JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THESE Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order since the issues in these Writ Petitions are one and the same ( 2. ) THE petitioner in both the Writ Petitions has challenged the orders of the Medical Council of India. THE main case of the petitioner is that their institution had applied for permission to start the Medical College in Trichy. THEy have already a University which is also running a separate Medical College at Madras. Initially, they wanted an Off Campus permission and they applied to the Central Government for Off Campus permission. Since, it was not materialising, pending that application, they filed a separate application in the name of the petitioner herein to start a Medical College, which is to be affiliated with the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, together with the consent letter from the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University dated 25.05.2009. Subsequently, an inspection was made by the Medical Council of India on 05.06.2009 and 06.06.2009 and after rectifying the mistakes, which were pointed out by the Medical Council of India, a letter of indent was given by the Government of India on 13.07.2009. THE permission to start the college was granted by the Central Government on 14.07.2009. THEreafter, on 29.07.2009, the petitioner forwarded the letter of indent and letter of permission to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and sought affiliation from the said University. The contention of the petitioner is that even though the letter of indent and letter of permission were granted and the Government has stated that college would be started by the SRM University, without mentioning the fact that it was under the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, the petitioners have also accepted that it was to be started under Dr. M.G.R. University only. As they did not want to fight over this aspect, accepting that they should only go under the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, they sought affiliation even as early on 29.07.2009. Thereafter, the application for affiliation of the petitioner was returned / rejected on 12.09.2009 by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University stating that the order purported to have been given from the Central Government is only to start the college under the S.R.M. University and therefore, one University cannot give affiliation to another University. ( 3. Thereafter, the application for affiliation of the petitioner was returned / rejected on 12.09.2009 by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University stating that the order purported to have been given from the Central Government is only to start the college under the S.R.M. University and therefore, one University cannot give affiliation to another University. ( 3. ) IN the interregnum period, even on 30.07.2009, the Central Government, by a corrigendum, stated that on the advice of the Medical Council of INdia that instead of SRM University it should be read as the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. The Central Government have sent the corrigendum to read as Dr. M.G.R. University, but noted only as the endorsee No.3 in the order. Therefore, the petitioner would mainly contend that there was no substantial change in the original content of the letter and what was intended and what was mentioned was only marking the copy addressed to the proper and correct person. They would further contend that they came to know that this corrigendum was communicated to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University only much later, after the rejection of the application dated 12.09.2009. But even then, they also did not inform the University about the corrigendum. Therefore, as on 12.09.2009 when the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University returned / rejected the affiliation on the ground that SRM University is the one who can start the college and admit the students as per the letter of indent and permission, they started the admission process. Further, according to the petitioner, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in (MridulDhar (Minor) (5) and another vs. Union of INdia and others) (2005) 2 SCC 65 , as all admission should be concluded on or before 30.07.2009 otherwise one year would be lost, they started admitting students from 16.09.2009 to 30.09.2009. ( 4. ) PURSUANT to the admission granted to various persons on the basis of selection conducted by the SRM University itself, they sent communication, as per mandatory requirement, on 05.10.2009 to the Central Government as well as to the Medical Council of India. Subsequently, the Medical Council of India sought a clarification as to under what authority, those students were admitted. ) PURSUANT to the admission granted to various persons on the basis of selection conducted by the SRM University itself, they sent communication, as per mandatory requirement, on 05.10.2009 to the Central Government as well as to the Medical Council of India. Subsequently, the Medical Council of India sought a clarification as to under what authority, those students were admitted. As the petitioners did not reply for the same, on 16.11.2009, the Medical Council of India has sent the first impugned order directing the petitioner to discharge the 150 students who were admitted for the academic year 2009-2010 as against the communication, namely, the corrigendum dated 30.07.2009. The petitioner would also contend that after the said notice is issued to them, on 23.11.2009, they approached the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and sought for affiliation and also to ratify the admission of the students who were admitted for the academic year 2009-2010. Immediately on 24.11.2009, they were given provisional affiliation. Ultimately, after completion of the necessary formalities, the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, by virtue of the order dated 16.02.2010, grated a provisional affiliation to the petitioner's institution for one year. But, even after the provisional affiliation, the Medical Council of India did not ratify or accept the provisional affiliation granted by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and therefore, they sent a letter dated 05.03.2010 not to enroll 150 students of the SRM University with Dr. M.G.R. University. Thereupon, on receipt of such a letter from Medical Council of India, the University by a letter dated 18.03.2010 communicated to the petitioner's institution citing the reference of the Medical Council of India to discharge the students pursuant to the order dated 16.11.2009. That order dated 18.03.2010 is also challenged in WP No. 5903 of 2010. Thereafter, on 05.04.2010, again the Medical Council of India sent another communication reiterating their earlier stand and directed the petitioner to discharge 150 students. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the orders of the Medical Council of India dated 16.11.2009, 19.02.2010, 04.03.2010, 05.04.2010 and 18.03.2010 issued by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. Hence, the first Writ Petition. The main contention of the petitioner is that as per letter of indent and letter of permission granted by the Central Government, on and from 13.07.2009 or 14.07.2009, they have got a legal right to admit the students de horse the affiliation granted by any university. Hence, the first Writ Petition. The main contention of the petitioner is that as per letter of indent and letter of permission granted by the Central Government, on and from 13.07.2009 or 14.07.2009, they have got a legal right to admit the students de horse the affiliation granted by any university. Further, they would only contend that the Medical Council of India is not vested with the power to direct the petitioner to discharge the students when the admission was made well within the prescribed limits of statute. They would also contend that once the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University has ratified, accepted and granted affiliation for the year namely, 2009-2010, that too retrospectively, the question of discharging the students would not arise. Therefore, the action done by the SRM University is deemed to have done with the authority. Under those circumstances, they challenged the order of the Medical Council of India dated 28.02.2011 in the second writ petition namely WPNo. 2773 of 2010. ( 5. ) PER contra, the Medical Council of India would specifically plead in the counter that the letter of indent and letter of permission were granted only on the advice of the Medical Council of India as per Section 10 (A) of the Medical Council of India Act. As per the Act, power is vested with them absolutely and they are the authority insofar as fixing the statutory requirements and standards to be maintained by every college or university for imparting medical education. No doubt, as early as 20.07.2009 itself, they had intimated to the Central Government that there is a mistake in the order dated 13.07.2009 and 14.07.2009 i.e., instead of stating that the affiliation is granted under the auspices of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, it was erroneously stated as SRM University. In fact, in their letter written to the petitioner, they have categorically pointed out that both the letter of indent as well as the letter of permission should be suitably modified in accordance with the suggestions and recommendations made by the Medical Council of India. Pursuant to that, the Central Government by virtue of corrigendum on 30.07.2009, has categorically amended the same. Pursuant to that, the Central Government by virtue of corrigendum on 30.07.2009, has categorically amended the same. The word used in the corrigendum would categorically indicate that what was intended between the parties, especially as the application filed by the petitioner, is only to start the college under the auspices of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and every one, including the petitioner knew about the same. The corrigendum has clearly stated that endorsee No.3 is Dr. M.G.R. University. ( 6. ) FURTHER, Medical Council of India would contend that as on date of the admission between 16.09.2009 to 30.09.2009, admittedly, there was no affiliation from any University. When there is no affiliation from any University, as per Regulation 6 of the Medical Council of India (Criteria for identification of students admitted in excess of admission capacity of medical colleges) Regulations, 1997, there is a bounden duty on the petitioner's institution or any institution to intimate the list of students who were admitted for the year, not only to Medical Council of India and State Medical Council but also to the affiliating University within one month from the closure of admission or 31st October of that year, whichever is earlier. Therefore, by virtue of this, there must be a affiliation with an university even at the time of admission and if any deviation is made, it is a violation as per the regulation. Therefore, Medical Council of India has the power under the Act to question the act of the petitioner in admitting the students without affiliation. As the affiliation has not been given at the time of admission, the admission is voidab initio. Therefore, the orders passed by the Medical Council of India are well within their power and in accordance with law. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University has filed a counter in which they have contended that no doubt when the petitioner applied for affiliation by letter dated 29.07.2009, enclosing a copy of the letter of indent and letter of permission, they returned the petition on 12.09.2009 and the corrigendum issued by the Central Government was not intimated to them. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University has filed a counter in which they have contended that no doubt when the petitioner applied for affiliation by letter dated 29.07.2009, enclosing a copy of the letter of indent and letter of permission, they returned the petition on 12.09.2009 and the corrigendum issued by the Central Government was not intimated to them. In fact, the corrigendum was intimated along with the covering letter dated 28.10.2009 and only in the covering letter, a clarification was made that even though the word "SRM University" is used it would only denote the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and the institution will come under the purview of the University. Even the corrigendum was received along with the letter only on 12.11.2009. But, in the mean while, when the petitioner had admitted the students without affiliation even as early as 16.09.2009 to 30.09.2009 under their own University, namely, SRM University and also without following the Government procedure, namely, grant of 65% seats to the Government, they were directed to give an undertaking that non-grant of 65% quota could be compensated in the pursuing year and they would get a ratification from the Medical Council of India for transferring the students from SRM University to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. To that extent, they have also executed an undertaking affidavit and after that, the Governing Council passed a resolution on 24.11.2009 granting provisional affiliation. Thereafter, inspection was made and finally, the affiliation was granted to the petitioner institution for one year on 16.02.2010. This was done mainly for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of 150 students of the SRM University who were admitted by the petitioner, of course, within the cut off date, namely 30.09.2009. Subsequent to the ratification of affiliation on 05.03.2010, they received a communication from the Medical Council of India which was received by them on 10.03.2010 not to enroll 150 students admitted by the petitioner College. Therefore, in obedience to the Medical Council of India's directions, they sent the communication dated 18.03.2010 stating that 150 students would not be enrolled and registered and that order is also challenged here. ( 7. ) THE Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University would further contend that thereafter, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 27.04.2010. Therefore, in obedience to the Medical Council of India's directions, they sent the communication dated 18.03.2010 stating that 150 students would not be enrolled and registered and that order is also challenged here. ( 7. ) THE Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University would further contend that thereafter, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 27.04.2010. As per the interim direction made in M.P.