JUDGMENT (CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) 1. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The present writ appeal is filed as against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22188 of 2011, dated 22.12.2011. 2. The appellant herein is a Trust and running a Medical College, recognised as a Malayalam Linguistic Educational Institution. It is stated that they are self-financed College and admission of students is based on merits. It offers degree course in Medicine of 5-1/2 years duration and Post Graduate Degree courses in various disciplines. The appellant also has a 450 bedded multi-speciality hospital with all facilities. It is affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University and recognized by the Medical Council of India. 3. With the intention of starting additional post-graduate courses, the appellant made its application to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, the 1st respondent herein, as well as to the Medical Council of India, the 2nd respondent herein, on 14.04.2011. In respect of the said application, even before the date of filing the said application, the appellant had submitted an application before the 5th respondent, namely The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, on 30.11.2010, for grant of Consent of Affiliation for the following courses. It is stated that the appellant had put up additional structures and arranged for additional instructional facilities to the tune of Rs.15 crores. It has also taken steps to appoint additional faculty members to teach the above subjects. 4. The application sent for grant of consent of affiliation to the 5th respondent University was admittedly received by the 5th respondent, as evidenced from the letter sent by the University on 01.02.2012. It is a matter of record that instruction to that effect has been given by the 5th respondent to its counsel. The said letter dated 01.02.2012 refers to the reminder sent by the appellant on 13.05.2011 and the application made as early as on 30.11.2010 before the 5th respondent. The fact remains that the application given by the appellant for grant of consent of affiliation, however, remains undisputed and ultimately, consent of affiliation was granted by the 5th respondent only on 30.06.2011. 5. As already pointed out, the appellant sent his application to the Central Government, the 1st respondent herein, on 14.04.2011, which was received by the Central Government On 21.04.2011. 5. As already pointed out, the appellant sent his application to the Central Government, the 1st respondent herein, on 14.04.2011, which was received by the Central Government On 21.04.2011. One of the requirements for processing the application for registration by the 1st respondent before forwarding it to the 2nd respondent is that the applicant must possess the certificate of consent of affiliation by the concerned University. Admittedly, although the application was made as early as 30.11.2010, the said consent of affiliation was not issued by the fifth respondent University as on the date of the application made to the first respondent to enclose the same along with the application sent in the month of April, 2011. Regulation No.4 of the Notification, which was published on 14th August, 2000 by the Medical Council of India, shows that incomplete applications would be returned by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to the Medical College/ Institution along with enclosures and application fee stating the deficiencies in such applications; applications found complete in all respects would be registered by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and forwarded to the Medical Council within 30 days from the date of receipt of it for evaluation and recommendations. Regulation 4 in the Notification states that mere registration, per se, would not mean approval of the application for grant of permission to start the course. The said Regulation further states that the period of one year prescribed under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for processing of an application for opening new or higher courses of study or training, including post-graduate course of study or training, shall commence from the date of registration of the applications by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 6. Regulation 5 of the Notification states that in computing the time limit specified in Regulation 4, the time taken by the authorities and institutions submitting the Scheme in furnishing any information or clarification or additional documents called for by the Council or by the Central Government should be excluded. Ultimately, the decision of granting of permission rests with the Medical Council of India, which is to evaluate the desirability and feasibility for opening a new or higher courses of study. In such an evaluation process, if the Council requires further information or clarification, the same has to be submitted by the Institution. Ultimately, the decision of granting of permission rests with the Medical Council of India, which is to evaluate the desirability and feasibility for opening a new or higher courses of study. In such an evaluation process, if the Council requires further information or clarification, the same has to be submitted by the Institution. The Notification contains the form of application and the list of enclosures which are to be sent along with the application. 7. As far as these aspects are concerned, admittedly, there is no dispute between the parties. As already pointed out, even though the appellant had filed the application on 14.04.2011, the fact remains that there was no consent of affiliation enclosed along with the application as required under the Notification. The appellant states that even though the appellant had requested for the grant of consent of affiliation as early as on 30.11.2010, it is alleged that in spite of steps taken by the appellant herein in approaching the University for granting the consent of affiliation in time, for reasons best known to the University - 5th respondent, there had been a delay in issuing the consent, which aspect could not be attributed to the appellant herein. 