V.Nath, J. – This writ application was earlier heard and the judgment and order was dictated in open Court on 21.11.2014. However, on the same day, the learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned this matter and submitted that clarification on certain issues were required. After considering the submission, this court felt the need for those clarifications and accordingly the matter was directed to be placed under the heading to be mentioned on 25.11.2014 and the judgment and order was not signed. On 25.11.2014 the learned counsel for both sides appeared and have agreed that the matter be reheard on the limited point with regard to the directions to be issued to the respondents after quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-11. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the said issue has been reheard and the final judgment and order is as follows: 2. Heard Mr Srinandan Prasad Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 and 7. The learned counsel for the respondent no.6 has submitted that the respondent no.6 has no interest in the matter, as no relief has been claimed against the said respondent. No body has appeared for the respondent no.1. 3. The writ petitioner is a trust which has established Sufia Unani Medical College and Hospital Bara Chakia, NH-28, East Champaran Bihar. As required, the trust submitted a proposal to the Central Government under the provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred as Act), praying for appropriate permission to establish/ start teaching Unani medicine. The institution of the petitioner was inspected twice by the inspecting team of the Council who submitted its report. Thereafter a notice was issued to the petitioner for hearing as provided in the 1st proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 13(A) of the Act. By the order, which is under assail in this writ application, the prayer of the writ petitioner for grant of permission to establish and start Unani medical college for the session 2011-12 has been rejected. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents. The pleadings are complete and with the consent of the parties, the writ application is being disposed of by this judgment and order at this stage. 5. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents. The pleadings are complete and with the consent of the parties, the writ application is being disposed of by this judgment and order at this stage. 5. The grant of permission/recognition for establishing a medical college in Indian Medicine is governed by the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 as amended from time to time. Section 13(A) of this Act provides as follows: – “13-A. Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study, etc. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force,- (a) no person shall establish a medical college; or (b) no medical college shall- (i) open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post-graduate course of study or training, which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized medical qualification; or (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training including a post-graduate course of study or training, except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section. It would be pertinent here to take into notice the provision as contained in Section 13(A)(5) of the Act also which reads as follows: – 5. The Central Government may, after considering the scheme and recommendations of the Central Council under sub-section (4) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or medical college concerned and having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (8), either approve the scheme with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary or disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall constitute as a permission under sub-section (1): Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or medical college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent any person or medical college whose scheme has not been approved by the Central Government to submit a fresh scheme and the provisions of this section shall apply to such scheme as if such scheme had been submitted for the first time under sub-section (2)”. 6. 6. From the conspectus of the aforesaid provisions, it is transparent that the Central Government has the jurisdiction after considering the scheme and recommendations of the Central Council to approve the scheme or disapprove the scheme which shall amount to grant of permission or refusal of permission as referred in Section 13(A) (1) of the Act. Noticeably, however, the 1st proviso to Section 13(A)(5) stipulates that the person or the medical college concerned shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the proposed scheme by such person or college is disapproved. 7. The facts are not in dispute that the Institution of the petitioner had been inspected twice by the inspecting team as constituted under the provisions of the Act. After considering the reports, the Central Government in view of the 1st proviso to Section 13(A) (5) decided to grant hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner through its Chairman presented itself before the Committee constituted for the purpose of hearing. The matter was heard on the points of deficiencies as said to have been found by the inspecting team. It thereafter transpires that the Committee came to the conclusion on 31.01.2012 (Annexure-10) that the letter of intent of permission to start a Sufia Unani Medical College at Bara Chakia with at least intake of 50 seats at BUMS degree course could be granted and accordingly made the request for the grant. However, the order has been passed on 2nd March, 2012 (Annexure-11) which has been impugned in the writ application, deciding not to grant permission to the petitioner to establish the proposed Unani medical college. It would be fruitful here to take into notice the conclusion by the hearing committee as reflected from Annexure-10 dated 31.01.2012. “…Considering the above aspects, it is requested to grant letter of intent for permission to start new Sufia Unani Medical College at Bara Chakia, East Champaran, Bihar at least in take of 50 seats at the BUMS decree course…” 8. But it becomes evident from the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2012 that though the observations of the hearing committee alongwith the