Judgment :- 1. This writ petition was filed by the D.D. Medical College and D.D. Hospital, represented by its Chairman. This writ petition was filed to challenge an order of the respondent Medical Council of India (for short MCI), dated 19.06.2012 and further proceedings dated 30.6.2012 sent by e-mail and after setting aside these two orders, seeks for a consequential direction to grant second renewal of permission to the petitioner institution for starting the third batch of MBBS course. 2. When the writ petition came up on 04.07.2012, this court had ordered notice on admission and directed Mr.V.P.Raman, learned Standing Counsel for the MCI to get instructions from the respondent. Accordingly, a counter affidavit, dated 13.7.2012 sworn to by the Law Officer of the MCI was filed. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.P.Raman, learned Standing Counsel for the MCI. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that D.D.Medical college and Educational Trust was started to establish a medical college and hospital. It is the minority institution. This status has been granted by the State Government. The college claimed to have 3500 bed facilities, 141 department and 1500 bed hospital for teaching purpose. As per the MCI norms, 21 departments are functioning in the college and hospital. The estimate of the project cost was Rs.6000 crores. Over the period, they will establish 141 departments. The Government of India had granted essentiality certificate on 29.08.2008. After due inspection, the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University gave a letter of consent of affiliation on 29.10.2008 for starting the first year MBBS course with an annual intake of 150 students subject to the grant of permission by the Government of India. 5. In the meanwhile, the MCI was superseded and Board of Governors was appointed by the Government of India. They gave a letter of permission on 12.07.2010 for starting the course from the academic year 2010-2011 under Section 10(A) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Permission was granted initially for a period of one year which is liable for renewal on yearly basis on verification of achievement of annual target set out in the project report. The college had commenced the MBBS course with 150 students for the academic year 2010-2011. The college had also fulfilled all academic requirements. Permission was granted initially for a period of one year which is liable for renewal on yearly basis on verification of achievement of annual target set out in the project report. The college had commenced the MBBS course with 150 students for the academic year 2010-2011. The college had also fulfilled all academic requirements. It was also granted provisional affiliation by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University as per the proceedings, dated 25.8.2010. The college after the academic year 2010-2011 had applied for renewal of permission for the next academic year. But renewal was refused by the MCI for starting the second batch of course. The petitioner college had filed a writ petition being W.P.No.13052 of 2011 seeking to challenge the order dated 19.5.2011 and for a consequential direction to grant renewal of permission for the academic year 2011-2012 and for the grant of letter of permission to have an additional intake of 100 more students. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 8.8.2011 (since reported in (2011) 7 MLJ 956 ). This court on technical ground had set aside the order of refusal to renew the permission and had directed as follows : "28.) In these circumstances, the impugned order is quashed. While quashing the impugned order, I am not inclined to issue directions to the respondents, which the petitioner has sought for. Since I have set aside the impugned order on the ground that the same was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the matter is remanded back to the second respondent to consider and pass orders afresh, after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The second respondent is directed to hear the petitioner on the allegations relating to the inspection conducted on 15.3.2011 and 16.3.2011 and also on the fake faculty and also on other allegations, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a writ appeal being W.A.No.1500 of 2011. The said writ appeal upheld the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order dated 19.5.2011 and further gave the following direction as found in paragraph 30, which reads as follows : "30. ...... Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a writ appeal being W.A.No.1500 of 2011. The said writ appeal upheld the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order dated 19.5.2011 and further gave the following direction as found in paragraph 30, which reads as follows : "30. ...... Hence, in order to resolve all the disputes and differences between the parties, we modify the consequential order passed by the learned single judge by issuing the following directions:- (1) The Medical Council of India is directed to conduct a fresh inspection of the College by sending three independent Assessors who have previous experience in conducting such type of inspection of the Medical Colleges. (2) The Assessors so deputed for the inspection shall complete the inspection preferably in one day and submit their report of