8. The grievance of the appellant herein is that on receipt of the application from the appellant, the same was forwarded to the Medical Council of India on 19.05.2011 by the Central Government. On 25.08.2011, the 2nd respondent passed an order, taking the view that the consent of affiliation for starting new P.G. courses, issued by the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, the 5th respondent, on 30.06.2011, has been submitted beyond the cut-off date, namely 31.05.2011, as prescribed in the Regulation for the submission of the application to the Council. Having regard to that, the Board of Governors had decided to disapprove and return the application submitted by the appellant. In the face of the said rejection order, the appellant once again approached the 2nd respondent on 02.09.2011, wherein, it is pointed out that the delay in submitting the consent of affiliation was only on account of the delay in getting the same from the 5th respondent University. In the face of the said rejection order, the appellant once again approached the 2nd respondent on 02.09.2011, wherein, it is pointed out that the delay in submitting the consent of affiliation was only on account of the delay in getting the same from the 5th respondent University. Since the letter of consent of affiliation is a formal permission valid for one year only, if the Medical Council of India is to reject the application, the appellant would have to get a fresh letter of consent of affiliation for the next academic year. The appellant stated that as the appellant had already requested the 5th respondent University to grant the consent of affiliation to start P.G. courses in 10 various specialities as early as on 30.11.2010 and there was no delay or wanting of care on the part of the writ petitioner/appellant, as the consent on the application has to be given by the University, a process over which the appellant has no say or control, their application has to be necessarily considered by the 2nd respondent in favour of the appellant, since they have already started P.G. courses in pre-clinical & para clinical subjects in May, 2011, anticipating the recognition. In the circumstances, the appellant requested that their application be processed to grant approval for starting 10 P.G. courses. The appellant also pointed out to the investment made to start the P.G. courses and appointment of staff in this regard. However, by proceedings dated 19.09.2011, the Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India rejected the application once again, stating that the application received after the cut-off date i.e. 31st May, could not be considered this year. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred the writ petition before this Court. 9. On notice, the 2nd respondent have filed their counter reiterating the stand already taken in the order impugned in the writ petition. In considering the stand of the appellant and the respondents, learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that when the appellant had admittedly sent the consent of affiliation long after the cut-off date, the same is liable to be rejected by the 2nd respondent. In considering the stand of the appellant and the respondents, learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that when the appellant had admittedly sent the consent of affiliation long after the cut-off date, the same is liable to be rejected by the 2nd respondent. The order of the learned Single Judge further states that if the statute contemplates a time bound action and the application had not been sent in the manner in which it should have been done within the time stipulated, the question of considering the application beyond the time frame did not arise. In the above circumstances, reliance placed on the decisions of the Apex Court by the appellant was rejected. Hence the present appeal by the appellant herein. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that as required under the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, the appellant had already placed its application on time and in good faith, they had also made an application for consent of affiliation before the 5th respondent; admittedly, as on the date of filing of the application before the first respondent, the application was an incomplete one and without the consent on application, from the fifth respondent. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Central Government, the 1st respondent herein, forwarded the same to the Board of Governors functioning in Supersession of Medical Council of India in the month of May and ultimately an order was passed by the 2nd respondent only on 25.08.2011. Pointing out to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, particularly sub-section (3) of Section 10A of the Act, read in conjunction with the Notification issued by the 2nd respondent, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that any applicant sent, found incomplete at the threshold of the receipt of the application, should have been returned by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the 1st respondent herein, to enable the appellant to re-present the same with necessary document, namely the consent of affiliation. Even taking the fact that the consent of affiliation came from the University only in the month of June, 2011, the application for grant of consent of affiliation was submitted by the appellant even as early as 30.11.2010. Even taking the fact that the consent of affiliation came from the University only in the month of June, 2011, the application for grant of consent of affiliation was submitted by the appellant even as early as 30.11.2010. When the Notification in question contemplates receipt of application by the Central Government and registration of the application filed with all details and then forwarding the same for evaluation of the scheme by the Medical Council of India, in fairness to the claim of the appellant herein, the respondents should have acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Notification issued thereon. While an action is a time bound one, the respondents should have taken steps to return the application on time, that the appellant resubmitted it within the time stipulated for further consideration before the Medical Council. Thus, the compliance of the requirements in the application and the proceedings to be taken within the time frame given, is a requirement for all parties concerned. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that granting of consent of affiliation is a matter entirely within the domain of the 5th respondent University; thus all that the appellant could do in the stated circumstances, was to apply well in advance for the consent on affiliation. This was followed by reminder to the 5th respondent for grant of consent of affiliation and in fact, the appellant had sent reminders to the 5th respondent about the necessity of granting consent of affiliation in time, so as to enable the appellant to forward it to the 1st respondent as well as to the 2nd respondent. In any event, the fact remains that when the application was filed on time and the Central Government forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent, at least by that time, had the appellant been informed of the status of the application, the consent of affiliation issued by the 5th respondent could have been forwarded to the 2nd respondent for further processing. He would further submit that given the fact that the Board of Governors, constituted in exercise of power under Section 3-A of the Act (inserted by Act 32 of 2010) with effect from 15.05.2010, have to exercise the power of the Council as given under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act and the only ground on which the Council could reject an application is on the merits of the Scheme given by an applicant, the summary rejection of the application, that too without granting an opportunity to the appellant herein, is unsustainable in law. 12. Supporting the order of the 2nd respondent, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent pointed out that when the appellant had submitted an incomplete application on 14.04.2011 and even as on the cut-off date, the appellant admittedly did not have the benefit of consent of affiliation from the concerned University, the mere fact that the application had been forwarded by the Central Government to the Board of Governors belatedly and an order was passed in the month of August, does not, per se, make the proceedings illegal or in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Notification. Given the fact that the appellant had admittedly not produced consent of affiliation from the 5th respondent University, according to the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the application has to be rejected in limine and the question of entering into the merits of the Scheme, as such, does not arise. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Apex court in Dental Council of India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 676 . Given the fact that the approval of Scheme has to fit in with the regulations framed, there can be no deviation from the time bound action stipulated under the Act. In this case, as the application was submitted without necessary documents as given in the Annexure to the Notification, the same did not merit any consideration by the second respondent herein and consequently, no exception could be taken to the action taken by the 2nd respondent in rejecting the application. 13. Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material placed on record. 14. 13. Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material placed on record. 14. Since much arguments had centered on Regulation 4 of the Notification issued by the Medical Council of India, the same needs to be noted herein, which reads as follows: "4.) REGISTRATION OF APPLICATION: Incomplete applications will be returned by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to the medical college/institution along with enclosures and application fee stating the deficiencies in such applications. Applications found complete in all respects shall be registered by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and forwarded to the Council within 30 days from the date of receipt of it for evaluation and recommendations. Acceptance of the applications shall only signify the acceptance of the application for evaluation. It shall, however, under no circumstances, mean approval of the application for grant of permission. The period of one year prescribed under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) for processing of an application for opening a new or higher courses of study or training (including post-graduate course of study or training) shall commence from the date of registration of the applications by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare." 15. As evident from a reading of the said provision, an application, to be submitted before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has to fit in with the Form given in Appendix-I. The list of enclosures given therein states that attested copy of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the State Government on the prescribed proforma; attested copy of the Consent of Affiliation issued by a recognised University and other documents are required to be enclosed along with the application. Wherever an application submitted is in incomplete form, Regulation 4 of the Notification contemplates return of the same by the Ministry along with enclosures and application fee, stating the deficiencies in such application. Application in complete form alone would go for registration before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and thereafter for placing the same to the Medical Council of India -at present, to the Board of Governors, for evaluation and recommendation thereon. 16. Application in complete form alone would go for registration before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and thereafter for placing the same to the Medical Council of India -at present, to the Board of Governors, for evaluation and recommendation thereon. 