Judgment : 1. The Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned communication of the second respondent, dated 14.06.2014 to the first respondent in MCI No.34(41)(R-59)/2014-Med./114785 and to direct the respondents to grant extension of approval to the petitioner College for admission of 4th Batch students in the M.B.B.S. course during the academic year 2014-15. 2. The petitioner has earlier filed W.P.No.14729 of 2014 and M.P.No.2 of 2014 before this Court seeking to quash the Assessment Form for 2014-15 Admissions Report of the second respondent dated 31.05.2014. This Court, by order dated 11.06.2014, in M.P.No.2 of 2014 directed the second respondent/Medical Council of India to take into consideration the original inspection report dated 11.03.2014, the compliance report submitted by the petitioner dated 05.05.2014, the second inspection report dated 31.05.2014 and the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.06.2014 before taking any decision against the petitioner. The petitioner was also given liberty to produce relevant documents, if any, before the second respondent before 10.00 a.m. on 12.06.2014 and directed the second respondent to pass orders after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner has submitted all the relevant details and he was under the bona fide expectation that the second respondent will recommend for extension of approval to the petitioner College. But, the second respondent issued the impugned communication dated 14.06.2014 to the first respondent, in and by which, the second respondent has again reiterated its earlier decision and again recommended not to renew the permission for admission of 4th Batch in the petitioner College for the academic year 2014-15. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly argued that earlier in M.P.No.2 of 2014 in W.P.No.14729 of 2014 this Court passed an order on 11.06.2014 directing the second respondent/Medical Council of India to pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration the original inspection report dated 11.03.2014, the compliance report submitted by the petitioner dated 05.05.2014, the second inspection report dated 31.05.2014, the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.06.2014 and also the documents to be submitted by the petitioner on 12.06.2014 and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. Now, the grievance of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the second respondent has passed the impugned communication, which reads as under:- “The Executive Committee of the Council considered the compliance verification assessment report (31st May, 2014) along with previous assessment report (10th & 11th March, 2014) and documents submitted by the college before 10 a.m. on 12th June 2014 as per Hon'ble Madras High Court order dated 11.06.2014..” The above impugned communication dated 14.06.2014 shows that the second respondent has not even mentioned anything about the previous direction of this Court nor gave any reasoning for accepting the report dated 31.05.2014. Therefore, the impugned communication is per se illegal, as no reasoning has been given. To substantiate his contention that the impugned order should give reason, so as to make aware on what ground it has been rejected, learned senior counsel would rely on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [2008] 16 VST 181 (SC), Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle and others; (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 151, Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax; and also the decision of this Court in W.P.No.9077 of 2014 etc., dated 29.04.2014. 4. Relying on the said decisions, the learned senior counsel would submit that the second respondent has violated the principles of natural justice by passing a non-speaking order. He would further add that the second respondent violating the order of this Court dated 11.06.2014 has passed the impugned communication only on the basis of the second inspection report dated 31.05.2014 without reference to the detailed documents submitted by the petitioner on 12.06.2014 or the first inspection report. He would further point out that his request for re-inspection of the petitioner College was also not considered at all. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the words used in the order is that, ”The Executive Committee of the Council considered the compliance verification assessment report (31st May, 2014) along with previous assessment report (10th & 11th March, 2014) and documents submitted by the college before 10 a.m. On 12th June 2014 as per Hon'ble Madras High Court order dated 11.06.2014.”, which shows that the Committee has carefully considered the report. In fact, in the impugned order, the second respondent has also extracted the various dates of the orders and therefore, the Committee having discussed and considered that, which by itself is enough and elaborate order is not necessary to make a viable order; therefore, he would contend that the impugned communication is correct. He would further submit that it is recommendary in nature and it is for the Government to either approve or disapprove the same and ultimately, if the Government of India decides to give approval, they will first issue notice and thereafter only, it can take a decision. Therefore, it is too premature to seek for the relief at this stage. In view of the interim order of status quo granted by this Court, the issue is pending consideration before the Government of India. 6. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 7. The short point for consideration is, whether the second respondent has passed an order in accordance with law after considering all the points, which has been directed to be considered by this Court. In this connection, it is useful to extract the relevant portion of the order of this Court:- “... 6. In view of the same, it is suffice to give a direction that the MCI shall take into consideration the original inspection report dated 11.3.2014, the compliance report dated 05.5.2014 and also the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 02.6.2014 before taking any decision against the petitioner. The petitioner is also at liberty to produce the relevant documents, if any, before the authority before 10.00 a.m. On 12.6.2014 so as to enable the MCI to take a decision in the matter by placing the same before the meeting to be held on 12.6.2014 and 13.6.2014. Thereafter, the respondents shall pass orders, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court is not giving any opinion with the right of the MCI to take a decision and the MCI is at liberty to pass orders in accordance with law.” 8. Thereafter, the respondents shall pass orders, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court is not giving any opinion with the right of the MCI to take a decision and the MCI is at liberty to pass orders in accordance with law.” 8. A reading of the order of this Court clearly states that the second respondent shall pass orders taking into consideration the original inspection report dated 11.03.2014, the compliance report submitted by the petitioner dated 05.05.2014, the second inspection report dated 31.05.2014, the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.06.2014 and also the documents to be submitted by the petitioner on 12.06.2014. The petitioner was also given liberty to produce relevant documents, if any, before the second respondent before 10.00 a.m. on 12.06.2014 before the Committee meets, which is made clear in the order of this Court dated 11.06.2014 and accepted by them. Even on 12.06.2014, the documents were produced by the petitioner. In the light of this, when we analyse the impugned order, it only states as follows :- “The Executive Committee of the Council considered the compliance verification assessment report (31st May, 2014) along with previous assessment report (10th & 11th March, 2014) and documents submitted by the college before 10 a.m. on 12th June 2014 as per Hon'ble Madras High Court order dated 11.06.2014..” 9. After that, in the impugned communication, what is stated actually is what is extracted in the report dated 31.05.2014. Thereafter, we find, it is stated as follows:- “In view of above, the Executive Committee of the Council decided to reiterate its earlier decision of recommending to the Central Government not to renew the permission for admission of 4th batch (150 seats) of Madha Medical College & Hospital, Thandalam, Chennai under the Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai, u/s.10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2014-2015. “ Thus, we do not find even a single reason why the second respondent has come to this conclusion. In this connection, I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [2008] 16 VST 181 (SC), Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle and others, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "12. A bare reading of the order shows complete non-application of mind. In this connection, I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [2008] 16 VST 181 (SC), Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle and others, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "12. A bare reading of the order shows complete non-application of mind. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, this is not the way a statutory appeal is to be disposed of. Various important questions of law were raised. Unfortunately, even they were not dealt with by the first appellate authority. 13. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarify in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar [2003] 11 SCC 519). 14. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [1971] 1 All ER 1148, observed: "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration'. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974] ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". "Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 10. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 10. Similarly, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 151, Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I and another, which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the proposition that the impugned order has to be passed by assigning reasons as otherwise it will violate the principles of natural justice. In the said decision, in paragraph Nos. 19 to 21, it was held as follows:- “19. Thus, it is trite that unless a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of principles of natural justice, because in that event the Court would not ignore the legislative mandate, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences for the party affected. The principle will hold good irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial. 20. We may, however, hasten to add that no general rule of universal application can be laid down as to the applicability of the principle audi alteram partem, in addition to the language of the provision. Undoubtedly, there can be exceptions to the said doctrine. Therefore, we refrain from giving an exhaustive catalogue of the cases where the said principle should be applied. The question whether the principle has to be applied or not is to be considered bearing in mind the express language and the basic scheme of the provision conferring the power; the nature of the power conferred and the purpose for which the power is conferred and the final effect of the exercise of that power. It is only upon a consideration of all these matters that the question of application of the said principle can be properly determined. (See: Union of India Vs. Col. J.N. Sinha, ( (1970) 2 SCC 458 ). 