inspection. (3) The entire inspection shall be videographed by the Medical Council of India and the video recording shall form part of the report of the Assessors. (4) The assessment report shall be strictly confidential and shall be directly delivered to the official of the Medical Council of India. (5) As undertaken by the writ petitioner college they shall extend full and effective cooperation to the inspecting team to enable them to carry out the inspection smoothly and expeditiously and render all assistance to the Assessors and clarify all queries/questions/ clarifications as sought for by the Assessors. (6) Though the allegations made in the show cause notices issued to the college regarding fake faculty members was not the subject matter of adjudication in these appeals, yet it is needless to observe that the Assessors are entitled to satisfy themselves as regards the staffing of the writ petitioner college, since in terms of the 1999 Regulations as amended in 2010, the procedure for renewal of recognition shall be the same as applicable for award of recognition and there would be no bar for the Assessors to verify the list of staff members both teaching and non teaching and submit report in this regard. (7) As undertaken by the writ petitioner college they shall not admit any student without the final approval from the MCI after the inspection is conducted as directed above. (7) As undertaken by the writ petitioner college they shall not admit any student without the final approval from the MCI after the inspection is conducted as directed above. (8) On receipt of such Inspection Report, the Board of Governors or the Authority in Power shall hold a meeting immediately and take a decision on the basis of the Inspection Report as expeditiously as possible, latest by 29th September, 2011." 7. Aggrieved by the said order of the division bench, the MCI took up the mater before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had granted leave in SLP (Civil) No.27723 and 27724 of 2011. An interim stay was also granted on the direction given by the division bench. Therefore, insofar as the grant of renewal of permission for the academic year 2011-2012, the MCI had not granted permission. Now, the petitioner has come forward with the prayer for the grant of permission for the third batch (2012-2013) and seeks to set aside the orders dated 19.6.2012 and 30.6.2012. 8. In the impugned order dated 19.6.2012, the MCI had conducted an assessment of physical and other teaching facilities available with the petitioner medical college, which was carried out by the MCI Assessors on 5th and 6th June, 2012. The Assessment report was considered by the Board of Governors in their meeting held on 18.06.2012 and following deficiencies were noted : “1.) There are only 36 quarters for the faculty but in the residential proof of the faculty, a total of 148 faculty members, every one of them was shown to be residing in the college campus. Thus, it is apparent that they do not mention the station. 2.) For the students' only 60 rooms for the girls & 40 rooms for boys with capacity of 3 students in each room are available, there is no intern hostel. 3.) Only 3 lecture halls and one Examination Hall are available, 2 lect. Hall were under construction. 4.) The majority of the so called patients had been brought on tractors from nearby villages and were shown to be admitted in different wards without any proper case files. They were not shown in the indoor registers of any ward and they were just occupying the beds with their own clothes. Nobody was being administered any treatment. Almost every patient disappeared after 6.00 pm on the first day of assessment. They were not shown in the indoor registers of any ward and they were just occupying the beds with their own clothes. Nobody was being administered any treatment. Almost every patient disappeared after 6.00 pm on the first day of assessment. In the wards, no proper record of linen, diet and medicines was available. 5.) Only a limited number of investigations were carried out which included only 5 (five) X-rays, and not more than 30-40 investigations in other investigative departments. 6.) In the Blood-Bank, there were only 2 units of blood were available. 7.) The patients' attendance in the hospital appears to be very poor. 8.) Amongst the faculty members in the clinical departments, nearly 25% of them have joined the College after their retirement from health department having no teaching experience in the concerned speciality and they have been inducted as Assistant professors after the age of their superannuation i.e. over 58 yeas or so. 9.) There is deficiency of 2 lecture theatres.” 