Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 14.8.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No. No.11334 of 2013. 3. The appellant in the present appeal was the second respondent, in W.P. (MD) No.11334 0f 2013. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.11334 of 2013, the first respondent in the present writ appeal, had filed the said writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarifiled Mandamus to call for the records of the appellant herein, dated 11.7.2013, and the consequential order of the second respondent in the present writ appeal, dated 22.7.2013, and to direct the appellant to cause an inspection and to consider the compliance report, dated 3.7.2013, submitted on behalf of the first respondent college, through the second respondent, for passing appropriate orders on the application of the first respondent College, dated 24.8.2012. 4. The learned single judge, by his order, dated 14.8.2013, made in W.P. (MD) No.11334 of 2013, had held that there has been an undue delay, caused by the appellant, as well as the second respondent in the present writ appeal, in considering the application of the first respondent college for increasing the intake of students, from 50 to 100, in the BDS Course conducted by the said college, for the academic year 2013-2014. Therefore the learned single judge, by his order, dated 14.8.2013, had directed the appellant herein to consider the documents and the recommendations of the second respondent, dated 9.7.2013, and to cause an inspection of the first respondent college, if required, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order, by considering the compliance report of the first respondent college, dated 3.7.2013, and to forward its recommendations to the second respondent, namely, the Government of India. He had also directed that the second respondent to issue appropriate orders, based on the recommendations / report submitted by the appellant herein. 5. Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted, inter alia, that the delay caused in the processing of the application, dated 24.8.2012, submitted by the first respondent college, is not due to the appellant or the second respondent herein. 5. Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted, inter alia, that the delay caused in the processing of the application, dated 24.8.2012, submitted by the first respondent college, is not due to the appellant or the second respondent herein. The delay had been caused only by the first respondent college, as it had not submitted the necessary documents, along with its application for the increased intake of students in the BDS Course, for the academic year 2013-2014. The application, dated 24.8.2012, submitted by the first respondent college, to the second respondent, did not contain any valid proof to show its attachment with a Medical Council of India approved / recognized medical college, located within a distance of 10 Kilometers, as prescribed in GO.No.DE-22-2012, dated 21.5.2012. While so, the first respondent College had preferred a Writ Petition, before this Court, in W.P. (MD) No.17092 of 2012 and had obtained an order of interim injunction restraining the Government of India, the second respondent herein, from returning the application of the first respondent college, dated 24.8.2012. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had also submitted that the learned single Judge had failed to note that the delay in considering the first respondent college was only due to the default committed by the said college, as it had not submitted the necessary documents, along with its application for the grant of increased intake of seats, for the BDS Course, for the academic year 2013-2014. 7. He had further submitted that the first respondent college ought to have followed the time schedule prescribed for the receipt of applications and for processing them, under the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006. (hereinafter called as 'the Regulations'). The learned counsel had placed before this Court the schedule, which reads as follows:- "SCHEDULE [(see regulation 4(2)] Schedule for receipt of the applications for opening or to increase the admission, capacity, in respect of under graduate (BDS) and post graduate (MDS) Dental Courses and its processing by the Central Government and Dental Council of India. Note (1) If any clarifications is sought by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council, the same will be furnished by the Council forthwith, if necessary, after conducting inspection. Note (1) If any clarifications is sought by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council, the same will be furnished by the Council forthwith, if necessary, after conducting inspection. (2) The time-schedule indicated above may be modified by the Central Government, for reasons' to be recorded in writing, in respect of any class or category of applications." 8. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that without considering the time schedule, as prescribed under regulation 4(2) of the Regulations, the learned Single Judge had passed the order directing the appellant to consider the documents sent and the recommendations made by the second respondent, dated 9.7.2013, and to cause an inspection of the first respondent college, within the time schedule prescribed in the said order and to forward its recommendations to the second respondent, by considering the compliance report of the first respondent college, dated 3.7.2013. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant had further submitted that the learned single Judge had not considered the directions issued by the Supreme Court, in Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2012) 7 SCC 433 , wherein, it has been clearly stated that the State and the Central Governments and their authorities have no power to deviate from the time schedule prescribed by the regulations. 10. The learned counsel had further submitted that the second respondent Government of India has issued a letter, dated 20.12.2012, requesting the first respondent college to furnish valid proof of its attachment with the Medical Council of India approved/recognized medical college, located within 10 Kilometers from the first respondent college, by 26.12.2012. Further, the second respondent had also stated in the said letter that the application of the first respondent college would be returned, without further correspondence in the matter, if the said requirement is not complied with. In the meanwhile, the first respondent college had obtained an order of interim injunction from this Court in a Writ Petition filed, in W.P.(MD) No.17092 of 2012. Thereafter, as there was no necessity for a tie-up, the first respondent college had requested the second respondent Government of India to forward its application, dated 24.8.2012, to the appellant, for the increased intake of students, for the BDS course, for the academic year 2013-2014. Based on the said request, the second respondent had forwarded the application of the first respondent college, to the appellant, on 28.5.2013. 11. Based on the said request, the second respondent had forwarded the application of the first respondent college, to the appellant, on 28.5.2013. 11. It had been further stated that the executive committee of the appellant had taken a decision, on 15.6.2013, after due deliberations, by following the norms prescribed by the appellant and the Dental Council of India and in view of the statutory requirements, as contemplated under Section 10(A) (4) of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993, and the regulations, to disapprove and to reject the application of the first respondent college for the increase in the intake of students, in the BDS Course, for the academic year 2013-2014. The appellant, by its order, dated 11.7.2013, had stated that it would not be appropriate for it to process the compliance report submitted by the first respondent college, as the said college had acted contrary to the regulations and the time scheduled prescribed therein and also contrary to the mandate issued by the Supreme Court. 12. The Learned counsel for the appellant had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others Vs All India Council for Technical Education and Others, (2013) 3 SCC 385 , in support of his contention that there should be strict compliance of the time schedule prescribed for receiving and processing the applications submitted by the medical and dental colleges. He had further submitted that the appellant, the second respondent and the other authorities concerned would not have the power to extend the time limit prescribed in the schedule. Therefore, it is clear that the order of the learned single Judge, dated 14.8.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No.11334 of 2013, is contrary to the regulations and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court cited supra. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent Government of India had adopted the arguments adduced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Dental Council of India. 14. Per contra, Mr.V.T.Gopalan, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the first respondent college, had submitted that the delay caused in the processing of the application of the first respondent college, dated 24.8.2012, for the additional intake of students, in the BDS course, for the year 2013-2014, is only due to the appellant and the second respondent. The first respondent college had submitted its application, on 24.8.2012 itself. The first respondent college had submitted its application, on 24.8.2012 itself. Thereafter, there has been a long delay caused by the appellant, as well as the second respondent, in processing the application of the first respondent College. 15. The learned counsel had further submitted that there was no necessity for a tie-up with a Medical Council of India approved / recognized medical college, as the appellant and the Dental Council of India had not processed the application submitted by the first respondent college. The said position has been confirmed by the decision of the Kerala High Court in its order, dated 3.4.2013, made in W.P.(c).No.533 of 2013. However, the appellant, as well as the second respondent, had insisted that the first respondent College should have a tie-up with a Medical Council of India approved/ recognised medical college, inspite of the fact that there was no such requirement for increasing the number of seats available in an already existing college. In the mean while, the Government of Tamil Nadu had granted a tie up for the first respondent college, with the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for the academic year 2013-2014. Thereafter, the second respondent, Government of India, had issued a letter, dated 28.5.2013, forwarding the application of the first respondent college to the appellant, for appropriate action. Only thereafter, the appellant had issued a communication, dated 4.6.2013, to the first respondent college, stating that there would be an inspection of the college, on the 7th and the 8th June, 2013. Thereafter, the Dental Council of India, the appellant herein, had issued a communication, dated 6.6.2013, directing the college to provide the necessary information/documents to the appellant, to enable it to process the application for the additional intake of students, for the BDS Course for the academic year 2013-2014. 