JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. Vijay Thorat, with Adv. Mr. A.M. Karad for the petitioner, learned ASGI Mr. Alok Sharma for respondent nos.1 and 4, learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe for respondent no.2, Adv. Mr. K.C. Sant for respondent no.3, and Adv. Mr. V.D. Salunke for respondent no.5. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. The petitioner / management questions the order dated 2nd September 2013 of the State by which Essentiality Certificate has been withdrawn / cancelled, and the order dated 31st August 2013, communicating the order of Vice Chancellor of same date, withdrawing affiliation granted to it. 4. It is not in dispute, that the said order has been served upon the petitioner during the course of hearing of a Writ Petition filed before Bombay Bench. The petitioners therein have filed Civil Application No. 12108 of 2013 before us. They seek their impleadment as interveners to oppose the petition. The impugned orders also direct transfer of students from the Dental College of the petitioner to other suitable colleges. The applicants in Civil Application state that they are interested in seeking transfer. 5. Adv. Mr. Thorat appearing for the petitioner, upon instructions, has stated that the petitioners are not opposing transfer of applicants in Civil Application No. 12108 of 2013. We, therefore, find that any adjudication by this court, in the present petition, is not going to affect the interest of students. In this situation, we have not entertained Civil Application No. 12108 of 2013. 6. Adv. Mr. Thorat has contended that the Essentiality Certificate issued under Section 10A of the Dentists Act, 1948 [For short, "1948 Act"] is one time measure and it is not required to be renewed or continued. It stands exhausted once on its basis, the permission is given by Dental Council. In addition, he points out that here, earlier certificate issued in the year 2002, which was cancelled being substituted by another certificate in 2006, has only been withdrawn by the State Government. The later certificate issued in 2006 is still not touched. He further contends that the order of withdrawal of Essentiality Certificate is also in breach of principles of natural justice as material looked into therein has not been made available to the petitioner. 7. Coming to the order dated 31st August 2013, Adv. Mr. The later certificate issued in 2006 is still not touched. He further contends that the order of withdrawal of Essentiality Certificate is also in breach of principles of natural justice as material looked into therein has not been made available to the petitioner. 7. Coming to the order dated 31st August 2013, Adv. Mr. Thorat submits that provisions of 1948 Act contain necessary powers and enable Dental Council of India [For short, "DCI"] to take note of violations and also permit it to take necessary action. To that extent, power of respondent no.3 / Health University to take any step to stop the teaching activity is eclipsed. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust : Diocese of Kanjirapally Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State : Corn. Miss Ion Er-cum-Secretary, Higher Education [ 2000(5) SCC 231 ], and judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of ShriShivaji Education Society, Amravati & another Vs. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & others [ 2012(1) Mh.L.J. 799 ], for the said purpose. 8. Adv. Mr. Thorat has further contended that the impugned action is also in violation of the provisions of Section 73 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 [For short, "1998 Act"]. He invites attention to additional grounds sought to be added by moving an amendment application. He states that withdrawal or cancellation of affiliation has to be by Academic Council. But here, Academic Council has itself left it to the discretion of Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor has looked into certain material which was not made available to the petitioner and by using that material, the impugned order has been formulated. It is also submitted that the impugned order is nothing but re-production of decision earlier taken and, therefore, there is no application of mind. He, therefore, contends that the said order is also unsustainable. 9. Lastly, it is pointed out that the order withdrawing the Essentiality Certificate also bases itself upon this order of withdrawal of affiliation. 10. Adv. Mr. Sant for the Health University invites attention to previous history to urge that the entire controversy needs to be viewed in that light. Show cause notice was issued, reply of the petitioner was obtained and then Academic Council has on 9th May 2013, passed resolution. 10. Adv. Mr. Sant for the Health University invites attention to previous history to urge that the entire controversy needs to be viewed in that light. Show cause notice was issued, reply of the petitioner was obtained and then Academic Council has on 9th May 2013, passed resolution. After that resolution, again the petitioner was given opportunity, and after that opportunity, the Vice Chancellor has passed the impugned order. He contends that grant of affiliation by University is within its domain and in view of the irregularity and omissions noticed, the University has found it proper not to continue the affiliation. He also argues that as such, there is no overlapping or inconsistency between the provisions of 1998 Act and 1948 Act. He submits that the Academic Council found it proper to leave it to the discretion of Vice Chancellor and Vice Chancellor has, while exercising that discretion, has again taken full precautions and complied with principles of natural justice. 11. Learned AGP Mr. Tambe has contended that grave and serious complaints were received against the petitioner / management. The same were looked into and after extending opportunity of hearing, the order has been passed. He contends that earlier order was questioned before this Court and because of directions of this Court dated 10th May 2013, fresh opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. He urges the Court to note that challenge is only on technical grounds. 