9. In view of these deficiencies, the Board of Governors decided not to grant approval for renewal of permission for third batch of 150 MBBS students under Section 10(A) of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2012-13. The college was also permitted to approach the Board of Governors for a personal hearing on 25.6.2012. The college had sent a letter dated 22.6.2012 and insisted that there were no deficiencies in the college. Notwithstanding the same, the second communication was sent by e-mail on 30.6.2012. The Board of Governors, after hearing the petitioner and considering the written submissions, decided to reiterate their earlier decision dated 18.6.2012 and not to approve the college for renewal of permission for admission of third batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2012-13 and also reiterated their earlier stand taken by them. 10. The contentions raised by the petitioner was that the petitioner college had fulfilled the MCI norms without any deviation. The comments made by the assessors cannot constitute deficiencies except one deficiency. Even for that deficiency, it was explained that three lecture halls / lecture theaters will be sufficient for the second renewal of permission. Merely reproducing the comments of the assessors regarding the deficiencies without actually ascertaining the fact as to whether those will constitute deficiencies was incorrect. The comments made by the assessors cannot constitute deficiencies except one deficiency. Even for that deficiency, it was explained that three lecture halls / lecture theaters will be sufficient for the second renewal of permission. Merely reproducing the comments of the assessors regarding the deficiencies without actually ascertaining the fact as to whether those will constitute deficiencies was incorrect. Even in respect of the communication dated 19.6.2012, the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation refuting the existence of deficiencies. For the purpose of second renewal of permission, the medical college should have 30 medical staff quarters for teaching staff. Even as per the report, they are having 36 quarters made available for the faculty. In respect of 148 faculty members, apart from 36 family quarters, there are 100 teaching staff sharing quarters for the teaching faculty on 2 : 3 sharing basis and others are residing nearby the college. The residential proof of those staff were also submitted. In respect of the availability of the hostel facilities for boys and girls, it was strictly complied with. There are 40 rooms for boys and 60 rooms for girls separately with capacity of having 3 students in each room. The third floor hostel rooms for accommodating boys and that the 4th floor hostel rooms for accommodating girls will be made ready for use during 15.7.2012 before the commencement of third batch. It is illegal to insist for intern hostel for the second renewal of permission and that the intern hostel is required only at the time of 4th renewal of permission. 11. The deficiencies pointed out in the order dated 19.6.2012 with reference to the admission of out patients in each wards, it was explained in detail with regard to the location of hospital, lack of road facilities for the patients to reach the hospital. Even in respect of the number of patients admitted as inpatients and the statistics relating to outpatients, the clinical materials were also produced by the petitioner. The number of x-rays taken on a particular day in the laboratory of the hospital cannot be a ground as per the MCI norms. It was explained that 120 to 140 x-rays were taken on payment basis. The patients were permitted to take x-rays with them for future reference. At the time of inspection, the x-rays of the patients available for the laboratory alone were taken into account. It was explained that 120 to 140 x-rays were taken on payment basis. The patients were permitted to take x-rays with them for future reference. At the time of inspection, the x-rays of the patients available for the laboratory alone were taken into account. But, on the second day of inspection, 135 x-rays were taken. With reference to blood unit, it was stated that blood can be collected from the donors according to the list maintained. For urgent requirements, voluntary blood doors were brought for emergency. In relation to patients' attendance, the hospital should have 530 bed facilities, whereas the petitioner college is having 1265 bed facilities and 92%, i.e., 1165 inpatients have occupied the bed. Therefore, they are having 91% of bed occupancy. 12. As to the query regarding the qualification of faculty members and the Assistant Professors not having teaching experience was concerned, the same is required only for the post of Associate Professors and Professors. The deficiency No.9 is the repetition of deficiency No.3. Therefore, when the petitioner had invested crores of rupees and without adherence to the time schedule, the rejection of request is totally illegal. The future of the staff and faculties will be deprived if the impugned order is not set aside. 13. In the counter affidavit filed by the MCI, it was stated that when the petitioner had applied for renewal of permission to start its third batch for the academic year 20122013, an assessment was carried out by a team of assessors appointed by the MCI on 5.6.2012. The team of assessors was consisting of the Prof.Dr.T.P.Lahane, Head, Department of Opthalmology, Grant Medical College, Mumbai, Prof.Dr.Vijay Pal Khangal, Professor of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, PGI, Rohtak and Prof.Dr.Jabinder Kaur, Professor of Biochemistry, Government Medical College, Chandigarh. The assessment committee not only found deficiencies, but also commented upon the genuineness of the patients admitted. The comment of the committee reads as follows : "Patients were brought in the morning and without admission and changing the cloths they were kept in the hospital 80% were shown were not genuine and they were brought to show that to MCI Inspectors. The comment of the committee reads as follows : "Patients were brought in the morning and without admission and changing the cloths they were kept in the hospital 80% were shown were not genuine and they were brought to show that to MCI Inspectors. 