(MD).No.3 of 2010 in W.P(MD).No.5903 of 2010, the students of the petitioner institution were enrolled and registered and they were made to write their examinations and results were also published. THEy would further contend that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University is not playing any independent role and the said University cannot go against the directives of Medical Council of India. THErefore, they have also sought for vacating the interim order. Subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition and the grant of interim order, ultimately, the second year inspection were made and second year affiliation was also granted both by the University as well as by the Medical Council of India. In view of the grant of the second year affiliation to the college by the Medical Council of India, the petitioner made an endorsement to dismiss the Writ Petition itself as infructuous and subsequently, it was challenged on the ground that the respondents counsel, namely, the Medical Council of India did not accept for dismissing it as infructuous. THErefore, by virtue of the clarification petition, the Writ Petition which was dismissed as infructuous, was restored to file and hence, this Writ Petition is before this Court. ( 8. ) AFTER the Writ Petition was disposed of as infructuous, when the third year recognition was to be granted by the Medical Council of India, it revived the original order dated 16.11.2009 directing the college to discharge the students and sent the present impugned order dated 28.02.2011 calling upon the institution to again discharge the students as per their earlier directions. Immediately, on receipt of such notice, the petitioner has come forward with the second Writ Petition, namely, W.P(MD).No.2773 of 2011 reiterating the same contentions including questioning the powers of Medical Council of India. Further, it was contended that when once the University granted permission, it is not open to the Medical Council of India to discharge the students since much water has flown under the bridge. Further, it was contended that when once the University granted permission, it is not open to the Medical Council of India to discharge the students since much water has flown under the bridge. Therefore, the Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.02.2011 and also to direct the Medical Council of India to give permission for admission to the third batch of students. In this case, interim orders were granted including direction to inspect the college for grant of approval for the year 2011-2012, namely, for the third year. In the second writ petition also, the Medical Council of India has filed a detailed counter by way of vacate stay petition reiterating all the stands and specifically stating that after the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition as infructuous, as the contentions and issues were never dealt with by the Court, the petitioner cannot harp upon the earlier order. Since the original order was not obeyed, the writ petition is per se illegal, invalid and non-est in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned order was rightly passed. ( 9. ) THE Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University did not file any separate counter to the second writ petition as no relief was sought against the University. THE interim orders were granted by this court in M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 in W.P(MD).No.2773 of 2011, that is to say, in respect of M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011, there was an order of interim stay against the order directing discharge of the students. In M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2010, a direction was issued to the Medical Council of India for inspection of the college and to submit a report with regard to the renewal of permission and approval granted. Against the said interim orders, the Medical Council of India filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).Nos.463 to 466 of 2011, and the Writ Appeal was taken up for final disposal and at that time, in the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench has observed as follows:- "7.Taking into account the above and also considering the fact that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MridulDhar (minor) and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in2005(2)SCC 65, the last date for admission to M.B.B.S. course for this academic year is 30.09.2011, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petitions have to be disposed of at an early date by the learned singe Judge. Union of India and others reported in2005(2)SCC 65, the last date for admission to M.B.B.S. course for this academic year is 30.09.2011, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petitions have to be disposed of at an early date by the learned singe Judge. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order already granted in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 in W.P(MD).No.2773 of 2011 is confirmed and as far as M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 is concerned, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, though they have completed and inspection, the report is not published, in view of the interim orders granted in the present Writ Appeals, and therefore, as far as the publication of report is concerned, the interim order already in the Writ Appeal is confirmed, that is to say, the interim order of stay granted in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 in W.P(MD).No.2773 of 2011 is confirmed and the interim direction granted in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011in W.P(MD).No.2773 of 2011 with regard to the inspection is also confirmed and with regard to the publication of the report, there shall be an order of interim stay till the disposal of the Writ Petitions." ( 10. ) BY holding so, the Division Bench directed the Registry to post the main Writ Petitions itself on 27.06.2011 at 2.15 p.m for final disposal, hence, these Writ Petitions were taken up for final disposal. As far as the SRM University is concerned, they would only contend that since the students were admitted within the cut off date and when a request is made to safeguard the interests of the students after observing all the formalities, rules, regulations for ratification, an affiliation was granted and subsequently, when Medical Council of India has objected to the same, as the University is bound by the orders of the Medical Council of India, the University directed them to discharge the students for the academic year 2009-2010. But, they would also contend that for the subsequent years namely for the year 2010-2011 inspection was made and renewal of the affiliation was granted and subsequently, for the year 2011-2012 also necessary charges have been paid. In any view of the matter, the petitioner would only contend that they have not violated any rules or the orders of this Court and that they only wanted to safeguard the best interests of the students. In any view of the matter, the petitioner would only contend that they have not violated any rules or the orders of this Court and that they only wanted to safeguard the best interests of the students. But as far as the violation is concerned, they would only contend that because of the mistake of the Central Government and the Medical Council of India in giving letter of indent and letter of permission wrongly, they admitted students and that too, within the last date stipulated by the Supreme Court namely September 2009. Further, Medical Council of India has no power or authority to question the petitioner for admitting the students without affiliation. The role of Medical Council of India is only to see whether there is any excess admission of students is made as against the permitted intake capacity and not otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for allowing the writ petitions. ( 11. ) THE contention of the Medical Council of India in both the cases is that they have the power to interfere even in admission and when admission was made without an affiliation, it is an illegal admission and once such admission is made initially without the affiliation, it cannot be cured by granting retrospective affiliation as granted by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. Above all these things, the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, which has given retrospective affiliation to the petitioner, has not followed University regulations itself. THE authority governed by the regulations or statutes cannot go beyond the statutory powers and even if any such act is done, it shall be construed that it was not done in accordance with law and that will not cure the illegality and there can never be a cure for illegality. ( 12. ) AS far as the inspection is concerned, they have conducted the inspection for the second year when even the affiliation for the approval or consent for the second year is pending. AS far as the third year is concerned, pursuant to the directions of this Court, they have conducted the inspection on 19.04.2011 and 20.04.2011 and they have also obtained a stay in the Writ Appeal. The writ appellate Court also directed that the report will not be given to either side due to the fact that the main Writ Petition itself is going to be taken up for final disposal. The writ appellate Court also directed that the report will not be given to either side due to the fact that the main Writ Petition itself is going to be taken up for final disposal. The learned counsel also produced the report dated 20.04.2011 for the academic year 2011-2012 for the scrutiny of this Court. That report is also available on record now. Therefore, the main contention is that there cannot be any deviation in admission and merely students have continued their studies, misplaced sympathy cannot be shown to the students or to the petitioner institution and such ratification made by the University is mainly contended as illegal by the Medical Council of India. Heard all the parties concerned. As per the direction of the Division Bench, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal. The core issue in both the Writ Petitions are:- 1. Whether the institution can admit the students without an affiliation from any University even though they have a letter of indent and permission from the Central Government.? 2. Whether initial admission of the students without affiliation is an illegality or irregularity? 3. By virtue of a ratification or retrospective affiliation granted by the University whether the invalid admission is cured? 4. Whether the Medical Council of India has power to question authority of the institution to admit students when they have admitted the students within the strength granted to them? 5. Whether the Medical Council of India has got any power to issue directions to discharge the students only on the ground that there is no affiliation when all other infrastructural facilities are provided? ( 13. ) IN this connection, a little bit of dates and events will throw much light in this case. The petitioner institution, which is already an existing institution with the Deemed University status, is running Medical College at Madras. The petitioner institution had applied for permission to start a new Medical College at Trichy. IN that application itself, they have categorically included Form No.III, a consent letter to be accompanied as per the Medical Council of INdia Act with the application for affiliation from any one of the Universities. As per the consent letter, dated 25.05.2009, they have accepted to start the Medical College under the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. IN that application itself, they have categorically included Form No.III, a consent letter to be accompanied as per the Medical Council of INdia Act with the application for affiliation from any one of the Universities. As per the consent letter, dated 25.05.2009, they have accepted to start the Medical College under the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. Thereafter, the application was submitted anywhere between 26.05.2009 because the first inspection of the Medical Council of INdia took place on 05.06.2009 and 06.06.2009. The Medical Council of INdia, on finding some discrepancies, directed the petitioner to rectify the mistakes and that was rectified. The second inspection was conducted by the Medical Council of INdia on 01.07.2009 and ultimately, the Executive Committee or the Board of the Medical Council of INdia, on subjective satisfaction about the infrastructural and other facilities, recommended to the Government of INdia for grant of letter of indent and permission. At this point, it should be noted that in the Executive Committee/Board Meeting, which was held to give concurrence or acceptance to the Government of INdia, the word SRM University was used by the Medical Council of INdia. The Medical Council of INdia had categorically given the recommendation to start a new Medical College by SRM University and not under the auspices of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. When this recommendation was forwarded to the Union Government by letter dated 13.07.2009, the letter of indent was given by the Government of INdia and pursuant to the letter of indent on 13.07.2009, the letter of permission was given on 14.07.2009, which reads as follows:- "2. IN continuation of this Ministry's letter of INtent of even number dated 13th July 2009 and with reference to your letter dated 13th July 2009, I am directed to convey the approval of the Central Government for establishment of new medical college at Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu by SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu with an annual intake of 150 (one hundred and fifty only) students with prospective effect i.e., from the academic year 2009-10 under Section 10 (A) of IMC Act, 1956, as amended. 3. This permission of the Central Government for establishment of new medical college and admission of students is initially for a period of one year. It will be renewed on yearly basis of verificiation of achievement of annual target set out in the project report. 3. This permission of the Central Government for establishment of new medical college and admission of students is initially for a period of one year. It will be renewed on yearly basis of verificiation of achievement of annual target set out in the project report. This process of annual renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of medical college and expansion of hospital facilities are completed as per norms of Medical Council of INdia. The college shall not admit more than one batch of students against this letter of permission. The college shall also apply to Medical Council of INdia for renewal of permission well before the commencement of next academic session. While applying for such renewal, the achievement in terms of infrastructure, staff and equipment as spelt out in the time bound action plan and as required by Medical Council of INdia norms must be clearly indicated. The next batch of students shall not be admitted unless renewal of permission is granted by the Central Government. 3. This permission is subject to the Bank guarantee of Rs.9.50 Crores (Rs.2.00 Crores towards medical college and Rs.7.50 crores towards hospital facilities) furnished by SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu for the establishment of medical college and hospital found to be adequate/ genuine on all counts. The admission process for the academic year 2009-10 has to be completed in accordance with the time schedule indicated by the Medical Education Regulation, 1997, as amended." ( 14. ) WHEN this letter of indent and letter of permission was granted immediately as early as on 29.07.2009, the petitioner institution files an application before the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University for affiliation for the academic year 2009-2010. In that letter, dated 29.07.2009, they also seek permission to include them in the counseling for the year 2009-2010. The contents of the letter dated 29.07.2009 reads as follows:- "With reference to your letter cited above, I wish to bring to your kind notice that Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University has approved the letter of consent of affiliation to the trust to apply to Government of India for its approval to start first MBBS Degree Course at the proposed New Medical College viz., Chennai Medical College Hospital and Research Centre at Irungalur Village, Manachanallur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District with an annual intake of 150 seats. M.G.R. Medical University has approved the letter of consent of affiliation to the trust to apply to Government of India for its approval to start first MBBS Degree Course at the proposed New Medical College viz., Chennai Medical College Hospital and Research Centre at Irungalur Village, Manachanallur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District with an annual intake of 150 seats. In this connection, I wish to state that Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has issued letter of permission to start the college vide its letter No.F.No.U.12012-495/2007-ME(P-II) dated 14th July 2009 (Xerox copy enclosed). Since we have already received the approval from the Government of India, we request you to kindly accord permission to us to be included in the Counselling conducted by the Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education as per the norms prescribed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. An earliest action will be highly appreciated." From the letter, it is very clear that on 29.07.2009, the petitioner institution seeks affiliation from the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and in that letter also, they referred to the consent application given in Form No.III in respect of Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University dated 25.05.2009, which accompanied the application for grant of approval. In that letter itself, they sought affiliation pursuant to the letter of indent and letter of permission granted on 13.07.2009 and 14.07.2009. Further, the intention of the petitioner is very clear that they will have to go before the counseling to be conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu and they have to surrender 65% seats and only 35% seats is available to them to accommodate or fill up at that point of time. ( 15. ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would categorically state that even though there is a mistake in the original order, to show their bona fides, they have clearly approached the University at the earliest point of time seeking approval or affiliation. Immediately, on the next day, namely on 30.07.2009, a corrigendum was issued by the Government of India, which reads as follows:- "I am directed to refer to this Ministry's letter of intent dated 13.07.2009 and letter of permission dated 14.07.2009 on the subject noted above and to say that "THE Vice-Chancellor, SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu" may kindly be read and substituted with "THE Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu" as endorsee No.3 in the said letters. MGR University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu" as endorsee No.3 in the said letters. Inconvenience caused is regretted." ( 16. ) IN the corrigendum, it is very clearly stated that only the "Vice Chancellor, SRM University, Chennai", may kindly be read and substituted with "the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University" as endorsee No.3 in the letter. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would point out that as per the corrigendum, nothing was changed in the original letter of indent or permission. What was indented and what was given in the corrigendum was only a marking of the letter to the concerned authority, which was wrongly marked earlier and that alone was corrected by means of corrigendum. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the letter dated 13.07.2009 and 14.07.2009 were still intact. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India has pointed out that even as early as 20.07.2009, the mistake was noted and the Central Government was requested to issue a fresh letter of indent or letter of permission. The letter dated 20.07.2009 issued by Medical Council of India to Central Government reads as follows:- "I am to draw your kind attention to your letters No.U.12012/495/2007-ME (P-II) dated 1st June 2009 whereby you have forwarded the copy of letter dated 29.05.2009 received from the Managing Trustee, SRM University, Chennai along with a copy of Consent of Affiliation dated 28.05.2009 issued by the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai. Your attention is also invited to the letter No.U.12012/495/2006-ME(P-II), dated 13.07.2009 and 14.07.2009 addressed to the Registrar, SRM University, Chennai with the copy of this Council office and among others. On perusal of the said communication, it is noted that you have endorsed the copy of such letters to the Vice Chancellor, SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu instead of the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR University, Chennai. In view of above, you are requested to make necessary correction in the letter of Intent/Letter of Permission and issue fresh LOI/LOP in the name and style of "Chennai Medical College and Hospital, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu under the Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai." ( 17. ) EVEN as early as on 20.07.2009, a letter was addressed to the Secretary to Government of India in this regard. MGR Medical University, Chennai." ( 17. ) EVEN as early as on 20.07.2009, a letter was addressed to the Secretary to Government of India in this regard. Though a specific request was made to issue a new letter of indent and letter of permission in the name and style of "Chennai Medical College and Hospital Research Centre, Trichy" the Central Government, in their letter dated 14.07.2009 referred in the earlier paragraphs, have mentioned that it has been wrongly endorsed as "SRM University" instead of "the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, and issued the corrigendum. The learned Senior counsel for Medical Council of India would contend that all the parties are aware that the permission was sought for only to start an institution with the affiliation of the Dr. M.G.R. Medical University and not by the SRM University at all. When a specific question was put forth to the learned Senior Counsel for the Medical Council of India regarding the corrigendum as to what exactly is made in the corrigendum stating the correction as endorsee No.3, he would only contend that the people understood correctly even before the corrigendum and the petitioner has also applied to the University even as early as on 29.07.2009 for affiliation. The meaning of the original consent letter in Form III is clear, which was sent by the petitioner along with the attestation. Therefore, merely because the letter of indent or letter of permission states the endorsee as SRM University, it would not be a ground for the petitioner now to seek or say that what was intended and what was given in the letter of indent or letter of permission is to start a college under SRM University. ( 18. ) IN this case, the next important date is, after the corrigendum dated 30.07.2009 was communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner did not intimate the same to the university till date. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, though pointed out that it is not the duty of the petitioner to intimate the University and it is for the Government, it should have been intimated by the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University about the corrigendum atleast after rejection of the application for affiliation on 12.09.2009. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the University received the corrigendum along with the covering letter dated 30.10.2009, only on 10.11.2009. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the University received the corrigendum along with the covering letter dated 30.10.2009, only on 10.11.2009. But in the meanwhile, on 12.09.2009, the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University sent a letter dated 12.09.2009, which is as follows:- "It is informed that the "Letter of Permission was issued by the Government of INdia, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi dated 14.07.2009 for establishment of new Medical College in the name and style of "Chennai Medical College, Trichy' by SRM University, Tamil Nadu with copy marked to the Registrar, Vice-Chancellor, SRM University, Chennai. Hence, Provisional affiliation could not be granted by this University for starting M.B.B.S. Degree Course at Chennai Medical College, Trichy and seat matrix could not be sent to the Selection Committee by this University." The original order dated 14.07.2009 refers to SRM University. As one University cannot give affiliation to another university, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University would contend that no provisional affiliation could be granted. When we see this letter dated 12.09.2009, the Registrar himself has signed it only on 17.09.2009. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that when this letter was received by them on 12.09.2009, the whole gamut was changed, because they were under the fond hope that the University will give an affiliation pursuant to the letter of indent granted by the Government of India. When the University itself has stated that what was intended by the Government is SRM University should start the college after the letter dated 12.09.2009, taking into consideration the decision rendered in MridulDhar's case, the embargo or the last the date of admission is 30.09.2009, they started admitting the students. Though this has not been pointed out by anyone of the counsel, this Court noticed from the record that only on 17.09.2009 the Registrar has signed the letter dated 17.09.2009. Therefore, if at all, the College could have received the letter only on 18.09.2009 and not before 18.09.2009. If so, how did the petitioner institution start the admission process even on 16.09.2009 when there was neither an affiliation nor a rejection nor a clarification by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University to state what was the purport of the order of the Central Government.? If so, how did the petitioner institution start the admission process even on 16.09.2009 when there was neither an affiliation nor a rejection nor a clarification by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University to state what was the purport of the order of the Central Government.? Whereas the petitioner institution itself is very well aware that they can only start the college with the affiliation of a University, for which bona fidely they had made an application even as early as 29.07.2009. Till 17.09.2009, this application was pending with the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. Only on 18.09.2009, this could have come to the knowledge of the petitioner. ( 19. ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner now brings to the notice of this Court that they were in constant touch with the University and only because of that, they started admission even on 16.09.2009 itself. At this point of time, when a specific question was put to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as to why even after the letter dated 12.09.2009 from the university, the petitioner did not bring it to the notice of the university about the corrigendum dated 30.07.2009, there was no reply for the same. In fact, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would only contend that when there was a mistake committed by the Central Government, they cannot be found fault with. THE fact remains that the petitioner institution had utilised the mistake committed by the Government of India in their letter to their advantage, though it was rectified immediately, and admitted all the 150 students under the auspicies of SRM University. In fact, had the petitioner, even at that point of time brought the mistake to the notice of the University about the Corrigendum, easily, the University itself would have corrected their stand in granting necessary prior affiliation as there was still 18 days for the deadline. This was deliberately not done by the petitioner to take advantage of the situation so as to admit the students without affiliation, especially all the 150 students under the management quota. ( 20. ) NOW the question arises is subsequent to the admission on 05.10.2009 the petitioner institution sent the admission list of students to the Medical Council of India regarding the admissions made for the year 2009-2010 and the list has also been produced. They also sent the list along with details. ( 20. ) NOW the question arises is subsequent to the admission on 05.10.2009 the petitioner institution sent the admission list of students to the Medical Council of India regarding the admissions made for the year 2009-2010 and the list has also been produced. They also sent the list along with details. In the column, "category of students admitted" namely Government or Management quota, they have stated that all the 150 students were admitted under the management quota. When a categorical question was made to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as to under which University the students were admitted, he fairly submitted that the University in this context would only mean SRM University under whom the students have been admitted. When this list was submitted to the Medical Council of India, the Medical Council of India immediately sent a letter on 09.11.2009. The said letter is extracted below:- "Please refer to your letter Ref.No./Dean/2009 dated 05.10.2009 forwarding therewith list of 1st year MBBS Students admitted by your institution for the academic session 2009-2010. In this connection, I am directed to request you to intimate this Council under which university the students have been admitted at your college for the academic session 2009-2010. You are also requested to provide the affiliation certificate issued to your institution by Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai immediately for further necessary action in the matter." As per the letter, the Medical Council asked the petitioner institution to clarify as to under which university they are affiliated and also directed them to send a copy of the Affiliation Certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. Since the petitioner did not reply for the same, the first impugned order dated 16.11.2009 was issued by the Medical Council of India bringing to the notice of the corrigendum and the Medical Council of India has clearly directed the petitioner to discharge all the students and submit the complaince immediately. A copy of the same was also sent to the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. ( 21. ) FROM the records available, there was no reply given by the petitioner for the impugned order dated 16.11.2009. Once again, the Medical Council of India sent another letter dated 25.11.2009 seeking the petitioner to clarify as to under which University they are affiliated and directed to produce the certificate to that effect. ( 21. ) FROM the records available, there was no reply given by the petitioner for the impugned order dated 16.11.2009. Once again, the Medical Council of India sent another letter dated 25.11.2009 seeking the petitioner to clarify as to under which University they are affiliated and directed to produce the certificate to that effect. After the first letter of discharge issued by the Medical Council of India on 16.11.2009, on 23.11.2009, the petitioner institution requested the University to ratify the admissions of the 150 students. In this letter dated 23.11.2009, they have categorically stated that they have admitted the students as they have been approved by the Government of India and as per the letter dated 12.09.2009, but the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University has returned their request for affiliation stating that approval has been given by the Government of India only under the ambit of Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, but the petitioner admitted the students under the SRM University. The relevant portion of the letter dated 23.11.2009 reads as follows:- "Subsequently Ministry of Health, Govt. of India issued corrigendum dated 30th July 2009 (copy enclosed) has stated that Chennai Medical College, Irangalur, Trichy was given approval under the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai and not under SRM University. The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai through its letter dated 12.09.2009 (copy enclosed) informed SRM University that since approval has been given by government of India for starting the institutions at Irangalur under the ambit of SRM University, the provisional affiliation required from The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai cannot be given. By this time, the students were selected and admitted through the entrance examination conducted by the SRM University. These students have left other avenues of education and have joined this college with great hope and aspiration to become doctors." ( 22. ) THE petitioner also sought for ratifying the admission of the students in Chennai Medical College Hospital and research Centre by giving affiliation to the Chennai Medical College as per corrigendum letter dated 30.07.2009 issued by the Ministry of Health Government of India. In that letter, they would also contend that in view of the admission made by them, they would surrender 65% quota students for the current year by giving correspondingly in the next year. In that letter, they would also contend that in view of the admission made by them, they would surrender 65% quota students for the current year by giving correspondingly in the next year. If we read the letter seeking for affiliation, the argument of the petitioner that they started admission only after the university directed that the Letter of permission would denote only SRM University cannot be accepted at all. It is a categorical admission in the very letter to ratify that even before the letter of the University, they have started admitting the students through entrance examination conducted by the SRM University. THE petitioner would only contend that they sought ratification of the act done by them in admitting the students. THEreafter, on the very next day of the letter, on 24.11.2009, the Governing Council of the University meeting was held and immediately, it was resolved to grant provisional affiliation to the college subject to certain conditions and pursuant to the resolution, it was communicated to the petitioner by virtue of the letter dated 26.11.2011. In this letter, it is stated as follows:- "THE Institution should take necessary steps to transfer the candidates from SRM University to this University after getting ratification from the Medical Council of India, New Delhi." In this letter, they would point out to the fact namely the Government quota of 65% seats have not been given for the year 2009-2010, therefore, they should execute an undertaking for the grant of the same in the next year. It was also clearly stated that the students under SRM University should be transferred to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, New Delhi subject to information and ratification by the Medical Council of India, New Delhi. Thereafter, on inspection by the university authorities and rectification of the mistake pointed out by the university on 16.02.2010, affiliation was given. Only on 16.02.2010, the University granted provisional affiliation for starting up of the first year MBBS Course 2009-2010 with an annual intake of 150 seats. ( 23. ) AS per the governing council meeting, in the affiliation letter, it was stipulated that 65% seats sharing would be given for the next year and here also, they would clearly state that the petitioner institution had applied for ratification from the Medical Council of India, New Delhi, and reply from them is awaited. ( 23. ) AS per the governing council meeting, in the affiliation letter, it was stipulated that 65% seats sharing would be given for the next year and here also, they would clearly state that the petitioner institution had applied for ratification from the Medical Council of India, New Delhi, and reply from them is awaited. The undertaking given by the petitioner was clearly extracted therein regarding the transfer of students and also regarding 65% quota. Further, it is categorically stated that the institution has applied for ratification from the Medical Council of India and reply from the Medical Council of India is awaited to grant approval as per the Governing Council Meeting and it is also subject to the conditions given in the annexure to the order. In the annexure, condition No.13 would also clearly indicate that the institution shall obtain the recognition of the Medical Council of India for 150 seats and submit the copy of the same to the University. It was also stated that the institution shall obtain the renewal permission of the Government of India for an intake of 150 seats every year and submit the copy of the same to the University. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, once this permission or affiliation is granted ratifying the admission made for the year 2009-2010, all other irregularities has been set right by the University. Such a contention cannot be accepted, as, even in the application which ratifies the admission, there is a clear condition that the college has to get it ratified by the Medical Council of India. Both in the letter of affiliation and in the annexure, conditions have been clearly spelt out. Further, the argument of the petitioner is that if at all any body could question how their admission was made, it can only be the University as the University itself having ratified, accepted and cleared and it is not open to the Medical Council of India to still insist on the discharge of the students whose admission have now become valid pursuant to the ratifications granted by the University. This contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted as even as per the application, as pointed out earlier, there is a condition to get it ratified by the Medical Council of India. This contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted as even as per the application, as pointed out earlier, there is a condition to get it ratified by the Medical Council of India. In fact, it is further stated that the institution itself had sought for approval from Medical Council of India and the same was awaited till the grant dated 16.02.2010. ( 24. ) FURTHERMORE, the petitioner would also bring to the notice that they have given a valid undertaking for the next two years for the academic year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 to which they have also surrendered 140 seats out of 150 seats and for both the years, they would only admit 10 students as management students and pursuant to that, for the year 2010-2011, already the students were admitted under the counselling and that too, only by the Government sponsored candidates and not by them. Therefore, their bona fide intention was to get necessary ratification for the initial mistake committed by them and it has to be taken note of by this Court. Further, after the said ratification by the University on 16.02.2010, again the Medical Council of India, by virtue of letter dated 19.02.2010 informed the petitioner that a reconsideration was done by the Council in regard to the discharge of students in the meeting and it was reiterated that the original order dated 16.11.2009 for discharge of students is not altered and they should discontinue. This letter dated 19.02.2010 has been addressed to the petitioner institution. In fact, a reference is also made to a letter received from the SRM University, Kancheepuram, dated 02.12.2009 and this copy of the letter dated 19.02.2010 is also addressed to the University. Thereafter, on 04.03.2010, after the inspection for the renewal of permission for admission for the second batch of MBBS for the academic year 2010-2011, the Medical Council of India recommended to the Central Government not to renew the permission for admission for the second batch of MBBS students for the year academic year 2010-2011, Trichy by pointing out certain deficiencies. They also pointed out that since the students have not been discharged and they also intimated the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University would not accord permission to the University to transfer 150 students already admitted in the first year MBBS course for the academic year 2009-2010. They also pointed out that since the students have not been discharged and they also intimated the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University would not accord permission to the University to transfer 150 students already admitted in the first year MBBS course for the academic year 2009-2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner sent a letter dated 06.03.2010 to the Central Government bringing to their notice the entire details, including the letter dated 04.03.2010 not to renew for the second year and requested the Central Government to renew and also accept the ratification made by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. The contents of the letter is as follows:- "Considering all the points narrated above we humbly submit to state that we have complied with the orders and the norms and procedures prescribed by MHRD/MCI/UGC from time to time and at this stage if MCI do not allow these students to pursue their studies under T.N. Dr. M.G.R. Medical University as per its regulations it will do a great harm to the families of all these 150 students in general and untold mental agony to the students in particular. At no point of stage we violated the given instructions. Initially, we proceeded to admit these 150 students by complying with the norms and standards of SRM University and MCI as per the condition prevailing then and after getting the said corrigendum we had to transfer them to T.N. Dr. M.G.R. Medical University which has kindly accepted the students subject to certain conditions. All these actions on our side are not violative of rules or procedures at any stage and we request the Hoh'ble Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India to ratify the action of Chennai Medical College Hospital at Irungalur Village, Tamil Nadu affiliated to T.N. Dr. M.G.R. Medical University as per the corrigendum issued by Government of India and inform the same to MCI." The petitioner would only seek to ratify the action of the Chennai Medical college Hospital, Trichy, now affiliated with the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University as per the corrigendum. This letter was sent to the Medical Council of India by the Central Government as per the communication dated 15.03.2010 to take further necessary action on the representation dated 06.03.2010 by the Registrar. This letter was sent to the Medical Council of India by the Central Government as per the communication dated 15.03.2010 to take further necessary action on the representation dated 06.03.2010 by the Registrar. In the meanwhile, on 17.03.2010, the petitioner institution sent a compliance report, as found out in the letter dated 04.03.2010, rectifying all the deficiencies which were pointed out by the Medical Council of India. But after the receipt of the letter dated 04.03.2010 from the Medical Council of India to the University, the University sent a letter dated 18.03.2010 calling upon the petitioner that as they have not discharged the students as per the Medical Council of India's request, they were unable to register the students and permit them to write the examination. Finally, on 05.04.2010, the Medical Council of India after taking into consideration the representations dated 06.03.2010 sent by the Government on 15.03.2010, rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner. In this rejection letter, they have reiterated the council's decision and consequent executive committee meeting held on 04.03.2010 and rejected their request, which is the impugned order along, with the original discharge letter dated 16.11.2009. Therefore, till such time, the second year affiliation was not granted. It is useful to extract the impugned order dated 05.04.2010 here, which reads as follows:- "This is with reference to letter No.U.12012/495/2007-ME(P-II) dated 15.03.2010 received from the Central Government on the subject mentioned above. In this regard, I am directed to inform you that the matter with regard to the admission of 1st year students at Chennai Medical College, Trichy in the academic year 2009-10 along with the above cited communication received from the Central Govt. was reconsidered by the Council and it has been decided to reiterate the decision taken by the Council office and subsequently by the Executive Committee of this Council at its meeting held on 04.03.2010. Accordingly, the decision taken by the Council office as well as Executive Committee of the Council as communicated the same vide Council Office letter NO.MCI-34(MC)2009?TN-31/50951, dated 16.11.2009 and further letter NO.MCI34(MC)/2009-TN-31/78862, dated 05.03.2010 respectively is being reiterated and to request you to discharge all the students, immediately and submit the compliance, immediately, further necessary action in the matter." ( 25. Accordingly, the decision taken by the Council office as well as Executive Committee of the Council as communicated the same vide Council Office letter NO.MCI-34(MC)2009?TN-31/50951, dated 16.11.2009 and further letter NO.MCI34(MC)/2009-TN-31/78862, dated 05.03.2010 respectively is being reiterated and to request you to discharge all the students, immediately and submit the compliance, immediately, further necessary action in the matter." ( 25. ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner filed the first Writ Petition in W.P(MD).No.5903 of 2010 and the prayer is as follows:- W.P(MD).No.5903 of 2010: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and proceedings of the second respondent in (i) No.MCI-MCI-34(MC)/2008-TN-31/5095 dated 16.11.2009 (ii) MCI-MCI-34(MC)/2008-TN-31 dated 19.02.2010 (iii) Point 2 in MCI-No.34(41)/2009-Med dated 04.03.2010 (iv) MCI-MCI-34(MC)/2009-TN-31 dated 05.04.2010 and consequential proceedings of the third respondent in RC.No.Affln.III(3)/16235/2009 dated 18.03.2010 and quash the same and direct the first and second respondents to grant renewal of permission for admission of second batch of students for the academic year 2010-2011 based on the compliance of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI vide letter 04.03.2010 communicated by the petitioner vide their letter dated 17.03.2010 without insisting upon the discharge of 150 students. ( 26. ) PENDING the above writ petition, the petitioner also applied for an interim stay of the communication dated 16.11.2009, 19.02.2010 and 04.03.2010, 05.04.2010 and consequnetial order of the third respondent namely on 18.03.2010 not to recognise the 150 seats. An interim order was granted on 26.04.2010. Further, another application was filed in M.P.(MD).No.3 of 2010 for ad-interim direction directing the third respondent to register 150 students and permit them to conduct the ensuing examinations pending disposal of the Writ Petition. M.P.