JUDGMENT Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner, who is imparting medical education, has challenged impugned communications dated 10 July 2014 and 15 July 2014 thereby, prayed to direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to approve the scheme for renewal of permission for 4th batch of MBBS course for the academic session 2014-2015 from 100 to 150 students. The Respondents have approved the scheme partly, by restricting it to 100 but denied an addition 50 students. 3. On 1 August 1989, the Petitioner started the Medical College as per the permission of the Government of Maharashtra and was affiliated to the University of Bombay, for 100 students. The Petitioner has teaching medical hospitals at two locations i.e. MGM Hospital, Kamothe which is within the educational campus and the MGM College, Kalamboli which is at a distance of 1 km. 4. In the year 1993, in view of amendment to Act No. 31 of 1993, w.e.f. 27 August 1992, under Section 10(c) of Indian Medical Council Act (for short, "the IMC Act"), all the existing medical colleges, including the Petitioner had to apply to the Medical Council of India (for short, "MCI") for recognition within 1 year. It applied accordingly. On 18 July 1995, the Executive Committee of the MCI, after considering the Assessment Report of the MCI on facilities and standard of examination, approved the MGM Medical College, New Bombay for award of MBBS Degree for 100 admissions. On 13 November 1995, the MCI gave its approval to the Petitioner. 5. In the year 1998, the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS) came into existence. The present Medical College has been, now affiliated to the MUHS. On 30 August 2006, the Government of India, Department of Higher Education by a gazette notification has granted "deemed University status" to the MGM Institute of Health Science-Respondent No.3. The Petitioner college and MGM Medical College Aurangabad were a constituent of Respondent No. 3 deemed university. On 14 January 2009, the MCI granted "continuous recognition" of the MBBS course after considering compliance verification report dated 29 August 2008 along with the Council Inspectors Assessment Report dated 22 April 2008. 6. On 27 September 2010, the Petitioner applied for increase in intake of the Medical College from 100 to 150 to the MCI. On 14 January 2009, the MCI granted "continuous recognition" of the MBBS course after considering compliance verification report dated 29 August 2008 along with the Council Inspectors Assessment Report dated 22 April 2008. 6. On 27 September 2010, the Petitioner applied for increase in intake of the Medical College from 100 to 150 to the MCI. On 7 May 2011, before granting the increase in intake, the MCI conducted an Assessment of the medical college and hospital and the letter of intent was granted. On 30 June 2011, the MCI gave approval and letter of permission for the increasing MBBS seats from 100 to 150. The said increase in intake of 50 seats was initially for the period of one year. It is subject to renewal every year. In the year 2012, the MCI Board of Governors conducted another assessment and by its letter dated 26 May 2012 once again granted the permission and approval for conducting the said course for the years 2012 to 2013 based on a detailed favourable Assessment Report, no deficiency whatsoever was found. The Petitioner had complied with all the MCI regulations. 7. In the year 2013-2014, the MCI conducted its assessment for the year 2013-2014 and gave a detailed Assessment Report and granted a continuance of recognition for the entire MBBS course vide letter dated 11 July 2013. No deficiency was found even in this Assessment Report for continuance of recognition for 2013-2014. On 21 October 2013, the Petitioner college received a circular dated 10 October 2013 issued by the MCI, stating that all submission for renewal of permission shall be submitted to the Council within 15 days. On 25 October 2013, for the renewal of permission of 4th batch of the MBBS College, the Petitioner college applied for/gave a scheme for permission for renewal of seats for the academic year 2014-2015. On 6/7 May 2014, an assessment was carried out by the MCI for the permission for renewal of seats and was submitted to Respondent No. 1, although the circular stated that the assessment could be carried out from 1 November 2013 and as the cut off date for recommendation was 15 June 2014 for the MCI. The Petitioner's application was of 25 October 2013. The Petitioner's application was of 25 October 2013. On 3 June 2014, it now appears that, from the SLP proceedings No. 21115 of 2014 filed by the MCI, the Assessment Report was placed before the Executive Committee on 3 June 2014 pointing out the deficiencies. On 10 June 2014, the MCI informed Respondent No. 1 about the deficiencies of the college and recommended disapproval. The MCI did not comply with the statutory requirement of Section 10A of the IMC Act, which required the MCI to inform the college and to hear it before making such recommendation. On 20 June 2014, since no communication was received by the Petitioner from the MCI or the Government, the Petitioner wrote to the MCI stating that the reports were not received and was delivered to the Ministry of Health (for short, "MOH") on 23 June 2014 and the Petitioners were informed of deficiencies by the MOH, however, no Assessment Report was provided. On 23 June 2014, the Petitioner submitted a clarification/compliance report to the MOH. On 26 June 2014, the compliance/clarification of the Petitioner along with several other colleges was forwarded by the MOH to the MCI and the MCI received the same on 27 June 2014. 8. On 4 July 2014, Respondent No. 1 informed the Petitioner that the MCI has recommended to disapprove the Petitioner's scheme for permission for renewal of seats in MBBS course and also provided college with the Assessment Report which is not given earlier, and directed the Petitioner to submit compliance or come for hearing on 7 July 2014. On 7 July 2014, the Petitioner's representative, accordingly appeared before Respondent No. 1 and submitted a detailed reply along with all annexures and proofs, stating that there were no deficiencies in the Petitioner-college. Without conducting a hearing and appreciating the Petitioner's case, as stated, the officer of Respondent No. 1 merely accepted the documents given by the Petitioner and closed the proceedings. On 10 July 2014, the MCI conveyed that it cannot carry out "fresh inspection" after 15 June 2014 and hence refused to go into the compliance/clarification report. The Petitioner's case was specifically that there was no deficiency and no fresh inspection was either required or sought for. 9. On 12 July 2014, as alleged that the MCI permitted the LLRM Medical College to give an undertaking and accordingly granted approval, inspite of deficiencies. The Petitioner's case was specifically that there was no deficiency and no fresh inspection was either required or sought for. 9. On 12 July 2014, as alleged that the MCI permitted the LLRM Medical College to give an undertaking and accordingly granted approval, inspite of deficiencies. It is to be noted that the case of the Petitioners was not considered as MCI expressed its 'inability' after 15 June 2014. On 15 July 2014, a letter is given by the MOH to Government Medical College, Kerala, which states that MCI has, by letter dated 12 July 2014, granted conditional permission to the said college. It is submitted that the MCI approved 73 colleges, inspite of deficiencies. It is pertinent to note that in this list, there were 20 colleges whose compliances were forwarded by the same letter dated 26 June 2014, but the Petitioner's case was not considered on account of the alleged 'inability' while several colleges were given permission pursuant to MCI's letter dated 12 July 2014. On 17 July 2014, the Petitioner received letter dated 15 July 2014 issued by Respondent No. 1 stating that the decision had been taken to disapprove the Petitioner's scheme for renewal of permission of 5th batch from 100 to 150 students for the academic session 2014-2015. 10. On 18 July 2014, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by impugned letter/communication dated 15 July 2014, which is based on the MCI's letter dated 10 July 2014, the Petitioner approached this Court. On 22 July 2014, first listing of the matter before this Court. Matter kept on 23 July 2014 after arguments are advanced by the Petitioner. On 23 July 2014, second listing of the matter and the arguments were advanced by both sides and the matter was adjourned to 25 July 2014 as the learned counsel appearing for MCI sought time and pointed out a connected Criminal PIL (Stamp) No. 32 of 2014. 11. On 25 July 2014, this Court, after hearing both parties at length, passed an interim order in terms of prayer clause (c) and the matter was posted on 22 August 2014, as the MCI required 4 weeks time to file a detailed affidavit. The said Criminal PIL was detached from the present proceedings. This Court (Coram:-Anoop V. Mohta and A.A. Sayed) on 25 July 2014 while passing ad-interim order observed as under:- "4. The said Criminal PIL was detached from the present proceedings. This Court (Coram:-Anoop V. Mohta and A.A. Sayed) on 25 July 2014 while passing ad-interim order observed as under:- "4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners read and referred the deficiencies report of earlier years from 2011 to 2014 and pointed out that there was "no deficiency" recorded in the MCI Assessment Reports. In respect of the same deficiencies, they have taken this unilateral action without reassessing the compliances and furnishing revised recommendation though the Petitioners submitted the representation with details that there were no deficiencies. In our view, the Petitioners and the concerned students cannot be made to suffer because of the inability of MCI to reassess the deficiencies, apart from the fact that on the basis of same deficiencies, earlier Assessment Reports were the foundation to grant permission every year. 5. Therefore, in view of the above and the urgency expressed we are inclined to consider the case of the Petitioners for ad-interim relief and in view of above admitted position on record. It is not the question of power and authority of expert bodies to deal with such matters. We are concerned, at this stage, with the mode and method that the Respondents have adopted to take such drastic action which will not only affect the Petitioners' institutions/ colleges but also to the students of other batches, as well as, the new students. It is merely because of MCI's inability to reassess/reverify the compliances and furnish revised recommendation in time, the impugned communication disapproving the renewal of permission is passed. Therefore, by way of ad-interim relief, we pass the following order:- ORDER a) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) which reads thus:- c. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition this Hon'ble Court by an order of injunction be pleased to stay the effect, operation and execution of the decision mentioned by impugned letter/communication dated 15/07/2014 and the communication dated 10/07/2014 and be pleased to further direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to approve the scheme for renewal of permission of the Petitioner for the 4th batch of MBBS course for the Academic session 2014-2015 from 100 to 150 students." b) The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on instructions, makes statement that the Petitioners shall file affidavit of compliances by 7 August 2014. c) The concerned Respondents also to file reply by the next date. d) The Petitioners and/or students shall not claim any equity on the basis of this order. e) The concerned students shall be intimated accordingly and their admissions would be subject to further orders and/or outcome of this Writ Petition. f) The admission of the fresh students would be provisional and the Petitioners/institutions shall be treated as having been granted provisional approval by the Respondents. g) Stand over to 22 August 2014. 12. On 30 July 2014, in pursuance to the interim order of this Court, out of 50, 30 seats are filled in by the college while there is a waiting of 759 students. The college informed the students that the admissions are provisional and accordingly undertakings of the students have been taken. On 7 August 2014, MCI filed SLP No. 21115 of 2014 against order dated 25 July 2014. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an ex-parte, ad-interim stay of admission of 50 seats. By that time 30 students have already been admitted. 13. On 7 August 2014, the High Court at Delhi, in another Medical college case, directed the MCI to carry out compliance verification assessment, noting that fault could not be found with the institute for alleged delay. 14. On 7 August 2014, the detailed affidavit is filed by the Petitioner college in this Court stating that there are no deficiencies. On 19 August 2014, the Supreme Court in another institutes' matter directed the MCI to consider the compliance report and send a requisite communication to the Government. On 27 August 2014, the Supreme Court took note of the college's stand that 30 students have been admitted and posted the matter on 1 September 2014 for final disposal. On 1 September 2014, the matter was posted on 9 September 2014 for final disposal. On 9 September 2014, the matter was heard at length and posted on 10 September 2014. On 10 September 2014, the matters concerning Lord Buddha College, which is a new institute, were also heard. The Supreme Court directed the MCI to consider the institutes' reply and, if necessary, conduct inspection and submit a report to the MOH and the Supreme Court. On 10 September 2014, the matters concerning Lord Buddha College, which is a new institute, were also heard. The Supreme Court directed the MCI to consider the institutes' reply and, if necessary, conduct inspection and submit a report to the MOH and the Supreme Court. A separate signed order is passed in the Petitioner's case and directed the parties to maintain the status-quo till the final disposal of the Writ Petition by expressing the High Court to dispose off the Petition, at an early date preferably by 30 September 2014, as no admission can be made after that date and accordingly disposed of the SLP. 15. On mentioning, after the order of the Supreme Court, the matter was listed on 12 September 2014 for directions. On 12 September 2014, this Court posted the matter for final hearing and disposal on 17 September 2014, by recording that the MCI may file an affidavit before the next date, if so instructed. 16. As convinced about the nature of deficiencies and refusal to take inspection in time, apart from order/action taken in breach of provisions and the principal of natural justice, we have passed the interim order, subject to certain conditions. Though directed specifically, the Respondent MCI till date, not denied the averments made by the Petitioner, including on deficiencies affidavit, filed in the Court after the above ad-interim order. We have revisiting the deficiency issues. Main 10 deficiencies pointed out by the Committee. The Petitioner, has clarified the same and made compliances also. The deficiency with regard to the MRI machine was of temporary nature, as the machine was under maintenance for annual maintenance service. Now, the same is in working condition. The deficiencies at serial Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 relating to the space and/or room facilities and/or requirements have been clarified by filing the certificate of the expert architect to show that there is no space issue. 17. The deficiency "Speech Therapy is not available", has been clarified. A declaration form by Speech Therapist already submitted to the MCI, which supports the same. The alleged deficiency of OPD attendance also clarified by placing on record the copies of the OPD Registers, which corroborated with the title "OPD Registration". It is stated that the Assessment Committee failed to take into account the OPD Registers from the Kalamboli Hospital. Therefore, it was recorded wrongly. The alleged deficiency of OPD attendance also clarified by placing on record the copies of the OPD Registers, which corroborated with the title "OPD Registration". It is stated that the Assessment Committee failed to take into account the OPD Registers from the Kalamboli Hospital. Therefore, it was recorded wrongly. However, we are not final authority, even with this regard, therefore, ultimately the MCI, if necessary, may re- inspect and get them satisfied in future as per their convenience. 18. Apart from no deficiency issue from undisputed position on record, it is clear that the impugned order passed in violation of Section 10A of the IMC Act. Section 10A of the IMC Act reads thus:- "10A 3. On receipt of a scheme by the Council under sub-section (2) the Council may obtain such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or the medical college concerned, and thereafter, it may- 1. if the scheme is defective and does not contain any necessary particulars, give a reasonable opportunity to the person or college concerned for making a written representation and it shall be open to such person or medical college to rectify the defects, if any, specified by the Council. 2. consider the scheme, having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7) and submit the scheme together with its recommendations thereon to the Central Government." The MCI did not comply with this provision and has not made any communication nor given any opportunity/hearing to the Petitioner. 19. In Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College Vs. The Union of India and Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25698 of 2013, dated 27 August 2013, the Supreme Court has clearly held, dealing with similar Section 10A(4) (Pari materia-Section 10A of the MCI Act) of Dental Council of India Act 1948 (for short, "DCI Act") that opportunity of hearing is mandatory. It is relevant to note the following paragraph dealing with Section 10A(4) of the DCI Act:- "26. We, accordingly, sum up the legal position, touching upon the issue, on the interpretation of Section 10A(4) of the Act, as below:- (a) Section 10A applies to the cases of renewal of permission as well; (b) It contemplates grant of opportunity of being heard at two stages. We, accordingly, sum up the legal position, touching upon the issue, on the interpretation of Section 10A(4) of the Act, as below:- (a) Section 10A applies to the cases of renewal of permission as well; (b) It contemplates grant of opportunity of being heard at two stages. First stage would be at the level of DCI after the scheme is submitted to DCI under sub-section (2) of Section 10A of the Act. Once it is found by the DCI that all the parameters for granting permission are met, it recommends the grant of approval of the scheme to the Central Government. In case Scheme it is found to be deficient, sub-section (3) (a) of Section 10A of the Act casts an obligation on the part of the DCI to give a reasonable opportunity for making a written representation and also to rectify the deficiencies, if any, specified by the DCI. Second stage of adherence to the principles of natural justice is provided at the level of Central Government at the time when it has to take final decision, after the receipt of the recommendation sent by the DCI. This requirement of hearing is stipulated in proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 10A, in the event the Central Government is proposing to disapprove the scheme. (c) The expression "opportunity of being heard" occurring in this proviso would mean that the material that goes against the applicant and is to be taken into consideration, is to be supplied to the applicant within an opportunity to make representation. For this purpose either the support of the DCI itself can be supplied or at least the deficiencies pointed out in the report have to be communicated by the Central Government to the applicant with an opportunity to furnish its comments thereupon. At that stage while giving its reply, if the applicant claims personal hearing, such a personal hearing should also be accorded." The Supreme Court has not granted relief, as there were irremovable deficiencies in the matter. 20. There is no issue in the present case, as noted above, about the serious and/or major deficiencies. This is a case where there are no deficiencies to deny such permission/approval. Therefore, this situation, in our view, goes in favour of the Petitioner, granting reliefs in view of above law and the reasons. 20. There is no issue in the present case, as noted above, about the serious and/or major deficiencies. This is a case where there are no deficiencies to deny such permission/approval. Therefore, this situation, in our view, goes in favour of the Petitioner, granting reliefs in view of above law and the reasons. The permission for the year 2014-2015 has been granted for 100 seats on the basis of same and earlier reports of last 5 years. The additional 50 seats denial for above reason, in our view, is unjust, contrary to law and nothing but treating "equals unequally". 21. Strikingly, the MCI inspite of letter of compliances, failed to take note and expressed the inability, as recorded above. The inaction on the part of MCI, inspite of the request/application, in our view, cannot be the reason to deny the scheme so filed by the Petitioner within prescribed time, based upon the existing infrastructure and facilities for additional intake capacity with further affidavit to show that there are no deficiencies even for that. 22. It is relevant to note that the Respondent did not file reply though directed by interim order dated 25 July 2014 till this date. They did not even denied the compliance affidavit filed by the Petitioner dated 7 August 2014, in pursuance to the interim order so passed, whereby demonstrated that there are no deficiencies as recorded by the MCI at the time of denying the approval/scheme of the Petitioner for additional intake capacity. 