12. Learned ASGI Mr. Alok Sharma appearing for respondent nos.1 and 4, submits that he is still awaiting instructions. 13. We find that at this juncture, it is not necessary for this Court to consider all contentions raised in the matter. Petitioners do not dispute need of the affiliation from the University. It can not be said that facts noticed by the Health University & constituting the foundation of impugned order can not be looked into by it. The matter for the present can be decided only on violation of S.73 & it is not necessary to adjudicate on the correctness or otherwise of those facts as Petitioner has not called upon us to record any finding in that respect. Provisions of Section 73 of 1998 Act are very clear. The matter for the present can be decided only on violation of S.73 & it is not necessary to adjudicate on the correctness or otherwise of those facts as Petitioner has not called upon us to record any finding in that respect. Provisions of Section 73 of 1998 Act are very clear. Said Section permits respondent no.3 / University to withdraw affiliation if recognized institution fails to comply with the conditions of affiliation or recognition as provided in Section 63 or then, to allow local managing or advisory committee as provided in Section 67 to function properly or to take action as per directions issued under the Act. The affiliation is withdrawn if the college is being conducted in the manner prejudicial to the interest of University or the standards laid down by it. However, the action needs to be initiated by Planning Board. Planning Board is a Board constituted under Section 34 of 1998 Act. It consists of following members : (a) the Vice-Chancellor - Chairperson; (b) the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, if any; (c) one Dean of faculty, nominated by the Academic Council; (d) one Head or Director from amongst the Heads or Directors of the University institutions or departments, not below the rank of professor and who is not a Dean nominated by Academic Council; (e) one teacher, imparting post-graduate instruction having not less than sixteen years of teaching experience, nominated by Vice-Chancellor; (f) one teacher imparting under-graduate instruction having not less than sixteen years of teaching experience, nominated by the Management Council; (g) one principal of an affiliated college of Health Sciences, nominated by the Management Council from amongst the principals who are members of the Academic Council; (h) one principal of an affiliated professional college nominated by Vice-Chancellor; (i) two experts, co-opted by the Board, from amongst the Heads of National and State level research institutions; (j) the Director of the Planning Board – Member Secretary. 14. Section 35 of 1998 Act deals with its powers. This Planning Board has to issue a notice to the management, to show cause as to why privileges conferred on the college or institution by affiliation or recognition should not be withdrawn in part or in whole or modified. The grounds on which action is proposed are required to be stipulated in such notice. The college or institute is given opportunity to submit its written statement. The grounds on which action is proposed are required to be stipulated in such notice. The college or institute is given opportunity to submit its written statement. The Planning Board after receipt of such written statement, has to place the matter before Academic Council with or without the motion for withdrawal or modification of such privileges. As per Sub-Section 4, the Academic Council then has to make proper recommendation and Vice Chancellor is obliged to implement said recommendation. The Academic Council has to keep in mind the interest of students studying in the college for the said purpose. The constitution of Academic Council is provided for in Section 28 and its powers and duties are given in Section 29. It is a very large body which draws representatives from different levels & disciplines in education. Vice Chancellor is the Chairperson of Academic Council, as also, of Planning Board. 15. This scheme, therefore, clearly shows that it is the Academic Council consisting of various responsible persons which has to take final decision and determine the further course of action or appropriate punitive measure. Obviously, the decision will be collective decision after due deliberations & analyzing all pros & cons. No provision in the 1998 Act permitting delegation of such an obligation is pointed out to us & choice of a particular course of action cannot be left open by Council for adjudication or determination of any other authority or an individual. Here, the Academic Council has not only left that course to be determined by the Vice Chancellor, but has also obliged an individual like Vice Chancellor to hear the petitioner and then find out whether such withdrawal is warranted or not. Thus, obligation cast upon it, under Section 73 of 1998 Act, to keep in mind the interest of students, has been shifted by it to Vice Chancellor. This abdication is, therefore, contrary to Section 73(4) of 1998 Act. 16. It is not in dispute, that this order was within the knowledge of & has weighed with State Government while passing the order of cancellation of Essentiality Certificate. This abdication is, therefore, contrary to Section 73(4) of 1998 Act. 16. It is not in dispute, that this order was within the knowledge of & has weighed with State Government while passing the order of cancellation of Essentiality Certificate. In any case, if the Academic Council functioning under S.73 (4) does not find it in the interest of the Students taking education in the College to close it down by withdrawing affiliation, that finding of a body authorized by the law must be evaluated by the State Government before taking any decision on the cancellation of essentiality certificate. 