(MD).No.4 of 2010 an interim direction directing the Medical Council of India to grant the renewal of permission for the second year 2010-2011 without insisting upon to discharge of 150 students. There also, interim direction was granted. Pursuant to the above said directions, the renewal for permission of the second batch of students for the year 2010-2011 was granted on 12.07.2010 after inspection. In this order, there is no restriction or there is no reference to the Writ Petition order. This is only with reference to the inspection made and it was given for one year. Pursuant to the above said directions, the renewal for permission of the second batch of students for the year 2010-2011 was granted on 12.07.2010 after inspection. In this order, there is no restriction or there is no reference to the Writ Petition order. This is only with reference to the inspection made and it was given for one year. The only condition imposed was subject to the condition that the admission process may be completed as per the time schedule prescribed in the regulation of the Medical Council of India. Thereafter, the students have written the first year examination and their results have also been published and pursuant to the order dated 12.07.2010 granting the second year affiliation and the students publication of results, the petitioner institution made an endorsement in the Writ Petition that subject matter of the Writ Petition has become infructuous, hence, he is not pressing the same. This Court has also noted that the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 have no objection to dismiss the Writ Petition as infructuous. Hence, it was dismissed as infructuous on 02.11.2010. After that, every thing went on smoothly for the petitioner till the matter was taken up again by the Medical Council of India. Then, on 12.11.2010, the University also granted provisional affiliation for conducting MBBS Course for the second year. It is pertinent to point out that the second batch of students were admitted by the Government quota of 140 seats as per the undertaking given by the petitioner and 10 students were only admitted under management quota. Subsequently, only when their renewal for third year was sought, by virtue of a letter dated 28.02.2011 the Medical Council of India sent the impugned order reiterating their stand to discharge the students as per their earlier order dated 16.11.2009. As it has not been done, it was stated that seeking renewal for the third batch 2011-2012 cannot be granted and they will not make assessment. When this order was passed on 28.02.2011, the present Writ Petition namely W.P(MD).No.2773 of 2011 was filed to quash the same and also directing the second respondent to grant renewal for permission of the third batch of students for the academic year 2011-2012 after completion of formalities. When this order was passed on 28.02.2011, the present Writ Petition namely W.P(MD).No.2773 of 2011 was filed to quash the same and also directing the second respondent to grant renewal for permission of the third batch of students for the academic year 2011-2012 after completion of formalities. Here also, interim order was granted staying the discharging of the students and also a further interim order was passed directing Medical Council of India to inspect the College in regard to the recognition for the third year. ( 27. ) CHALLENGING this interim order, Medical Council of India preferred Writ Appeals, in which a direction was given that the interim order granted shall continue and insofar as the direction given to the Medical Council of India to inspect the college for the grant of approval for the third year is concerned, interim stay was granted only with regard to submission of the report. Pending this, today, after the case is heard, the learned senior counsel for Medical Council of India has produced original report to the Court. Now, in this case, the only point at this stage is whether the initial admission of the students by the petitioners institution between 16.09.2009 to 30.09.2009 is a valid admission or not. ( 28. ) AT this juncture, it is brought on record one more fact that after the second writ petition was filed, Medical Council of India filed an application for clarification in the earlier writ petition that they did not say no objection to dismiss the writ petition as infructuous. Therefore, as there was no finding given in the earlier writ petition, the order dated 16.11.2009 still remains in force. This matter was heard by the learned single Judge, who passed the order and he opined that in the interest of justice, the matter has to be reopened and the writ petition was accordingly restored to file and both the writ petitions were posted together. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel for the Medical Council of India would rely upon judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (The University of Madras, rep. By its Registrar, Chennai vs.Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust, rep. By its Secretary, Chennai and another) 2005 (3) MLJ 350 wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that if admissions are granted even though the College has not obtained affiliation, then it is illegal. By its Registrar, Chennai vs.Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust, rep. By its Secretary, Chennai and another) 2005 (3) MLJ 350 wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that if admissions are granted even though the College has not obtained affiliation, then it is illegal. The learned Senior Counsel for the Medical Council of India also relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in (Ruckmani College of Education, rep. By its Correspondent, Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli District vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Chennai and others) (2008) 1 MLJ 1217 to say that the grant of affiliation alone will not entitle an institution to admit students and to enable students to write the examinations. Such affiliation should be prospective and there cannot be any retrospective admission and the admission before grant of the affiliation could not be taken into consideration. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel for the Medical Council of India would mainly contend that the admission made by the petitioner is illegal. Further, the learned Senior Counsel for the Medical Council of India would contend that as per the Medical Council of India Rules (criteria for identification of students admitted in excess of admission capacity of medical colleges). Regulation 1997, Clause 6 specifically contemplates that a list has to be sent to the affiliating University, which would mean that an institution should have affiliation at the time of admission and the power is vested. Therefore, one of the criterias for getting affiliation is not only the infra- structures or equipments or the faculties for necessary running of the college, but also the basic right to admit the students. If that right is not vested with an institution, then, definitely, they cannot admit the students and consequently, they are estopped from questioning the power of Medical Council of India. The power of Medical Council of India is questioned by the petitioner by contending that the Medical Council of India cannot, by this Act, direct the petitioner to discharge the students even if there is no affiliation. The contention of the petitioner that on and from 14.07.2009, they have got the right to admit the students cannot be accepted. The power of Medical Council of India is questioned by the petitioner by contending that the Medical Council of India cannot, by this Act, direct the petitioner to discharge the students even if there is no affiliation. The contention of the petitioner that on and from 14.07.2009, they have got the right to admit the students cannot be accepted. The contention of the petitioner that it can be questioned only by Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and the University itself have not objected but ratified the same, there cannot be any discharge of the students is unsustainable. ( 29. ) IN this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the following Judgements (BharathidasanUniversity and another vs. All INdia Council for Technical Education and others) 2001 (8) SCC 676 forthe proposition that when any authority is given power, such powers can be exercised within the prescribed limits. The Medical Council of INdia is assigned the role to maintain and ensure the requirements are fulfilled to start the college and obtaining affiliation or not is not within their purview. Therefore, the Medical Council of INdia has no power to seek for discharge of the students. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also relied on the latest Division Bench judgment of this Court in (Medical Council of INdia vs. The Chairman, Sree Mookambika INstitute of Medical Sciences) 2011 1 CTC 41 for the proposition that the role of Medical Council of INdia is limited and they have power only to regulate admissions only. INsofar as the intake capacity is concerned, Medical Council of INdia has no power to interfere with the admission and to direct the petitioner to discharge the students admitted by them. ( 30. ) THE case before the Division Bench was that out of the 50% of the seats meant for the State Government, 43 candidates only joined before the cut-off date namely 30.09.2008 and on that date, the institute admitted seven candidates, namely the lapsed seats of the Government quota, on its own. It was further contended that those seven candidates were admitted as against the Government seats and they were treated for all purposes as Government candidates and fee applicable to the Government sponsored candidates alone were collected. It was further contended that those seven candidates were admitted as against the Government seats and they were treated for all purposes as Government candidates and fee applicable to the Government sponsored candidates alone were collected. In other words, the reduction of seats to set-off the effect of excess admission will be necessary only in the event of any excess admission is made over and above the management quota. THE Division Bench concluded that the last date for filling up of all the seats, as directed by the Supreme Court, was 30.09.2008. THE management had also periodically intimated the Selection Committee as to the vacancy in the Government quota. Even after the candidates sponsored by the Selection Committee, there were seven lapsed seats on the last date for admission, namely, the cut-off date for admission fixed by the Apex Court. Those seats were filled by the institute as the seats should not go waste. THE Division Bench further held that in terms of Regulations 5 and 7, the medical colleges shall furnish year-wise list of students admitted to the council within three months from the closure of admission. Regulation 8 relates to matters relating to excess admission to be decided by the Council. That regulation contemplates that all matters relating to excess admission of students shall be decided by the Council. THErefore, Medical Council of India would certainly have the power to regulate the admissions of the students in the Medical Colleges is within the sanctioned intake capacity and if the admission is made over and above the sanctioned strength, it would certainly have the power to take appropriate action against the concerned. THErefore, the Division Bench was of the opinion that the regulations would be available to the Medical Council of India only in the event the admission is made over and above the sanctioned strength. A reading of the decision rendered by the Division Bench would make it clear that it was a case where the dispute was only in respect of the fact as to whether the institute exceeded their permitted capacity to admit the students, whereas, it is not so in the case on hand. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench relied on by the counsel for the petitioners will not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. ( 31. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench relied on by the counsel for the petitioners will not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. ( 31. ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court reported in (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore and another vs. Union of India and others) AIR 2005 Karnataka 50. This is a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. Since there was a division of opinion among the learned Judges, the matter was referred to a third Judge for opinion. This decision is relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to show that the power is given to Medical Council of India to interfere at any stage in regard to the admission only if there is an excess admission and not on any other grounds. By relying on this decision of the Karnataka High Court, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Parliament has not conferred any power either on the Central Government or on the Medical Council of India to stop admission of students by a medical college after formal recognition has been granted on the college for any reason whatsoever. Section 10 (1) of the Act only provides for grant of permission to start a medical college or permission to open a new or higher course in an existing medical college or increase the admission capacity in any course of study or training in an existing medical college and it does not speak of stopping of admission to a medical college at all.In this context, the relevant portion of the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court can usefully be extracted as follows:- "For the purpose of appreciating the power conferred on the Medical Council of India, it is necessary to look into the regulations where such power is conferred. THE Establishment of New Medical Colleges, Opening of Higher Courses of Study and Increase of Admission Capacity in Medical Colleges Regulations, 1993 and Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulation, 1999 provides for granting permission to establish new medical colleges and to admit students. THE Establishment of New Medical Colleges, Opening of Higher Courses of Study and Increase of Admission Capacity in Medical Colleges Regulations, 1993 and Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulation, 1999 provides for granting permission to establish new medical colleges and to admit students. It is stated therein that such permission will be granted initially for a period of one year and will be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets and revalidation of the performance of bank guarantees. THE process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of medical college and expansion of hospital facilities is completed and a formal recognition of medical college by the Medical Council of India is granted. Further, admissions are liable to be stopped at any stage unless requirements for various steps of development are to the satisfaction of the Medical Council of India. It is between the period of initial permission till formal recognition the Council has been vested with the power to stop admissions to the medical college, if requirements of the Council are not fulfilled. THE words 'at any stage' used in the above provision means between the initial permission till formal recognition. THErefore, the power of the Council to stop admission under the aforesaid regulations is only in respect of an establishment of new medical college under Sec.10-A and to be exercised at any stage between the stage of initial permission and formal recognition and not beyond the formal recognition. This power of the council cannot be interpreted to mean that the council can stop admission to all medical colleges i.e., medical colleges established prior to Section 10A was introduced for which recognition has already been granted and medical colleges for which formal recognition has been given after S.10A came into force at any time. When such a power is not conferred on the Central Government under the statute the regulation framed under the statute cannot confer such absolute power on a statutory authority like the council. When such a power is not conferred on the Central Government under the statute the regulation framed under the statute cannot confer such absolute power on a statutory authority like the council. THE initial permission which is being granted is renewed from year to year subject to the college complying with the requirements which are to be complied with, if such requirements are not complied with, Medical Council of India, which is the body which has to supervise these colleges to find out whether these legal requirements have been complied with or not is vested with the power to stop admission to the college if those requirements are not complied. This power could be exercised by medical council