Judgment 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, which is the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai, seeking for a direction to the Union of India and the Medical Council to consider the application of the petitioner University, dated 29.08.2007 for the grant of permission for starting a new medical college, i.e., Tamil Nadu University Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, from the academic year 2008-2009. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 25.09.2007. Pending the writ petition, an interim injunction was granted restraining the first respondent Union of India from returning the proposal made by the petitioner, dated 29.8.2007 for the grant of permission for starting the medical college only on account of want of essentiality certificate from the State Government pending disposal of the writ petition. Subsequently, the Medical Council of India was impleaded by an order dated 23.01.2012. The Medical Council of India has filed a counter affidavit, dated 10.2.2012 contending that after the amendment made to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 in the year 1993, wherein and by which Sections 10A, 10B and 10C were introduced, it is absolutely mandatory and obligatory for any person desirous of establishing a medical college or to start a new or higher course of study in the existing medical college, to obtain prior permission from the Central Government. For seeking such permission, the applicant will have to enclose an essentiality certificate to be issued by the State Government and proof of owning and managing a 300 bedded functional hospital in the campus of the proposed medical college. Since the petitioner university did not have the essentiality certificate issued by the State Government and in order to know the views of the State Government, this court by an order dated 20.2.2012 in M.P.No.1 of 2012 had impleaded the State of Tamil Nadu as the third respondent. On such impalement, the third respondent State of Tamil Nadu has filed a counter affidavit, dated 17.05.2012. 3. The State of Tamil Nadu, in paragraph 4 of the counter has averred as follows: "4. With reference to the averments made in the paragraph 5 of the affidavit it is submitted that as per the latest Medical Council of India norms, following land requirement has been earmarked. 3. The State of Tamil Nadu, in paragraph 4 of the counter has averred as follows: "4. With reference to the averments made in the paragraph 5 of the affidavit it is submitted that as per the latest Medical Council of India norms, following land requirement has been earmarked. (i) 20 acres of land; (ii) For metropolitan cities like Chennai the requirement of land is 10 acres based upon the permissible Floor Area Ratio / Floor Space Index allowed by the competent authority; (iii) For areas where population is more than 25 lakhs, hilly areas and notified tribal areas, the 20 acres of land shall be in two pieces with not less than 10 acres in one piece and the distance between the two pieces should not be more than 10 Kms. In connection with this land requirement, the petitioner has requested the State Government of Tamil Nadu to allot 25 acres of land of King Institute of Preventive Medicine and Research, Chennai-32, for starting the Medical College. The Director, King Institute of Preventive Medicine and Research, Chennai, in her Lr.No.4396/P&D/07, Dt.23/08/07 has informed the Director of Medical Education that a single plot of land measuring not less than 25 acres to start the proposed Tamil Nadu Medical University & Hospital cannot be spared. Further the 56 acres land attached to King Institute of Preventive Medicine and Research, Chennai is under litigation and the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai in W.P.No.22054/2009 & W.P.No.4110/2010. Until the said Writ Petitions are disposed off by the Honourable Court, no decision can be taken regarding the land attached to King Institute of Preventive Medicine & Research." 4. After seeing the counter affidavit, the learned Government Pleader, who is also appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.22054 of 2009 and W.P.No.4110 of 2010 had requested this court to hear those two writ petitions, which is causing delay for the university getting the essentiality certificate. Hence, this court directed those two writ petitions to be posted along with this writ petition vide order dated 12.06.2012. Those two writ petitions were filed by the Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk and the Director, King Institute of Preventive Medicine and Research, Guindy, Chennai. One of the respondents in W.P.No.22054 of 2009, i.e., 8th respondent had objected to this court hearing those two writ petitions. Those two writ petitions were filed by the Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk and the Director, King Institute of Preventive Medicine and Research, Guindy, Chennai. One of the respondents in W.P.No.22054 of 2009, i.e., 8th respondent had objected to this court hearing those two writ petitions. He had also circulated several letters to the Registry and finally, filed M.P.No.1 of 2012 before the division bench for transferring those two writ petitions to be heard by some other court on some flimsy reasons. However, the division bench headed by the then Chief Justice, by an order dated 30.7.2012, dismissed the said miscellaneous petition and directed this court to hear those writ petitions also. Accordingly, those two writ petitions were also heard along with this writ petition. 5. Those two writ petitions filed by the two State agencies were allowed by this court by an order dated 24.01.2013 and the impugned order passed by the Settlement Officer dated 01.09.2008 was set aside. In the light of the fact that the two writ petitions being disposed of, there is no impediment for the third respondent State in dealing with the request made by the petitioner university. 6. The only question that arises for consideration was whether the University has to seek prior approval of the Central Government and whether they require essentiality certificate from the State Government before starting a new college. Though reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University and another Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 676 and it was contended that such a requirement is unnecessary, subsequently, as contended by the Medical Council, the Indian Medical Council Act has been amended and that under explanation 1 to Section 10A, for the purpose of this section, the term "person" will also include the university. Therefore, necessarily prior permission of the Central Government will have to be obtained. 7. Similarly, the question of requirement of the essentiality certificate even in respect of the University came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Dental Council of India Vs. S.R.M. Institute of Science & Technology and another reported in (2004) 9 SCC 676 . The Supreme Court held that without production of the essentiality certificate, no application can be considered. 8. S.R.M. Institute of Science & Technology and another reported in (2004) 9 SCC 676 . The Supreme Court held that without production of the essentiality certificate, no application can be considered. 8. In view of the fact that the only impediment pleaded by the third respondent State, i.e., pendency of the two other writ petitions relating to the lands to be given to the university, no longer exists since both writ petitions were allowed by this court today, it is for the third respondent State to consider the request of the University for starting a new college in accordance with law. The University, after getting the essentiality certificate and approval by the Central Government in terms of Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, can proceed to implement the decision. This writ petition will stand disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.