16. Considering the fact that the provisions contemplate return of an incomplete application and not a rejection of the same at that point of time, it stands to reason that wherever an applicant files an incomplete application, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has to necessarily return it for proper compliance and for re-presentation. Even though learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that an incomplete application goes for summary rejection, we do not find that such contention could draw support from the provisions of the Notification, since what is contemplated therein is return of an incomplete application stating deficiencies in the application, which means, in compliance of the principles of natural justice, an opportunity should be given to the applicant to make good the deficiencies and that the application comes in full form for registration before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for further placing it before the Medical Council for evaluation under Section 10A of the Act. 17. It is not denied by the respondents that the appellant had made his application on 14.04.2011 and it is also not denied by the appellant herein that at the time when it forwarded the application, it did not have the benefit of consent of affiliation from the 5th respondent University. It is also not denied by the appellant that as on the cut-off date, i.e. 31.05.2011, the application was in an incomplete form. 18. Be that as it may, the application dated 14.04.2011 was received by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 21.04.2011. This is stated so in the communication dated 02.02.2012 of the 1st respondent, addressed to the Assistant Solicitor General of India. From thereon, the Ministry forwarded the said application to the Board of Governors, on 19.05.2011. From the communication of the first respondent dated 25.01.2012, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that the application was received without processing fee. He would further submit that the role of the Central Government is limited only to the extent of receiving and registering the applications and apart from that, it has no further role to play in the matter of sanctioning the scheme. He would further submit that the role of the Central Government is limited only to the extent of receiving and registering the applications and apart from that, it has no further role to play in the matter of sanctioning the scheme. Whatever be the kind of role that the Central Government may play in this regard, the fact remains that the application given by the appellant herein on 14.04.2011 was received by the Central Government on 21.04.2011. Thereafter, there is no explanation on the delay in forwarding the same to the 2nd respondent on 19.05.2011, either from the 1st respondent or as to the Board of Governors passing an order only in the month of August, without giving an opportunity to the appellant to rectify the error. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would contend that the Rules and Regulations thereon do not contain an opportunity to be granted to the applicant in the matter of rectifying the defects, more so in the context of application made in an incomplete form, which remained so even beyond the due date, the same was liable to be rejected. We do not agree with the contention of the second respondent on the opportunity to be given to the appellant for rectification. The fact is that even in the absence of any such provision under the Act, or for that matter in the Notification, the Apex Court held that the basic rule of principles of natural justice and granting an opportunity of hearing is fundamental in jurisprudence and we do not find any justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the rules and regulations do not contemplate any such opportunity to the applicant. 19. As already pointed out, Regulation 4 of the Notification contemplates return of such incomplete application form stating the reasons for such return, which means, whether it is the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the 1st respondent or the Medical Council of India, the 2nd respondent, compliance of the Notification is a matter which cannot be dispensed with by anyone, including the 2nd respondent. It is not denied by the 2nd respondent that on the date of passing the order impugned in the writ petition, dated 25.08.2011, the 5th respondent University had already issued the letter of consent of affiliation on 30.06.2011. It is not denied by the 2nd respondent that on the date of passing the order impugned in the writ petition, dated 25.08.2011, the 5th respondent University had already issued the letter of consent of affiliation on 30.06.2011. A perusal of the proceedings of the 5th respondent, dated 30.06.2011, shows that it is only a formal letter of consent of affiliation from the University and that the letter of consent does not confer any right on the appellant to admit students in the said course till approval is granted and that the letter of consent is issued only for a specific purpose of enabling the appellant to apply to the Central Government for their approval for starting the above-said courses. 20. The role of the 5th respondent begins only after the Scheme is approved by the Medical Council and till such time, the letter of consent of affiliation granted by it, is merely an endorsement of the proposal of the appellant for starting of new courses. Leaving this aspect aside, the fact remains that except as one of the required documents to be enclosed along with the application as per the Notification published by the 2nd respondent, it says nothing about the merits of the Scheme placed by the appellant before the 2nd respondent for its consideration. 21. In the background of the dates and events thus narrated above, with the proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent on 25.08.2011, the question that arises is as to whether the appellant should be penalized for whatever delay that had happened in between from the date of presentation of the application to the first respondent to the date of passing of the final order on 25.08.2011 and the delay caused at the hands of the 5th respondent in giving the consent of affiliation on 30.06.2011, on the application made seeking such consent of affiliation as early as on 30.11.2010. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant herein, beyond furnishing required particulars to enable the University to pass orders, grant of consent of affiliation by the 5th respondent is a matter which is entirely within the domain of the 5th respondent alone, over which the appellant has no say or role to play. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant herein, beyond furnishing required particulars to enable the University to pass orders, grant of consent of affiliation by the 5th respondent is a matter which is entirely within the domain of the 5th respondent alone, over which the appellant has no say or role to play. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, if the appellant had not submitted the application before the 5th respondent for issuance of consent of affiliation before the date of application for processing the scheme, but, after the submission of the application, and long after the due date, then, what the counsel for the 2nd respondent states would be a justifiable one to reject the appellant's application. Given the fact that when the appellant was diligent enough to make the application before the 5th respondent for issuance of consent of affiliation as early as 30.11.2010, under normal circumstances, it is well within the bona fide belief of the appellant to expect that on the date of filing of the application or before the due date for submission of the application, the appellant could have the consent of affiliation from the concerned University. Given the fact that the application submitted by the appellant before the first respondent was not in complete form, at least the 1st respondent should have returned the same to the appellant for proper compliance of the deficiencies within the time frame as contemplated in the Notification issued by the Medical Council of India. But the fact remains that the application dated 14.04.2011, received by the first respondent in incomplete form on 21.04.2011, was lying with the 1st respondent till 19.05.2011 and was forwarded only thereafter to the 2nd respondent, to take up for passing the order, on 25.08.2011. Except for a mere contention that the delay on the part of the 2nd respondent was on account of heavy work load and insufficient staff, there is absolutely no convincing reason given by the 2nd respondent as to this delay in passing the order impugned in the writ petition. In any event, without the compliance of Regulation 4 of the Notification issued by the 2nd respondent, we do not find any good ground to support the order passed by the second respondent. In any event, without the compliance of Regulation 4 of the Notification issued by the 2nd respondent, we do not find any good ground to support the order passed by the second respondent. In fairness to the claim of the appellant, the 2nd respondent should have taken steps either to return the application to the 1st respondent herein or at least intimated the appellant about the incomplete form, calling upon the appellant to make good the deficiencies or at least to show cause as to why the application should not be returned by the 2nd respondent. In such circumstances, we do not find any justification or legal support to the order passed on 25.08.2011, rejecting the application of the appellant. It may, in any event, be noted that failure to furnish the consent of affiliation is a curable defect, more so in the context of the appellant having filed the said application before the fifth respondent well in advance before lodging his application before the first respondent. 22. As far as the 5th respondent is concerned, there is no explanation as to the reasons for the enormous delay in granting the letter of consent on affiliation. As already pointed out, the copy of the forwarding bill of the courier company, through which the application was sent, clearly shows that despatch of the letter was on 30.11.2010. The reply sent by the 5th respondent University to the appellant's letter as regards the receipt of the application for consent of affiliation, also confirms that the application, dated 30.11.2010, along with necessary enclosures, had been received by the 5th respondent. 23. In the background of the said facts, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Dental Council of India vs. SRM Institute of Science & Technology - (2004) 9 SCC 676 ; and (ii) K.S.Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 264 needs to be seen. As far as the first decision is concerned, it is seen that pursuant to the interim direction issued by the High Court, the Inspecting Team appointed by the Dental Council of India inspected the Institution and submitted a report. However, the said procedure was adopted even before the application was processed and ultimately taken up for approval of the Scheme by the Dental Council of India. However, the said procedure was adopted even before the application was processed and ultimately taken up for approval of the Scheme by the Dental Council of India. Noting the peculiar facts therein and the difficulty thus faced by the Institution and the students therein, the Apex Court pointed out that in fairness to the claim of the parties therein and in equity, the proper course would be to direct the Dental Council of India to process the application and other relevant documents, provided, the Institutions fulfilled the requirements and to furnished such essentiality certificate. Further, the Dental Council of India and the Government India were directed to take steps, as provided under the Rules and Regulations and to pass orders within a period of eight weeks. 24. Distinguishing the said direction of the Apex Court to the facts herein, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that when an incomplete application is no application at all, the Scheme is thus liable to be rejected at the threshold and this Court may not adopt such a course of action as has been done in the decision reported in (2004) 9 SCC 676 (Dental Council of India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology). If the facts herein, as already pointed out, are otherwise, what the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended might have been an acceptable one. In this regard, the object of scrutinizing the scheme by the Board of Governors in the place of Indian Medical Council assumes significance. As per the provisions of the Act, the Board of Governors have the authority to get into the merits of the scheme and pass orders either approving or rejecting the same. This power of scrutiny of the Scheme by the Board of Governors to grant an approval to the Scheme aim at checking the decline in the standards of medical education as well as to see that there are good infrastructure available for imparting education and that the teaching community and the students are not deprived of the best of the facilities that the Institution has to offer and that the students admitted to a course are not misled about the credibility of an Institution in imparting education. 