16. The learned counsel had further submitted that by a communication, dated 12.6.2013, the first respondent college had furnished the necessary particulars relating to the clarifications sought by this appellant. On 15.6.2013, the appellant had sent a joint inspection report to the second respondent, Government of India, pointing out certain deficiencies relating to the first respondent college. Thereafter, the second respondent had issued a letter, dated 23.6.2013, requesting the first respondent college to appear before a Three Member Committee, constituted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, on 3.7.2013. 17. Thereafter, the second respondent had issued a letter, dated 23.6.2013, requesting the first respondent college to appear before a Three Member Committee, constituted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, on 3.7.2013. 17. It had been further submitted that, the first respondent College had written a letter to the second respondent, dated 3.7.2013, stating that all the deficiencies pointed out by the appellant had been rectified by the first respondent college and therefore, the application submitted by the first respondent college, for the additional intake of students, in the BDS Course, for the academic year 2013-2014, should be considered. On 9.7.2103, the second respondent, Government of India, had written a letter to the appellant requesting it to submit its report, in respect of the first respondent college, by 11.7.2013. However, the appellant by its order, dated 11.7.2013, had stated it could not process the compliance report of the first respondent college, as it would be in violation of the provisions of the regulations and time schedule prescribed thereunder and that it would also be contrary to decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, in its order, dated 8.5.2012, made in Civil Appeal Nos.4318 & 4319 of 2012, ( Priya Gupta & Akansha Addile Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others.) 18. It has also been submitted that, pursuant to the communication of the appellant, dated 11.7.2013, the second respondent had issued the communication, dated 22.7.2013, disapproving the application of the first respondent College, dated 24.8.2012. In such circumstances, the first respondent College had preferred the Writ Petition before this Court, in W.P.(MD).No.11334 of 2013. 19. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as the respondents, and in view of the decisions relied on by the learned counsels in support of their contentions and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the first respondent College had submitted an application, dated 24.8.2012, to the second respondent, for the increased intake of students, in the BDS course conducted by the said college, for the academic year 2013-2014. It is also noted that on 28.5.2013, the second respondent had forwarded the said application to the Dental Council of India, the appellant herein, for appropriate action. It is also noted that on 28.5.2013, the second respondent had forwarded the said application to the Dental Council of India, the appellant herein, for appropriate action. On 4.6.2013, the appellant had issued a communication informing the first respondent College that an inspection would be conducted at the first respondent college, on the 7th and the 8th of June, 2013, to ascertain the physical facilities available in the college and with regard to the teaching staff, their qualifications and experience and with regard to the other infrastructural facilities available in the said College, as per the regulations prescribed by the appellant. 20. It is also noted that, on 6.6.2013, the appellant had issued a communication to the first respondent College, directing it to furnish certain information / documents for processing its application, dated 24.8.2012, for the increased intake of students, in the BDS course, for the academic year 2013-2014. In the communication of the appellant, dated 6.6.2013, the first respondent College had been requested to submit the necessary information / documents, by 9.6.2013. Pursuant to the said communication, the first respondent College had submitted the relevant particulars, along with the necessary documents, as required by the appellant, by its communication, dated 12.6.2013. By a letter, dated 15.6.2013, the appellant had pointed out certain deficiencies, in respect of the first respondent College, based on the joint inspection carried out, on the 7th and the 8th of June, 2013, by the inspectors of the appellant / Dental Council of India. Thereafter, the first respondent College had submitted a compliance report, dated 3.7.2013, to the second respondent. On 9.7.2013, the second respondent had sent a letter to the appellant requesting it to submits its report, by 11.7.2013. Thereafter, by a letter, dated 23.6.2013, the second respondent had requested the first respondent to be present, for a personal hearing, before the three member committee, constituted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, on 3.7.2013, along with the relevant documents, relating to the proposal made by the first respondent college for the increased intake of students, in the BDS course, for the academic year 2013-2014. On 3.7.2013, the first respondent College had submitted a compliance report to the