20% patients were genuine after 6 p.m. all patients left hospital then next day, then again came in the hospital and patients without any disease without any entry without any treatment with no proper indoor entry in the Register patient were kept in the ward." 14. The assessment team had also observed that all investigations provided by the college were exaggerated. It was pointed out by the Assessors that the patients were merely sleeping on their bed without any treatment being administered to them and none of them were suffering from any disease. The location of the hospital is far from the population. There are very few small villages located near and around the college. Therefore, the data of patient load, i.e., clinical material, shown by the college had raised serious doubts. 80% of patients admitted had disappeared from the hospital on the same evening and again brought back to their beds in the morning in their own clothes without any disease and without any treatment being administered to them. The assessment team also found that there are only 36 quarters in the campus of the college for faculty members. But the residential proof of the faculty members employed by the college showed that 148 faculty members were residing in the campus, which is not practically possible. It only proved that they do not stay in the campus. The college was permitted to admit students for the first batch for the academic year 2010-2011 with a capacity of 150 students and no permission was granted for admission to second batch during the period 2011-2012. Notwithstanding the same, admissions have been made by the college for the academic year 2011-2012 and it is illegal and a clear misrepresentation to the gullible students who are not entitled for recognition of the medical qualification in terms of Section 10B of the Indian Medical Council Act. The assessors had also verified the claim that there are 63 rooms for girls and 43 rooms for boys with a capacity of 3 per room. It only provided accommodation for 189 girls and 120 boys. The assessors had also verified the claim that there are 63 rooms for girls and 43 rooms for boys with a capacity of 3 per room. It only provided accommodation for 189 girls and 120 boys. There was no accommodation available for interns and it was claimed to be under construction. As against the mandatory requirement of 5 lecture theatres, only 3 were available and two were still under construction. The number of investigations carried out in the laboratory of the hospital was grossly inadequate as only 5 x-rays were carried out on daily average and other clinical investigation also did not exceed 30 to 40 per day. It only showed the genuine patients treated in the hospital. For the projected daily average of 3350 outpatients and 92 inpatients and 106 casuality patients, it was practically not possible to have a meager number of clinical investigations. The remarks of the assessors about producing fake patients were substantiated by the data of clinical investigations provided by the college. 15. The medical college has only 2 units of blood available, but the projected daily average of 106 casualities, 26 surgeries and 2 deliveries, the consumption of blood was shown to be nil. It was also not possible. Similarly, on the day of inspection, only 2 major and 3 minor surgeries were shown in the register as against the projected daily average of 8 major and 18 minor surgeries which was also grossly inadequate. 25% of the faculty members presented by the college for inspection have joined the college after their retirement from the Health department. They have no teaching experience at all. They were inducted by the college for the post of Assistant Professor after the schedule age of superannuation, i.e., 58 years. They also raised a doubt about the authenticity of the faculty produced. It was only because of these deficiencies, the Board of Governors, after going through the report of the assessors, had decided not to renew permission for the academic session 2012-2013 for the third batch of students. It was further stated that since the petitioner college suffers gross deficiencies in infrastructure facilities and availability of clinical material of teaching and training of MBBS students and as the standards of the medical education cannot be compromised, the permission was refused. 16. It was further stated that since the petitioner college suffers gross deficiencies in infrastructure facilities and availability of clinical material of teaching and training of MBBS students and as the standards of the medical education cannot be compromised, the permission was refused. 16. Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior counsel referred to a letter dated 22.6.2012 sent by the college subsequent to the impugned order stating that none of the deficiencies were really in existence. But, however in respect of poor attendance in the hospital, in the reply dated 22.6.2012, it was stated as follows: "Our Hospital is situated in a very remote, rural area catering to the villages nearby. There is no proper road facility for the patients in the interior remote villages to reach for Medical Aid. They have to depend on bullock-carts, two wheelers, autos, share autos, bicycles, and tractors to lift patients with sickness, etc. Out Institution has provided bus facilities wherever there is road connecting the interior villages. We are conducting health camps to reach the needy people. The patients are not education, they become home-sick and they leave the hospital with their own request & risk and come for treatment regularly every day. 30 -40% of them do not want to be admitted as inpatients due to scare about injection, IV fluids. Most of the IP cases except the admissions on the second day of inspection were shown and as the patients are illiterate and even though they do refuse and also have fear to wore the hospital linen certain patients were made to so and we also assure you that we will rectify all these important remarks in our near future. As advised by the assessment team we had already started patient education system and thereby we are improving our patient strength day by day. Our hospital normal OP timings are from 7am to 2pm during morning hours and 4pm6pm during evening hours, after 6pm we do accept the patients fro treatment in the casuality by our experts. They do come mostly in the evenings and night hours at certain days of the week due to various reasons. But still we do get more than 3000 OPD attendance regularly & 91% of bed occupancy. (copy of clinical material encl.)" 17. This will clearly show that the contention of the petitioner college is clearly false and does not satisfy the requirement imposed by the MCI. But still we do get more than 3000 OPD attendance regularly & 91% of bed occupancy. (copy of clinical material encl.)" 17. This will clearly show that the contention of the petitioner college is clearly false and does not satisfy the requirement imposed by the MCI. Similarly, in not getting the experience certificate in respect of the faculty, their contention that getting experience certificate takes a long time also does not satisfy the legal requirement. Even for availability of the blood, donors will be invited at the time of emergency also does not satisfy the requirement of the MCI. It was further stated that the college do not have renewal of permission for the academic year 2011-2012. Unless that question is answered, the question of renewal of permission for 2012-13 will not arise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted stay of the order passed by the division bench. 18. Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel, in this context, referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana reported in (1979) 1 SCC 572 and in paragraph 16, it was observed as follows : "16.) The Indian Medical Council Act; 1956 has constituted the Medical Council of India as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. Obviously, this high-powered Council has power to prescribe the minimum standards of medical education. It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions. Thus there is an overall invigilation by the Medical Council to prevent sub-standard entrance qualifications for medical courses." 19. Further, the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka reported in (1998) 6 SCC 131 in paragraph 29 had observed as follows : "29.) A medical student requires gruelling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study. The Medical Council, in all fairness, does not wish to invalidate the admissions made in excess of that fixed by it and does not wish to take any action of withdrawing recognition of the medical colleges violating the regulation. Henceforth, however, these medical colleges must restrict the number of admissions fixed by the Medical Council. After the insertion of Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C in the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council has framed regulations with the previous approval of the Central Government which were published in the Gazette of India dated 29-9-1993 (though the notification is dated 20-9-1993). Any medical college or institution which wishes to increase the admission capacity in MBBS/higher courses (including diploma/degree/higher specialities), has to apply to the Central Government for permission along with the permission of the State Government and that of the university with which it is affiliated and in conformity with the regulations framed by the Medical Council. Only the medical college or institution which is recognised by the Medical Council can so apply." 20. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences reported in (2004) 6 SCC 76 in dealing with Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act, in paragraph 13 had observed as follows : "13.) Law is well settled that Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act which provides for terms and conditions which have to be fulfilled before starting or establishing a medical college or starting higher courses making it clear that what is postulated thereunder is evaluation of application made by the institution concerned by the Central Government in the first instance and then forwarding the same to the Medical Council of India for its further examination. There are various steps envisaged under the scheme, such as: (a) issuance of letter of intent by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council; (b) issuance of letter of permission by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council for starting admissions; (c) issuance of annual renewal to be granted by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council; (d) at the stage first batch of students admitted in MBBS course go for final-year examination, grant of formal recognition by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council; and (e) if at any stage after the grant of initial permission entitling permission of first batch of students any college fails to fulfil the minimum norms in any successive year, as per the statutory regulations, further admissions are liable to be stopped at any stage." 