of India at any stage till a formal recognition is given to the college. In other words, this power can be exercised by the medical council of India from the day the permission is granted initially till a formal recognition is given on the advice of the medical council of India to the college. It is during this interregnum that the Medical Council of India has to see that all necessary infrastructure required for the establishment of a medical college is complied with by the College. It is only on the Medical Council of India being satisfied about the availability of necessary infrastructure and on its recommendation, the Central Government issues a formal recognition. With the grant of formal recognition, this power conferred on the Medical Council of India to stop admission to a medical college at any stage comes to an end. This regulation has nothing to do with the Explanation 2 which only defines the meaning of admission capacity contained in Section 10 A (b) (ii) which deals with increase in the admission capacity in any course of study or training in a medical college to which a formal recognition has been given. THErefore, neither the Explanation 2 nor these regulations confer any power on the Medical Council of India to stop admission to a medical college to which formal recognition has been given by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Medical Council of India. THErefore, neither the Explanation 2 nor these regulations confer any power on the Medical Council of India to stop admission to a medical college to which formal recognition has been given by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Medical Council of India. THE regulation providing for a power to direct stoppage of an admission on the Medical Council of India in case of a scheme, is made for obtaining permission from the Central Government for establishment of medical college cannot be construed as conferring such power to stop admission to medical colleges of recognised institutions where a formal recognition has been granted before the Amendment Act came into force or such a formal recognition has been granted in terms of S.10 A. When no such power has been conferred on the Central Government under the statute such wide powers cannot be conferred on the Medical Council of India by way of a regulation. When that being the case, the reliance placed on the Council on these regulations as a source of power to stop admission to medical colleges has no substance in it." ( 32. ) THEREFORE, it is evident from the decision of the Karnataka High Court that the power of Medical Council of India is only for four years or till the regular approval is given. Till that point of time, the Medical Council of India can verify into the compliances or fulfilment of conditions and that is why power is given every year to inspect and to give renewal. After four years period is completed or regular permission/recognition is granted, the Medical Council of India has the powers to interfere only if there is an excess admission as against the intake capacity after the formal approval is given. THEREFORE, the final conclusion in the decision in (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore and another vs. Union of India and others) AIR 2005 Karnataka 50 would indicate that Medical Council of India has no right to stop admission of the students of a recognised medical college under Section 10 A of the Act for any academic year after the final recognition. THEREFORE, this decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioners will not be of any use to the petitioner to get the relief. THEREFORE, this decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioners will not be of any use to the petitioner to get the relief. The learned Senior Counsel would rely upon a decision reported in (Al-Karim Educational Trust and another vs. State of Bihar and others) 1996 (8) SCC 330 for the proposition that in an identical situation where students were admitted without an affiliation in regard to the intake capacity, it was held that taking into consideration the plight of the students who have been admitted in the college, direction was issued to the university to grant affiliation. In fact, in that case, affiliation was directed to be given after three years and they had earlier continued without affiliation. ( 33. ) HE would also rely upon the judgment reported in (Chandra Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and another) (2003) 6 SCC 545 to contend that it is well settled that the legality or otherwise of an order passed by statutory authority must be judged on the face thereof as the reasons contained therein cannot be supplemented by an affidavit. In this case, the original impugned order dated 16.11.2009 only states that discharge of students has become necessary because of the fact that there is no affiliation. This cannot be questioned by the Medical Council of India as it has no power. It cannot now be improved by any other mode, by affidavit or otherwise by saying that they derived power under Resolution 6 of the Medical Council of India Act, whereas the order does not say so. Now, in this context, if we analyse the whole aspect, the college was very well aware that they had applied only for starting a college under the Dr.M.G.R. Medical University and by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that they have applied for commencing the college under SRM University. The first letter of indent dated 14.07.2009 was issued to them in which it was clearly stated that the permission was granted only to start a college not by SRM University as there was no application to start a college by SRM University. That is why, even before the corrigendum was issued on 30.07.2009, they had approached rightly, properly and correctly the university to seek for affiliation. That is why, even before the corrigendum was issued on 30.07.2009, they had approached rightly, properly and correctly the university to seek for affiliation. But, the Medical Council of India, even on 20.07.2009 itself, pointed out that even though the mistakes have been committed at the earliest point of time by the Medical Council of India stating that it should be started by the SRM University it was corrected on 20.07.2009 and intimated to the Central Government to issue a fresh letter of indent and letter of permission. But, in the corrigendum, unfortunately, no details were given, no new order of indent was given, no new letter of permission was given but only it reads that it should be read as an endorsee No.3. Be that as it may, the mistake though committed earlier has been communicated by the Central Government even on 30.07.2009, the petitioner waited till 12.09.2009. According to the petitioners, they received or they were intimated by the TamilNadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical Universitythat the purport of the letter is only to grant permission to SRM University and not TamilNadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University,therefore, the petitioner thought it fit to admit students. This cannot be accepted at all. As pointed out earlier, that the very letter has been signed only on 17.09.2009. Therefore, this communication should have reached at the earliest point of time only on 18.09.2010. Even though the petitioners may now say that they were in constant contact with the department namely, the University, oral orders cannot be accepted. Therefore, the initial point of admission made on 16.09.2009 is definitely without any authority. It is further clear that no prospectus was issued calling for anybody to apply to this college and the learned senior counsel fairly submitted that the process of selection was done not on the basis of the applications received by the college but on the basis of the application which was received only to the SRM University at Chennai. In fact, an examination was conducted earlier, much before all these ado, for the selection process for the SRM University. In that selection process, the first 150 students have been admitted to the SRM University and after 16.09.2009, for those students who have not even applied for this particular institution, this University thought it fit to give admission on 16.09.2009 upto 30.09.2009, but on what basis? Unfortunately, without any basis. In that selection process, the first 150 students have been admitted to the SRM University and after 16.09.2009, for those students who have not even applied for this particular institution, this University thought it fit to give admission on 16.09.2009 upto 30.09.2009, but on what basis? Unfortunately, without any basis. Now, they would contend that because of the mistake committed by the Central Government as well as the Medical Council of India in not properly wording the letter of indent and letter of permission, they thought it fit to admit the students under the University and they have got the right to initially admit and then seek redressal. It is the case of not an ordinary person and here it is a University namely SRM University, which is a Deemed University and they have got a separate college already running at Chennai and they cannot now come and say before the Court that their admission has been done properly. ( 34. ) THE contention now raised by the petitioner is that the Medical Council of India has no power to question the affiliation. Unfortunately, the answer is an emphatic 'no'. THE Medical Council of India, being the authority to fix the standards, the authority to maintain the medical colleges, definitely, even at the time of application itself, seeks for a letter from the appropriate authority namely, the University which is specifically given under Form III. THE petitioner has given such a letter which is extracted from the University letter which is hereunder: "I am to state that the 188th Governing Council meeting held on 26.05.2009 approved the issue of "Letter of Consent of Affiliation" to the Trust to apply to the Government of India for its approval to start First M.B.B.S. Degree Course at the proposed new Medical College viz., Chennai Medical College Hospital and Research Centre at Irungalur Village, Manachanallur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District with an annual intake of 150 seats subject to the production of necessary undertaking from the management to furnish the building Completion Certificate in respect of "CHENNAI MEDICAL COLLEGE and HOSPITAL" IRUNGALUR VILLAGE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. THE trust has furnished the undertaking. 2. THE trust has furnished the undertaking. 2. Hence, I am enclosing herewith "Letter of Consent of Affiliation" in Form No.3 as prescribed by the Medical Council of India for establishing a new medical college in the name and style "Chennai Medical College Hospital and Research Centre", Irungalur, Manachanallur Taluk, Trichy with an intake of 150 seats in I MBBS Degree Course. 3. THE Managing Trustee, S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai is informed that their proposed new Medical College should not be started and also prospectus for the said course should not be published in any form by the Trust, till the Government of India grants its final approval and this University grants provisional affiliation for the establishment of a new medical college at Irungalur, Manachanallur Taluk, Trichy. 4. Further, it is also informed that the "Letter of Consent of Affiliation" issued to the Trust does not confer any right on the managing Trustee, S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai to admit students in their proposed new medical college till the approval of the Government of India and Provisional Affiliation of this University are granted, and that this letter is issued only for a specific purpose of enabling the trust to apply to the Government of India for their approval." Therefore, even for application, when they were aware that the Form III should be given, can it now be gainsaid that because of the alleged mistake committed by the Central Government and the Medical Council of India, they thought it fit to admit the students? As stated supra, even as per the decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, Medical Council of India has the power to stop admission till the final recognition is given. ( 35. ) THE next limb of argument was that the last date for admission is 30.09.2009 and they came to know on 12.09.2009 that Dr.MGR University is not accepting that the permission was meant to start college under their university but only under SRM University. What prevented the petitioners from giving atleast one letter to the University that there is a corrigendum stating that the Medical Council of India have wrongly stated in the letter of permission so that the admission could be made before 30.09.2009. What prevented the petitioners from giving atleast one letter to the University that there is a corrigendum stating that the Medical Council of India have wrongly stated in the letter of permission so that the admission could be made before 30.09.2009. Further, it is also not given to understand as to whether the students were informed that this institution does not come under SRM University and this institution has not been affiliated to any other University and this institution cannot admit any one. Even though the prospectus were called for by this Court, no prospectus were produced before this Court. But the fact remains that the students were admitted as early as 16.09.2009. THErefore, the very admission, at that point of time, was wrong and the institution should not have admitted the students. THE institution have no right to admit students in the absence of affiliation, which is mandatory, even as per form III, which was sent along with the application. Further, there is a statututory embargo in form III in para 4 that they should not admit the students till provisional affiliation is given by the university. Hence, the admission of the students by the petitioner institution is patently illegal. ( 36. ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (RameshSingh @ Photti vs. State of Andhra Pradesh) 2004 (11) SCC 305 for the proposition that unless and until the facts and circumstances in a cited case are in parimateria in all respects with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it will not be proper to treat an earlier case as a precedent to arrive at a definite conclusion. This argument is advanced to distinguish the Division Bench and Full Bench decision of this Court in regard to admission without affiliation. Per Contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India would rely upon the Full Bench decision of this Court mentioned supra and contend that the Full Bench decision is directly on the proposition that affiliation is mandatory, without affiliation, if admission is made, it cannot be cured and there cannot be retrospective affiliation also. If we analyse the first Division Bench judgment reported in (The University of Madras, rep. By its Registrar, Chennai vs. Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust, rep. If we analyse the first Division Bench judgment reported in (The University of Madras, rep. By its Registrar, Chennai vs. Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust, rep. By its Secretary, Chennai and another) (2005) 3 MLJ 350 , this Court has categorically held that all the cases, which come before this Court,are the one where admissions were made without affiliation and without conditions, thereafter, at the time of examination, they file writ petition seeking for a direction to direct the University to retrospectively grant affiliation. In these circumstances, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have categorically held that affiliation cannot be directed to be given to the University by the Court. It is accepted. Both sides fairly admitted that this is the first of its kind where the institution has come to the Court stating that they admitted students without affiliation, but affiliation has been granted retrospectively by the university not at the intervention of the Court but by themselves. The Division Bench of this Court in the above decision, following the decision of the Supreme Court in (Regional Officer, CBSE Vs. KU. Sheena Peethambaran, 2003 (7) SCC 719 held in Para No.14, 18 and 19 as follows:- "14. In our opinion, respondent No.1 (Writ Petitioner) was not justified in admitting students to B.Ed., course, since affiliation has not been granted to it by the Madras University. Admittedly, the degree (B.Ed.,) which is sought to be conferred on the students, will be that of the Madras University. Hence, until and unless the Madras University grants affiliation to the writ petitioner institution, it had no right at all to admit students which would lead to conferring a degree of Madras University. If admissions are granted, even though the college has got affiliation, then if ultimately the affiliation is refused, the students will be left in the lurch having wasted lot of time and money. 18. We are of the opinion that any college or institution admitting students for a degree in a University even before the University accords its affiliation is really committing fraud on those students and is cheating those students who are given admission, because, those students can be left in the lurch, if ultimately affiliation is not granted. 19. In our opinion, no college can claim affiliation as of right. It is only for the university in its discretion to grant affiliation or not. 19. In our opinion, no college can claim affiliation as of right. It is only for the university in its discretion to grant affiliation or not. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers to grant affiliation, nor can it direct the University to grant affiliation. An act which the statutory authority has to do cannot be done by this Court, and this Court must exercise restraint in this connection." ( 37. ) IN the decision of the Division Bench of this Court mentioned supra, it was categorically held that if the students are admitted without affiliation and ultimately if the affiliation is refused the students will be left in the lurch for having wasted their money and time. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench was the institutions cannot admit the students without affiliation since if ultimately affiliation is refused, the students will be put into peril. Hence, this court will not interefere or issue any direction to grant admission without affiliation. ( 38. ) IN this connection, the learned Senior Counsel for the Medical Council of INdia relied on the full bench decision of this Court reported in (Ruckmani College of Education, rep. By its Correspondent, Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli District vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Chennai and others) (2008) 1 MLJ 1217 wherein in Para Nos. 32, 35 and 36, it was held thus:- "32. IN SreeArumugam Teacher Training Collegevs. Thiruvalluvar University, WP Nos. 8685, 8687, 8869 and 8186 of 2006 dated 04.04.2006, D. Murugesan, J considered the effect of Clause 46 Chapter XXVI of the Statutes of the MadrasUniversity and held that there cannot be any retrospective affiliation and that the attendance before affiliation would not be taken into consideration. IN Paa 12 of the said Judgment, the learned Judge referred to the provisions of Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education and held as follows: "12. The power to grant recognition to start Teacher Training Course including the degree level shall vest only with the National Council for Teacher Education (in short NCTE). The National Council for Teacher Education Regulations and the conditions on which the recognition is granted in terms of Section 14 (1)of the National Council for Teacher Education Act are binding on the institutes availing such recognition. The National Council for Teacher Education Regulations and the conditions on which the recognition is granted in terms of Section 14 (1)of the National Council for Teacher Education Act are binding on the institutes availing such recognition. Condition no.3 (a) of the conditions of recognition contemplates that the institution shall ensure that eight exclusive faculty members duly approved by the affiliating University are in a position for an intake of 100 students and a report to this effect shall be sent to the Southern Regional Committee immediately and in any case before the commencement of admissions for the course. A plain reading of the above condition shows that before admission to the course is commenced, the institution should get the approval of the affiliating university as to the faculty members. The fact of approval shall be communicated to the NCTE by the college by way of reports. Unless these two conditions are complied, the institution cannot admit the students. Condition no.4 further contemplates that the recognition is subject to the fulfilment of all such other requirements as may be prescribed by other regulatory bodies like the State Government etc., So far as the grant of affiliation is concerned, the respondent University is alone empowered. The grant of affiliation entitles the colleges not only to admit the students but also enables the students so admitted to write the examination subject to the training in the prescribed syllabi and fulfilling the attendance norms. If both the condition nos. 3 (a) and 4 are read together, it is obvious that even as per the conditions of recognition, no student can be admitted before the approval of the faculty members and a report to that effect is sent to the NCTE and further no student would be entitled to write the examination unless he/she earns the maximum attendance as per the norms. As per condition no.4, grant of affiation is also one of the requirements in the class without there being a conferment of degree would be of no use." 35. We have considered the provisions of the relevant statues and the decided cases. IN our opinion, it is impossible to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the institution that merely because the recognition to the institution has been granted by the NCTE, affiliation must necessarily be granted by the University........ 36. We have considered the provisions of the relevant statues and the decided cases. IN our opinion, it is impossible to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the institution that merely because the recognition to the institution has been granted by the NCTE, affiliation must necessarily be granted by the University........ 36. The NCTE Act has been enacted by parliament under Entry 66 of List I to coordinate with and determine the standards of teacher training institutions as well as Entry 25 of List III. The provisions of the University Act regarding affiliation of teacher training colleges and the conditions for grant and continuation of such affiliation by the University shall remain operative. However, the conditions that are prescribed by the University for the grant and continuation will have to be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the NCTE in respect of the matters entrusted to it under the NCTE Act. We hasten to add that the grant of affiliation alone entitles the colleges to admit the students and also enables the students to write the examination subject to the training in the prescribed syllabi and fulfilling the attendance norms, and there cannot be any retrospective affiliation and the attendance before the affiliation would not be taken into consideration. No institution or college is entitled to admit students before the grant of affiliation by the University, and as observed by the learned Chief Justice in University of Madras vs. Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust and another (supra) that any college or institution admitting students for a degree in the University even before the University accords affiliation is really committing fraud on those students and is cheating those students who are given admission, because those students can be left in the lurch if ultimately affiliation is not granted. We may add that it would be impermissible for the Court to permit the students of an unaffiliated institution to appear for the examination conducted by the University under the interim orders of the Court or to direct the University to grant affiliation with retrospective effect, as it would amount to directing the University to disobey the statute to which it owe its existence and the regulations made by the University itself." In the Full Bench decision also, the question arose was if the institution gets the approval from the NCTE that by itself would not grant the permission to admit students without affiliation with the university. Of course, the main question which arose in this case was at that point of time not only the affiliation of the university but also the permission from the Government was sought for. There the Full Bench of this Court decided that the decision regarding granting of permission by the Government does not arise. But as far as admission before affiliation is concerned, the Full Bench endorsed the view of the Division Bench. Hence, admission made by the petitioner institution without affiliation is deprecated even in the Full Bench. ( 39. ) THE affiliation of the university is mandatory. In fact, "Dr. M.G.R. Medical University (Affiliation of Medical Colleges) Statues prescribes the mode of getting affiliation for every college. Statue 3, 7, 9 and 10 reads as follows:- "3. It shall be necessary for the proposed medical college seeking affiliation to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Madras for starting first year M.B.B.S. Degree Course to apply for Certificate of Registration on its application with the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Madras. 7. On receipt of the application for Certificate of Registration, the Univeristy shall scrutinize the same and verify by deputing an inspecting commission whether the conditions required to be fulfilled by the applicant Trust/Society to become eligible to receive the said certificate are fulfilled. THE inspection commission shall specifically examine whether the following conditions are fulfilled by the applicant Trust/Society and make a detailed report to the University. THE inspection commission shall specifically examine whether the following conditions are fulfilled by the applicant Trust/Society and make a detailed report to the University. 'Conditions to be fulfilled by the Trust/Society to become eligible to receive the Certificate of Registration; (a) THE applicant Trust/Society shall possess and own 50 acres (fifty acres) of land if the proposed college is to be located in an urban agglomeration or 100 acres (hundred acres only) of land if in other area." (b)............ 9. THE issue of the Certificate of Registration alone shall not confer any right on the applicant Trust/Society to start the M.B.B.S. Degree Course of study. 10. THE applicant Trust/Society, on receipt of the Certificate of Registration from the University, shall fulfil the conditions stipulated in statutes 11 and 12 hereunder to enable the University to appoint and send an inspection commission for the proposed Medical College. ( 40. ) THE above extracted statute would only indicate that prior to affiliation, many formalities are required to be done. Only after fulfilment of required conditions a certificate will be issued to enable an institution to resort to admitting the students. Prior to issuance of a certificate, admission can never even be thought of. Here is a case where the petitioner college straightaway jumbled to the conclusion that without affiliation, they can admit the students. Admittedly, the petitioner had submitted their application with form III of the concerned University only for consent for affiliation, but the actual affiliation was not granted. As stated earlier, when there is a definite embargo even in form III itself that the petitioner should not admit the students without affiliation, they cannot admit students. THErefore, it is clear that the act of the petitioner institution in admitting students without affiliation is nothing but an illegality and not an irregularity. As the petitioner institution did not have an affiliation at that point of time, the admission before affiliation is invalid. Definitely, at the time of admission, there should be affiliation. THE petitioner cannot now contend that there is no provision under the Medical Council of India and they cannot question the right regarding the affiliation and it is not the case of the Medical Council of India that the petitioner has no infrastructure for running the college. Definitely, at the time of admission, there should be affiliation. THE petitioner cannot now contend that there is no provision under the Medical Council of India and they cannot question the right regarding the affiliation and it is not the case of the Medical Council of India that the petitioner has no infrastructure for running the college. As far as the students were admitted at that point of time becomes illegal or irregular, the Medical Council of India will have the power to issue notice to cancel the admission especially at the earliest point of time, even as early as November 2009 itself they questioned the admission and issued the first impugned order dated 16.11.2009 to discharge the students. THErefore, I hold that the admission made by the petitioner for the first year i.e. for the year 2009-2010 without affiliation by the university is bad in law. Secondly, the Medical Council of India has got power under Section 10(A) to supervise and also interfere in admission level as held in the decision reported in (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore and another vs. Union of India and others) AIR 2005 Karnataka 50 after reference to the third Judge. In fact, in this judgment it has been clearly pointed out that the power of Medical Council of India during the course of the permission upto the fourth year is very clearly extracted in this judgment. Only after regular permission is given, then the Medical Council of India cannot interfere other than there is excess students being admitted. We then come to the crucial factor. The admission has become illegal. The admission is without powers. The person or the authority who is to question is the university but the university which has formulated various regulations for affiliation, which are given in the university's regulation. Clause 3 of the Regulation reads as follows:- "3. It shall be necessary for the proposed Medical college seeking affiliation to the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Madras, for starting first year MBBS degree course to apply for Certificate of Registration of its application with the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Madras." ( 41. ) AS per the statute, Clause 3 envisages that the institution should apply for the Certificate of Registration. MGR Medical University, Madras, for starting first year MBBS degree course to apply for Certificate of Registration of its application with the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Madras." ( 41. ) AS per the statute, Clause 3 envisages that the institution should apply for the Certificate of Registration. Clause 9 would indicate even if Certificate of Registration is granted that shall not confer any right on the applicant to start MBBS degree course of study. Clause 12 would indicate that before applying for affiliation they should fulfill the various conditions including the establishment of hospital and other things. Under statute 17 provisional affiliation will be granted by the University is for the first year. Regulation 17 reads as follows:- "17 (1) The provisional affiliation granted