second respondent. On 3.7.2013, the first respondent College had submitted a compliance report to the second respondent. Thereafter, on 9.7.2013, the second respondent had sent a letter to the appellant requesting it to submit a report, in respect of the proposal of the first respondent College, for the increased intake of seats, in the BDS Course, for the academic year 2013-2014. The appellant had been requested to submit a report, by 11.7.2012. However, the appellant by its communication, dated 11.7.2013, had stated that it was not feasible for the appellant to verify the documents and the compliance report of the first respondent College, dated 3.7.2013, forwarded by the second respondent, as it would be beyond the statutory time schedule prescribed by the Dental council of India Regulations, 2006 and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, in Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and others, (2002) 7 SCC 258 and Mridul Dhar (minor) and another Vs Union of India and others, (2005) 2 SCC 65 . 21. On considering, the communication of the appellant, dated 11.7.2013, the second respondent had sent a communication, dated 22.7.2013, disapproving the application of the first respondent, dated 24.8.2012, for the additional intake of students, in the BDS Course, for the academic year 2013-2014. 22. In such circumstances, the first respondent had filed the Writ Petition before this Court, in W.P.(MD) No.11334 of 2013. The learned single Judge, in his order, dated 14.8.2013, had clearly found that there has been an undue delay caused by the appellant, as well as the second respondent herein, in considering and in processing the application of the first respondent, dated 24.8.2012, for the additional intake of students, in the BDS course, for the academic year 2013-2014. The learned single Judge had also considered the decisions cited by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and had arrived at his conclusion that the time schedule prescribed by the Dental Council of India Regulations 2006, though mandatory in nature, cannot be held to be inflexible in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 23. The learned single Judge had also found that the appellant, as well as the second respondent had caused undue delay in considering the application of the first respondent, dated 24.8.2012, inspite of sufficient time having been available for processing the same, within the time limit prescribed by the regulations. 23. The learned single Judge had also found that the appellant, as well as the second respondent had caused undue delay in considering the application of the first respondent, dated 24.8.2012, inspite of sufficient time having been available for processing the same, within the time limit prescribed by the regulations. The learned single Judge had also considered the fact that the first respondent college had not been given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its claims made in the compliance report, dated 3.7.2013, submitted to the second respondent. It had also been noted that the admission of students could take place till 30.9.2013, as prescribed by the decisions of the Supreme Court of India. 24. In such circumstances, the learned single Judge had directed the appellant to consider the documents and the recommendations sent by the second respondent, by its communication, dated 9.7.2013, and to cause an inspection of the first respondent College, if required, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.11334 of 2013. The appellant had also been directed to consider the compliance report submitted by the first respondent college, dated 3.7.2013, in its proper perspective, and to forward its recommendations to the second respondent, thereafter. The learned single Judge had also directed the second respondent to issue appropriate orders, on receipt of the recommendations / report, from the appellant, forthwith. 25. In the given facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that there has been an undue delay caused by the appellant, as well as the second respondent, in considering the application of the first respondent College, dated 24.8.2012, for the additional intake of students, for BDS course, for the academic year 2013-2014. We are also of the view that it would not be open to the appellant and the second respondent herein to take shelter under the Dental Council of India Regulations, 2006, for refusing to consider the application of the first respondent college, dated 24.8.2012. It has also been noted that the last date for admission of the students, in the BDS course for the academic year 2013-2014, in the first respondent college, would be 30.9.2013, as prescribed by the Supreme Court of India. 26. It has also been noted that the last date for admission of the students, in the BDS course for the academic year 2013-2014, in the first respondent college, would be 30.9.2013, as prescribed by the Supreme Court of India. 26. In such circumstances, we do not find sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the findings of the learned single Judge, in his order, dated 14.8.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No.11334 of 2013. 27. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the present writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. Consequently, the appellant, as well as the second respondent herein, are directed to comply with the directions issued by the learned single Judge, in his order, dated 14.8.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No.11334 of 2013, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.