21. The Supreme Court while upholding the need to adhere the time schedule prescribed by the MCI, vide its judgment in Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chattisgarh (Civil Appeal No.4318 of 2012), dated 08.05.2012, in paragraphs 23 and 24 had observed as follows : "23.) Lastly, in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital v. Union of India & Ors. [ (2011) 4 SCC 623 ), this Court cautioned all concerned that the schedule specified in Mridul Dhar (supra) should be maintained and regulations should be strictly followed. The Court suggested that the process of inspection of colleges, grant of permission or renewal of permission should also be done well in advance to allow time for setting right the deficiencies pointed out. 24.) In the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Dr.Sanjay Kumar Sinha & Ors. [ (1990) 4 SCC 624 ], a Bench of this Court took exception to the non-adherence to the time schedules and reiterated that the admissions to medical colleges and post-graduate courses were governed by the orders of this Court and the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India, which must be strictly followed. This Court issued a warning, that if there was any violation in future, the same shall be treated as default and viewed very seriously. Further, in the case of Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors. [ (2002) 7 SCC 258 ], this Court declared two very important principles. This Court issued a warning, that if there was any violation in future, the same shall be treated as default and viewed very seriously. Further, in the case of Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors. [ (2002) 7 SCC 258 ], this Court declared two very important principles. Firstly, it declared that mid-stream admissions should not be permitted and secondly, noticing the practice of compassion in review of such admissions, this Court also held that late or mid-stream admission, even just four months after beginning of the classes, cannot be permitted." 22. With reference to the power of judicial review available to the court over the decision of academic bodies, the learned Standing Counsel referred to the following decisions : (i) Chairman, J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik reported in (2000) 3 SCC 59 ; (ii) Medical Council of India v. Sarang reported in (2001) 8 SCC 427 ; (iii) B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah reported in (2008) 14 SCC 306 ; (iv) Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 284 ; and (v) All India Council For Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan reported in (2009) 11 SCC 726 . In this case, the Board of Governors have agreed with the report of the assessors team and that the observations of the team cannot be faulted. 23. Further, the learned Standing Counsel referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Era Educational Trust reported in (2000) 5 SCC 57 and referred to the following passage found in paragraph 7, which reads as follows : "7.......In a similar set of circumstances, in Medical Council of India, New Delhi v. State of H.P.3 this Court on 16-2-2000 observed that since the refusal was based on deficiencies for running a medical college, it would have been appropriate for the High Court to have remitted the matter to the Medical Council of India or the Union of India for reconsideration, even if it was of the opinion that the order of the Medical Council of India deserved to be set aside and the Court ought not to have issued a writ of mandamus directing grant of permission. Further, in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt. Further, in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P.4 it was held that even in a case where students were admitted in the medical colleges and who had continued their studies for more than a year, this Court refused to recognise such admission and observed: (SCC p. 678, para 10) “We regret that the students who have been admitted into the college have not only lost the money which they must have spent to gain admission into the college, but have also lost one or two years of precious time virtually jeopardising their future careers. But that is a situation which they have brought upon themselves as they sought and obtained admission in the college despite the warnings issued by the University from time to time.” The Court further observed: (SCC p. 678, para 10) “Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws.” 24. In the light of the above facts and the legal precedents, the decision taken by the MCI in refusing to grant renewal of permission cannot be found fault with. Under these circumstances, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.