17. In so far as repugnancy or then inconsistency between provisions of 1998 Act and 1948 Act is concerned, we are not inclined to look into that aspect at this juncture. The petitioner is not disputing the need of obtaining affiliation from respondent no.3 / University in the present facts. They have relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, which in turn, draws support from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others [ (2006) 9 SCC 1 ]. All these judgments are looked into by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AdarshShiksha Mahavidyalaya & others Vs. Subhash Rahangdale & others [ (2012) 2 SCC 425 ]. In last judgment the Hon. Apex Court has considered the question whether the students who had taken admission in unrecognized institutions or the institutions which had not been granted affiliation by the examining body have the right to appear in the examination and whether the Court can issue a mandamus for declaration of the result of such students simply because they were allowed to provisionally appear in the examination in compliance with the interim orders passed by the High Court and/or this Court. Hon. Court points out its earlier judgment in n State of Maharashtra v. VikasSahebrao Roundale- (1992) 4 SCC 435 ), & its observations in para 12 therein which are :-- “12. … Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. … Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination, etc.”. In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya & others Vs. Subhash Rahangdale & others (supra) the Hon. Apex Court further observes :-- "While granting affiliation, the examining body shall be free to demand rigorous compliance with the conditions contained in the statute like the University Act or the State Education Board Act under which it was established or the guidelines/norms which may have been laid down by the examining body concerned." 18. Perusal of order dated 2nd September 2013, withdrawing the Essentiality Certificate, in paragraph 6, takes into account a fact of FIR filed by one female student. We are not treating this mention as sufficient to sustain any order. Similarly, show cause notice issued to petitioner by respondent no.3 / University on 18th January 2013, takes note of the fact that at the time of inspection, 30.5 % of the total teaching staff was only available. It is also noted that the facilities, apparatus and appliances necessary for practical examination were not available as required by standards, and it also mentions grievance of the students that lectures were not being held in requisite numbers. It takes note of inconsistencies in register of patients maintained in OPD and in Hospital. It also records that unqualified persons were made to pose as Teachers" at the time of attendance and the Inspection Committee did not take such persons in to reckoning. We can not overlook these facts & the mandate of the law as laid down in AdarshShiksha Mahavidyalaya & others Vs. Subhash Rahangdale & others (supra). But as action of the University is found unsustainable, it is apparent that the withdrawal of essentiality certificate also needs fresh consideration after the Academic Council passes fresh orders under S. 73 (4) of the 1998 Act. 19. Subhash Rahangdale & others (supra). But as action of the University is found unsustainable, it is apparent that the withdrawal of essentiality certificate also needs fresh consideration after the Academic Council passes fresh orders under S. 73 (4) of the 1998 Act. 19. Perusal of the impugned order dated 31st August 2013, passed by the Vice-Chancellor reveals that till last but one paragraph, it only records the previous events. The say of the petitioner and points canvassed by it before Vice Chancellor, do not figure anywhere in the order. Directly it states that some observations & conclusion were reached by the Vice Chancellor on 31.8.2013. But then the same are not reflected or mentioned in this communication. Thus the affiliation of first year course for year 2013-14 & onwards is being withdrawn permanently without communicating the actual order of the Vice-chancellor & without there being any application of mind by the larger body like the Academic Council. 20. Taking overall view of the matter, though we are inclined to set aside the order dated 31st August 2013, and also order dated 2nd September 2013, we are not willing to permit the petitioner to admit students to first year of B.D.S. course till the University & Sate pass fresh orders in that regard. 21. Hence, the impugned orders dated 31st August 2013, and 2nd September 2013, are quashed and set aside. However, the petitioner shall not admit students to first year of B.D.S. course for the current academic year & thereafter unless it is expressly permitted to do so by the Respondents. We direct respondent no.4 / Dental Council to immediately arrange for inspection of establishment of the petitioner and to take further necessary action in accordance with law. Perusal of order dated 2nd September 2013, passed by the State Government shows that Sate has already made some recommendation to respondent no.1 in this respect on 11th March 2013. The said recommendation can also be further processed by respondent no.1, in accordance with law. 22. We direct respondent no.3 / Health University also to proceed further in the matter, from the stage, after receipt of reply of the petitioner to show cause notice dated 18th January 2013, and to take necessary decision in accordance with Section 73 of 1998 Act. 23. 22. We direct respondent no.3 / Health University also to proceed further in the matter, from the stage, after receipt of reply of the petitioner to show cause notice dated 18th January 2013, and to take necessary decision in accordance with Section 73 of 1998 Act. 23. Such of the students of the first year with petitioner, who are willing to go on transfer to some other institutes, are free & be permitted to opt for the other institutes in accordance with policy of respondent no.4 and respondent no.5. 24. We accordingly partly allow the petition. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.