by the University shall be only for the first year M.B.B.S. Course of study. There upon the College shall be permitted to admit students in such manner in the First M.B.B.S. Course of study as the University decides and shall nominate a medical expert as its member to represent the interest of the University in the Governing body of the medical colleges. (2) The medical college shall furnish a budget for each year of study and a separate development budget which will cover the expenses for the fulfilment of the requirements prescribed for the second M.B.B.S. Course of study. (3) The member nominated by the University under sub-statute (1) shall hold office for a period of three years. Any change in the Governing body of the College shall be reported to the University immediately. (4) The Governing body of the College shall meet at least once in every three months to consider the budget estimates and such other matters as may arise in its working. It shall report in May-June every year to consider the Annual Report, the audited statement of accounts, changes in the staff, subjects or courses in which fresh affiliation or approval is to be sought in the following year. A copy of the notice of meeting shall be sent to the nominee of the University, with a copy to the Registrar, at least 15 clear days before the date of the meeting. A copy of the minutes of the meeting shall also be sent to the nominee of the University and the Registrar within 15 days of the meeting. A copy of the notice of meeting shall be sent to the nominee of the University, with a copy to the Registrar, at least 15 clear days before the date of the meeting. A copy of the minutes of the meeting shall also be sent to the nominee of the University and the Registrar within 15 days of the meeting. (5) Every college shall have a duly constituted Governing body with representatives of the teaching staff, to advise the Principal in the internal affairs of the college. A record of proceedings of the said governing body shall be maintained by the Principal." ( 42. ) THEREFORE, the learned Senior Counsel for the Medical Council of India would submit that when these regulations are prescribed, the university cannot grant a ratification of the admission and even if such ratification is made, it is against the regulations and therefore, it is invalid and that the ratification will not cure the initial wrongful admission. This argument will be only applicable to the students admitted for the year 2009-2010. The retrospective affiliation granted by the university will not cure the original defects when they were admitted. In fact, in the Full Bench decision, it is very clearly held that there cannot be any retrospective affiliation. Learned Senior Counsel would point out that there is no prohibition for retrospective affiliation in the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University whereas the Full Bench decision relies on Statute 30 of that University Act where there is a specific embargo for retrospective permission. THEREFORE, there is a distinction between the Full Bench decision and this case. But the fact remains that even as per the regulation a person even after getting a Certificate of Registration cannot admit the students till he gets the affiliation. The affiliation in this case comes for the first time on 16.02.2010 alone. Even the application for affiliation after the rejection on 12.09.2009 emanated from the petitioner himself only in the month of 23.11.2009 and the resolution immediately was passed by the university even on 24.11.2009. This Court finds it difficult to understand how within one day the General Council Meeting could be called for ratification of this admission. When the application emanates on 23.11.2009, on 24.11.2009, the General Council Meeting rectifies everything and on 26.11.2009, the letter is sent. THEREFORE, the ratification is not in accordance with regulations. This Court finds it difficult to understand how within one day the General Council Meeting could be called for ratification of this admission. When the application emanates on 23.11.2009, on 24.11.2009, the General Council Meeting rectifies everything and on 26.11.2009, the letter is sent. THEREFORE, the ratification is not in accordance with regulations. THEREFORE, the first year admission can never be said to be valid for the batch of 2009-2010. But this will save only one situation. The affiliation once it is granted on 16.02.2010, here is the college which has got an approval, letter of intent and letter of permission valid. Even as early as 14.07.2009 and thereafter, on 16.02.2010 there is a valid permission or affiliation though with effect from 2009-2010 retrospectively it could be only construed that they can only admit the students for the year 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and not for 2009-2010. THEREFORE, the second batch of students who are admitted in the year 2010-2011 and those students are admittedly admitted not by the college but by the entire 140 seats admitted in Government quota and only 10 seats are taken by the University. THEREFORE, the second admission is valid admission for the second batch. Why this clarification is given because I am holding that the initial admission of the students is invalid and it should not be construed that it will also affect the students for the year 2010-2011. In this context, it is also pertinent to point out that the University has not only ratified for 2009-2010 but has also granted permission for the year 2010-2011. It has been extended thereafter. For the present year, the charges have been called for, for affiliation. It is to be construed with the fact that the Medical Council of India has also conducted inspection for the second year and now for third year. The Medical Council of India found it fit to grant approval for the second year and therefore, the admission for the year 2010-2011 is a valid admission. Formalities have been fulfilled. THEREFORE, the college can claim a valid admission subsequent to 2010. There is no doubt about it. For the present year also, the inspection has been made, no doubt as per the direction of this Court, this inspection has been made on 20.04.2011. Formalities have been fulfilled. THEREFORE, the college can claim a valid admission subsequent to 2010. There is no doubt about it. For the present year also, the inspection has been made, no doubt as per the direction of this Court, this inspection has been made on 20.04.2011. For the third year, as per the inspection report which is now produced before this Court there are no defects pointed and all parameters are intact as per the report. THEREFORE, the Medical Council of India can have no grievance as far as other facilities are concerned, if that is available as per the report, definitely the petitioner college would be entitled for approval for the third batch. Of course, it is for the Medical Council of India, pursuant to the report, has to immediately pass an order so that the petitioner institution will be eligible to participate in the ensuring counseling, even though not in the Ist councelling but atleast in the second counselling otherwise, the State will be deprived of their seats. THEREFORE, the second limb of the prayer in the second writ petition has to be granted. Since counseling has started on 30.06.2011, it is imperative on the part of the Medical Council of India to immediately take steps to issue necessary orders on the basis of their report here so that the petitioner can also participate for the counselling in the year 2011-2012 atleast in the second counselling. To this extent, the prayer in the second writ petition has to be granted. Now comes the very crucial agonising question. What happens to the unfortunate 150 students who have been admitted and who have also completed two years with the SRM University. Dr.MGR University which has to follow its regulation has categorically stated it is ratifying the admission. This university unfortunately without awaiting any clarification or ratification by the Medical Council of India has ratified the admission. No doubt, after the ratification admission granted they come and now say before this Court pursuant to the letter dated 04.03.2010, of Medical Council of India by the letter dated 18.03.2010 that they are obeying the order of the Medical Council of India. Therefore, they are not registering the students and only because of the interim order, they have registered the students leaving in lurch the unfortunate students. Therefore, they are not registering the students and only because of the interim order, they have registered the students leaving in lurch the unfortunate students. The Full Bench judgment of this Court no doubt says when the admissions are made illegally no lenient view can be taken into consideration. But when the initial admission is illegal, such a request cannot be entertained. ( 43. ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that a mistake was committed originally by Medical Council of India by passing a resolution wherein they have recommended to the Central Government for affiliation. THE Central Government also accepted and also continued the mistake. THEreafter, when it was pointed out by the Medical Council of India also, they did not rectify it properly. THErefore, for no fault of the petitioner, because of a mistake committed by the Medical Council of India as well as the Central Government, they should not be put into peril. I think this argument is not open to the petitioner. If at all any one is entitled to the maxim "actuscuriae neminem gravabit" it is only the unfortunate students, who are not before this Court. But they have also undergone the course for two years. This Court can only sympathize with them noting the fact that the Dr.MGR university committed a grave error in ratifying such admission. If these things are allowed, tomorrow everybody can go and admit the students without affiliation which has been depreciated time and again by this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court. No doubt, here the situation is different. Here is the case where the Dr.MGR University itself ratified the illegal admission. ( 44. ) IN this context, it is necessary to extract the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Al-Karim Educational Trust and another vs. State of Bihar and others) 1996 8 SCC 330 wherein in para Nos. 11 and 12, it was held as follows:- "11. IN the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the State Government after consulting the Medical Council of INdia to arrive at a decision. However, if it is found that the affiliation is being withheld unreasonably or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other, this Court would, though reluctantly, be constrained to exercise jurisdiction. IN the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the State Government after consulting the Medical Council of INdia to arrive at a decision. However, if it is found that the affiliation is being withheld unreasonably or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other, this Court would, though reluctantly, be constrained to exercise jurisdiction. We must make it clear that we are not diluting the importance of fulfilling the essential prerequisite set by the Medical Council of INdia before granting recognition. The facts of this case are very special and exceptional. IN the present case, we take note of the following.... (h) It is impractical to insist, for a foolproof or absolute adherence to all requirements, without regard to their importance or relevance, for the purpose of imparting education, in a practical way, especially because the institution has begun to function, students admitted to the institution have taken the examination and the fate of a good many number of students should not hang in the balance in an unending or everlasting manner." 12. ....For taking such further steps, the grant of affiliation need not wait. We make this position clear. The steps for the grant of affiliation to the appellants institution may now be expedited and we direct the respondents to issue the necessary orders without loss of time. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. IN the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs." In the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court mentioned supra, a three judge Bench has categorically held that the affiliation can be granted only after getting the clearance of the Medical Council of India. In fact, in the above decision, it was held that the State Government will be at liberty to obtain the clearance from Medical Council of India before finalising the grant of affiliation. The Medical Council of India was also requested to expedite the matter and express its opinion within three weeks from the date of requisition from the State Government. After these formalities are completed, it was held that the appellant therein will be informed in writing about the outcome of its requisition for affiliation. It was also made clear that the Medical Council of India has got a definite say even in respect of affiliation by the University. ( 45. After these formalities are completed, it was held that the appellant therein will be informed in writing about the outcome of its requisition for affiliation. It was also made clear that the Medical Council of India has got a definite say even in respect of affiliation by the University. ( 45. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Hanuman Vitamin Foods Pvt Ltd., vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay) 1998 (8) SCC 336 for the proposition that "no one should suffer for the mistake committed by the Court. ( 46. ) THE learned counsel further relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (SharmishthaSrivastava vs. Vice Chancellor, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya University, Gorakpur and others) (2000) 1 AWC 56 and contended that it is well established principles of equity and fairness, which is the basis for dispensation of justice that no one can suffer for the mistake or fault of the person or the institution who commits the mistake. By placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays this Court that since the students of the petitioner institution have completed two years, at this stage, they should not be sent out and therefore prayed for appropriate direction to Medical Council of India. ( 47. ) WITH a heavy heart, this Court only would say that the mistake is committed by everyone including the University and unfortunately, the students are left in lurch because they have completed two years of course and they have also completed the first year examination for which results have also been published as per the interim orders of this Court. But the future depends upon the University which has ratified the original admission. It is the University which should take upon the responsibility in their shoulders to see that these students who are unfortunate victims are given some relief and to take necessary steps to get ratification from Medical Council of India as this Court cannot give any relief by itself as per the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Medical Council of India also will consider in this angle sympathetically. ( 48. The Medical Council of India also will consider in this angle sympathetically. ( 48. ) IN view of the foregoing discussions and observations and also in view of the enunciated judgmentsof this Courtas well as the Supreme Court, W.P(MD).No.2773 of 2011 is disposed of with a direction to the Medical Council of INdia to give necessary approval for the III year admission and course as per their inspection report dated 20.04.2011 immediately so the petitioner can also participate for the counselling in the year 2011-2012 atleast in the second counselling and W.P(MD).No.5903 of 2010 is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs.