore v Union of India 1 is also assailed as not being applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent however sought to justify the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. The reliance placed on the decision in the case of Father Muller's Charitable Institution, Kankanady, Mangalore v Union of India 1 is also assailed as not being applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent however sought to justify the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. In the above background, from the perusal of the papers, it is seen that the Ramakrishna Ayurvedic Medical College of the second respondent-trust was established in the year 1999 and as such it is not in dispute that the same has come into existence prior to the amendment to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short, the 'IMCC Act') coming into force. The Indian Medicine Central Council (Permission to Existing Medical Colleges) Regulations, 2006 (for short the 'Regulations 2006') was framed thereafter. The Central Council for the Indian Medicine i.e., the appellant herein pointed out certain deficiencies and the Government of India therefore declined grant of approval of admissions made during 2008-09. Insofar as the existing colleges, the provision contained in Section 13-C of the IMCC Act provides opportunity to seek permission of the Central Government within a period of three years with due compliance. The Regulations 2006 provides the procedure. The second respondent has made such application. The approval of admission for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 is approved. The admission for the year 2008-09 was made based on the seat matrix issued by the State Government. 6. The appellant however pointed out deficiencies such as the second respondent had only 50 bedded own hospital and 50 beds attached to another hospital as against the requirement of 100 bedded hospital, the college was in a rented premises and there was shortage of staff. No doubt, the learned Single Judge has referred to the approval granted for the year 2009-10 while analysing the rival contention and the same has also weighed in favour of the second respondent herein but the entire order is not based only on the same and as such we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in that regard. In fact, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the material shown by the second respondent about the steps taken for constructing a hundred and fifty bedded hospital on the new campus for which the land was purchased. In fact, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the material shown by the second respondent about the steps taken for constructing a hundred and fifty bedded hospital on the new campus for which the land was purchased. The financial assistance secured for construction has also been taken into consideration. It is no doubt true that as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the communication dated 17/21-7-2009 from the Government of India would indicate that approval granted for the year 2009-10 is conditional, wherein certain deficiencies are pointed out to second respondent for rectification by the end of October 2009 failing which permission may be withdrawn. In our view, that alone cannot change the complexion of the decision of the learned Single Judge. Firstly, it is seen from the correspondence conveying permission that the deficiencies which were pointed out earlier as a ground for refusal of approval for the year 2008-09 has been complied with immediately and the said deficiencies did not subsist. That apart, with regard to the conditional permission, though there were certain other deficiencies, there is nothing on record to indicate that the same has not been complied with thereafter and the conditional permission is revoked. 7. In the above background, the learned Single Judge has considered the provision as contained in Section 13-C of the IMCC Act and also regarding the requirements of the Regulations 2006. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that if the application filed under Section 13-C of the IMCC Act is rejected, the only option for the colleges is to make fresh application under Section 13-A of the IMCC Act by filing fresh scheme. Hence, it was appropriate that the learned Single Judge accepted the contention that since the applications filed for grant of permission to the existing institution was pending, the authorities ought to have proceeded in accordance with regulation 5(f) of the Regulations 2006 wherein an opportunity is provided to remove the deficiency with regard to teaching and non-teaching staff within the prescribed period and the college conforms to the minimum standards. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant sought to contend before us that the Act was amended in the year 2003 and under the provision itself, three years time was granted and opportunity was also granted vide communication dated 1-5-2007 and despite the same deficiencies were not rectified by second respondent, we are not inclined to accept the said contention. On the other hand as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent, the regulations requiring the compliance had been framed in 2006 and the communication is also a general circulation and the second respondent-institution has taken steps to conform to the requirements stage by stage. With regard to the requirement of the staff, the availability of the required number had been complied and the details were furnished. With regard to the college being run in a land belonging to the second respondent, the same has also been complied with and the construction has also been put up to house a hundred bedded hospital. These aspects are clear from the communication which had granted the approval for the year 2009-10. 8. Keeping all these aspects in view, the learned Single Judge has referred to the decision in the case of Father Muller's Charitable Institution. In the said decision, this Court while considering the permission granted under Section 10-C of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 which is similar to the provision contained in Section 13-C of the IMCC Act has held that the permission granted will have retrospective effect. In that context, the approval granted in the year 2009-10 was taken note of by the learned Single Judge to apply the same to the present facts. As noticed above, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the said decision could not have been relied on by the learned Single Judge since in the instant case the approval for the year 2009-10 is not absolute and as such the application of the said decision would set a bad precedent. The reliance on the said judgment in the background of the earlier reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge would indicate that in the instant case the same would be relevant since except for the non-approval of the admission for the year 2008-09, the approval had been granted for the earlier year, as well as the subsequent year. The reliance on the said judgment in the background of the earlier reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge would indicate that in the instant case the same would be relevant since except for the non-approval of the admission for the year 2008-09, the approval had been granted for the earlier year, as well as the subsequent year. Further as noticed by the learned Single Judge if the rejection is made under Section 13-C, the option would have been to apply under Section 13-A and in any event, since the requirements were being complied with by the second respondent, it would not have been appropriate to deny the approval for one year in between. Therefore, we are of the view that the application of the said decision to the facts emerging in the present case to the extent as stated above cannot be considered as erroneous. 9. That apart, as noticed, the issue in the instant case relates to a Ayurvedic College wherein. attempts are being made by the second respondent to continue the institution by complying with the requirements. The same would have to be taken note of and in a circumstance of this nature, where the issue was with regard to the grant of approval of the admission for only one academic year 2008-09, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal in W.A. No. 3877 of 2009 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. The appeal in W.A. No. 4288 of 2009 is filed by the Government of India against the very same order dated 19-8-2009 passed in W.P. No. 12298 of 2008. Since we have considered the first of the above appeals on merits and have dismissed the said appeal after hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, in the instant case, though the learned Assistant Solicitor General has addressed similar contentions, we see no reason to accede to the same. Accordingly the application in Misc. W. No. 12181 of 2009 for condonation of delay and the said appeal are also dismissed as being devoid of merits. In that view, the applications III Misc. W. No. 11301 of 2009 in W.A. Nos. 3877 of 2009 and 12182 of 2009 in W.A. No. 4288 of 2009 also stand disposed of as unnecessary.