submissions on the deficiencies have been referred in detail in the said order but very peculiarly while mentioning the final observations and comments of the hearing committee it has been stated: – “Overalll observation and comments of Hearing Committee. “…From the above observations the hearing committee concluded that the Proposed Sufia Unani College at Bara Chakia, East Champaran, Bihar does not have genuinely functional IPD as per the CCIM norms. Whereas, in view of the above observations of the Hearing Committee based on submissions made by the college during hearing and the recommendations and visitation report of the CCIM as in para-2 to 7 above, it can be understood that as per the approved norms as mentioned in para-4 above, the college does not fulfill the eligibility conditions like genuinely functional Unani hospital with 40% Bed Occupancy in IPD and genuine number of patients i.e. minimum average of 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% bed occupancy in IPD for which the college could not produce sufficient supporting documents to substantiate their claim of having a genuinely functional hospital; 9. It is also reflected from the later part of the impugned order that the refusal of permission has been based upon the comment said to have been made by the hearing committee. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not explained the aforesaid fact as to when the comment /recommendation of the hearing committee was for grant of permission to establish the medical college to the petitioner with at least intake of 50 seats at BUMS degree course then how the said comment had come to be noticed in the impugned order in just the reverse manner. Instead, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction of judicial review of the decision taken by the Central Government as impugned in this writ application (Annexure-11), on the specious argument that the judicial review cannot be made of the orders which have been passed on the basis of the report of the committee. It has also initially been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the contents of the Annexure-10 of the writ application are only the submissions of the petitioner and not the decision/comment of the committee but on subsequent query of the Court the fact could not be explained as to how the contents of Annexure-10 said to be only the submissions contained the findings as well as signatures of the members of the committee. In fact, all the attempts have been made to impress this Court that the hearing committee has not made any such recommendations. In fact, all the attempts have been made to impress this Court that the hearing committee has not made any such recommendations. However, nothing has been placed on behalf of the respondents as to what was the conclusion or the comments of the hearing committee, in view of the admitted fact that the hearing of the petitioner had been done. 11. The statutory authority particularly when it is the government itself is required to act fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the statute. There is no substance in the submission on behalf of the respondents that the judicial review cannot be made of such orders which were based on the report of the expert committee. More so, in the present case, when the order passed by the Central Government proceeds on the wrong assumptions of facts (the comments of the hearing committee in favour of the petitioner had been shown to be otherwise), the perversity is writ large on the face of the record. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It is very much the scheme of the Act itself that the Central Government is required to give hearing to a person or medical college before rejecting the prayer for grant of permission to establish a medical college. It appears that the said hearing in the present case was done by a committee to whom the power appears to have been delegated. Once the hearing committee has recorded its conclusion and made recommendation, there is no provision for review of the same. Even otherwise also, the respondent no.4, who has passed the impugned order, could have no jurisdiction to review and reach to an entirely different conclusion without first reversing the comments/conclusions of the hearing committee, and thereafter, again granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Instead of doing so the comments/conclusions of the hearing committee appears to have been wrongly noticed and made the basis of the rejection of the claim of the petitioner. The attempt on behalf of the respondents to divert the attention of this Court from the said fact cannot be approved. 12. The Act has been made for the purpose of establishment and recognition of Indian Medicine and its provisions contain detailed procedure for grant of permission to establish and run a medical college. The attempt on behalf of the respondents to divert the attention of this Court from the said fact cannot be approved. 12. The Act has been made for the purpose of establishment and recognition of Indian Medicine and its provisions contain detailed procedure for grant of permission to establish and run a medical college. Instead of following the procedure as prescribed, the impugned order reflects substantial digression which inevitably creates the impression that there was no conscious application of mind to the actual facts and circumstances before passing the order of rejection. It has also been informed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that a hefty sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- is charged at the time of filing application/scheme for grant of permission to establish a medical college. 13. In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, the impugned order dated 02.03.2012 (Annexure-11) is hereby quashed and the concerned respondent-authority is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law/rules. It is made clear, as has been jointly submitted by the learned counsel for both the parties, that the consideration shall be made appropriately with regard to the current session and the respondent-authorities shall be entitled to issue appropriate direction to the petitioner for providing further materials and informations and shall also be entitled to direct the petitioner to pay appropriate/required fee in accordance with law/rules. 14. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid observation.