25. 25. Keeping in mind the above-said object, there can be no doubt or a second thought that even before starting of the academic year, the Institution should possess all the facilities required for starting the course. To that end, the Act as well as the Notification issued by the Medical Council contain procedure for processing an application. Given the fact that Regulation 4 contemplates the processing and registration of the application at the first instance by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, the first respondent herein and thereafter forwarding the application to the 2nd respondent, it is clear that when the application was given before the second respondent, the same was in an incomplete form, that the second respondent could not have considered the scheme for passing orders on merits. Thus in fairness to the claim of the appellant, if everything had been done in accordance with the Regulations as notified by the 1st and 2nd respondents as well as the 5th respondent, who are all statutory bodies, then the question of this Court interfering on such authorities' decision would not have arisen at all. The fact that the appellant had approached the University for consent of affiliation well in advance before making an application seeking approval before the Medical Council, is a fact which should be given its due weightage herein. Further, when an applicant bona fide believes that as on the date of making of an application or before the cut off date, consent of affiliation would be there for the applicant to process the application, such bona fide belief, we do not think, is an empty belief, not substantiated by merits or facts. At least, had the 1st respondent been diligent in returning the application as contemplated under the Notification, it would have sounded a warning to the appellant to pursue with the University to get the consent of affiliation from the 5th respondent in time. The fact is that, on 19.05.2011, the Central Government forwarded the incomplete application to the 2nd respondent, even without verifying as to whether the application was in complete form or otherwise. Even thereafter, nothing had happened from the side of the 2nd respondent till August, 2011 when it chose to reject the application on the ground of absence of consent of affiliation from the concerned University. 26. Even thereafter, nothing had happened from the side of the 2nd respondent till August, 2011 when it chose to reject the application on the ground of absence of consent of affiliation from the concerned University. 26. Given the fact that the role of the 2nd respondent, as given under Section 10A of the Act, is more pronounced on assessing the merits of the scheme, we feel, on the mere absence of consent of affiliation as on the date when it took the application for consideration, the second respondent should not have rejected the application, without even affording an opportunity to th appellant. On the other hand, in fairness to the claim of the appellant, particularly in the context of the fact that granting of consent on affiliation is a matter of procedure, over which the appellant has no control, the second respondent ought to have called upon the appellant to produce the letter of consent of affiliation from the 5th respondent University within a time frame for the 2nd respondent to get into the merits of the Scheme. Even though learned counsel for the 2nd respondent pointed out that the application was an incomplete application which cannot be processed for considering the merits of the scheme, we feel that when the second respondent chose to return the application on the ground of the application being incomplete, nothing prevented the 2nd respondent from forwarding the same to the first respondent herein, pointing out the error committed by the 1st respondent in forwarding such incomplete application form. When none of the courses were adopted by the respondents herein, we do not think there exists any legality or factually a justifiable reason, to make the appellant a victim of the circumstances, which are solely within the domain of every one of the statutory bodies. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that the time limit for considering the scheme under the Act also had gone against the appellant, does not merit any acceptance by this Court. 27. In the circumstances, accepting the plea of the appellant herein, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and thereby allowing the writ appeal. 27. In the circumstances, accepting the plea of the appellant herein, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and thereby allowing the writ appeal. Even though the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.08.2011, states that the application of the appellant was returned along with the proceedings, dated 25.08.2011, learned counsel for the appellant submits that they had not received the application, as stated so in the order impugned in the writ petition. In paragraph No.31 of the writ affidavit also, the appellant has stated so. 28. In the light of the above-stated facts, while allowing the writ appeal, we direct the 2nd respondent to return the application form immediately to the appellant, so as to enable the appellant to re-present the same before the 1st respondent for registering the same and placing it before the 2nd respondent, without any further delay. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant would collect the application form from the 2nd respondent in person to re-present it immediately before the first respondent. It is open to the appellant to do so within a period of one week from this date. The 1st respondent shall audit it and register the same and immediately place it before the 2nd respondent for passing orders in terms of Section 10A(b) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Since 28th February 2012 is the last date for passing orders in these matters, the appellant shall co-operate to see that the Board of Governors discharge their functions as per Section 10(3) of the Act, before the date given as above. 29. The writ appeal stands allowed, as above. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 is closed.