21. In Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. It is only upon a consideration of all these matters that the question of application of the said principle can be properly determined. (See: Union of India Vs. Col. J.N. Sinha, ( (1970) 2 SCC 458 ). 21. In Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405 , explaining as to what is meant by expression civil consequence, Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the majority said: (SCC p.440, para 66) "66. ...'Civil consequences' undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation, everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence." (emphasis supplied) 11. Similarly, it is also pertinent to refer to the judgment rendered by me inW.P.No.9077 of 2014, dated 29.04.2014, wherein, I have followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 13 SCC 733 , Kesar Enterprises Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, wherein, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph Nos.24 and 29 as under:- “24. Rules of “natural justice” are not embodied rules. The phrase “natural justice” is also not capable of a precise definition. The underlying principle of natural justice, evolved under the common law, is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its functionaries. Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly i.e. fair play in action. 12. Following the above decisions, in my considered opinion, the impugned communication is to be set aside as it does not contain any reason. 13. At this juncture, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the last date for the second respondent to send its recommendation to the Central Government is 15th May, 2014, which was extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 06.06.2014 to 15.06.2014 and the last date for the sanction of Government of India is 15.07.2014 and that is why this Court by order dated 11.06.2014 directed the respondents to consider and pass orders. But, the impugned communication is passed in total violation of principles of natural justice. 14. But, the impugned communication is passed in total violation of principles of natural justice. 14. Whether this Court can extend the time or can direct the authority concerned to pass fresh orders, is decided by this Court in the judgment reported in [2013] 6 MLJ 185, wherein, it was held that inspite of the direction of this Court, if the direction has not been properly complied with, the order can be set aside and naturally, the time can be extended. In the said judgment in paragraph Nos. 16 and 17, this Court has held as follows:- “16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant by referring to the decision in Priya Gupta, (supra) submitted that no renewal of permission could be granted beyond 15th July of each calender year. However, in the case on hand we have found that the appellant did not apply their mind to the compliance verification assessment report and the UG committee while analysing the report appears to have applied the norms fixed for the fourth renewal when in fact the respondent institution had submitted their application for the third renewal. Furthermore, no reasons were assigned either in the resolution of the appellant or in the impugned order dated 14.07.2013, and a vague statement has been made stating that there are large number of deficiencies still persisting. 17. Thus, when there is arbitrariness in the action of the appellant and when decision has been taken without assigning any reason, it clearly offends Article 14 of the Constitution and in such circumstances, this Court is not denuded of its jurisdiction in issuing appropriate directions to meet the ends of justice. That apart, the last date for completion of all admissions to the medical course is yet to be over and it comes to an end only on 30.09.2013. Though the respondent was unsuccessful before the High Court of Delhi in respect of the grant of renewal of permission for the academic year 2012-13, that would not disable or disentitle the respondent from seeking for renewal of approval for the year 2013-14, which has been independently assessed by the appellant. Therefore, the respondent cannot be non-suited on this ground.” 15. But, fortunately in this case, we have time till 15.07.2014 for the Government of India to give approval. Therefore, the respondent cannot be non-suited on this ground.” 15. But, fortunately in this case, we have time till 15.07.2014 for the Government of India to give approval. Even now, it is not too late and therefore, the second respondent/Medical Council of India can reconsider the matter with its available report i.e., including the reports dated 10th & 11th March, 2014 or even after making an inspection of the petitioner College and pass orders on or before 10.07.2014. The Medical Council of India shall consider the original inspection report dated 10 & 11.03.2014, the compliance report submitted by the petitioner dated 05.05.2014, the second inspection report dated 31.05.2014, the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.06.2014 and also the documents submitted by the petitioner on 12.06.2014, and pass appropriate orders with or without inspection on or before 10.07.2014. Based on that, the Government of India also will take immediate action and pass orders on or before 15.07.2014. 16. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.