23. The Respondent MCI, as recorded above, visited other similarly placed institutions/colleges even after 15 June 2014 inspite of deadline given by the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 433 . One such letter is part of record, where they have inspected the institutions after 15 June 2014 and granted the approval as prayed by those Managements. Therefore, if there are no deficiencies and the Petitioner college, in otherwise, entitled for the additional seats based upon the existing facilities/infrastructures subject to other compliances, the denial would not be in the interest of Petitioner, as well as, the students of the locality/area. "The Court suggested that the process of inspection of colleges, grant of permission or renewal of permission should also be done well in advance to allow time for setting right the deficiencies pointed out". (Para 13 of Priya Gupta(Supra)) 24. "The Court suggested that the process of inspection of colleges, grant of permission or renewal of permission should also be done well in advance to allow time for setting right the deficiencies pointed out". (Para 13 of Priya Gupta(Supra)) 24. No timely action was taken by the MCI. Had the inspection taken within the time, there would have been positive report in favour of the Petitioner. The time schedule, so fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court till 30 September 2014, therefore, just cannot be side-tracked merely because of above reasons. We are satisfied that this is not the case where re-inspection and/or inspection is necessary before passing the order, as we have passed, even at ad-interim stage. Now, we are satisfied, after the affidavit of deficiencies so filed, that the case is made out for the reliefs so prayed. 25. Normally, there is no question to challenge and/or interfere with the power of such expert body, but the way they have dealt with the issue and has failed to take action within time so fixed, apart from passing unilateral order in breach of Section 10A read with Regulation 8(3) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 published by the MCI, referring to Section 10Aread with Section 33 of the IMC Act, we are inclined to interfere with the actions/orders. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram:- Anoop V. Mohta and A.A. Sayed) in Mahatma Education Society's Pillai's Institute of Information Technology, Engineering, Media Studies and Research Vs. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 6021 of 2014) and other matters dated 14 July 2014 observed as under:- 22. The scope of writ jurisdiction is wide and so also it's restrictions. It depends upon facts, circumstances and situations specifically when dealing with the expert body's decision. The time schedule fixed in Parshvanath (supra) has been re-scheduled by the Supreme Court. If case is of perversity, illegality in following due procedure of law, it is settled that any decision/order passed in breach of principles of natural justice, fair play and equity and which causes injustice, hardship and prejudice and specially when it relates to students and higher education and which affect the people at large, High Court in writ jurisdiction, may interfere with the same, to test the validity, illegality of such action. A Division Bench of this Court in Dental College and Hospital of the Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society vs. Government of India and ors. 2013 (5) ALL MR 830 while dealing with the provisions of Dentists Act, 1948 and the power of supreme Authority under the Act referring to the establishment of New Dental College and courses held that apart from others "There is no bar to interfere in expert body's decision." There also similar objection was raised by the Respondents and opposed for the grant of any relief in favour of the institutions. The Division Bench, based upon the facts, even directed the respective Council to reconsider the representation made by the Petitioners and further ordered to have fresh inspection and to pass order in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to the Petitioners. It is also noted in the said judgment as follows :- "32. The peculiarity of the fact in the present case which the Court just cannot overlook merely because the impugned decision is taken by the expert body. As noted above, the expert and/or expert body and/or institution and their power just cannot be decided by the Court so far as the matter pertained to and/or related to the students and/or academic sessions. Any Tribunal/body even of experts, if takes certain quasi judicial or administrative decisions by which they take away and/or infringe the rights of any person and/or institution and if there is breach of principles of natural justice, we are inclined to observe that the High Court need to test the decision/order if case is made out. There is no bar whatsoever that the decision of the expert body in such a situation cannot be interfered with and/or the High Court has no power to test the decision." 26. The Criminal complaint/proceedings pending against the MCI Officers/officials referring to the Petitioners along with other 10 institutions should not be the reason to overlook the merits of the matter. The consistent earlier reports, "No deficiencies", until decided otherwise, after investigation, if any, also no factor to hold against the Petitioner. This is not even the case of the MCI that the earlier reports are incorrect and/or not reliable. We are not preventing the concerned authorities and/or agency to take steps in accordance with law. The consistent earlier reports, "No deficiencies", until decided otherwise, after investigation, if any, also no factor to hold against the Petitioner. This is not even the case of the MCI that the earlier reports are incorrect and/or not reliable. We are not preventing the concerned authorities and/or agency to take steps in accordance with law. However, we have to take into consideration the Petitioner's entitlement if all things are in order, so far as the basic requirement of such scheme, specifically when, the MCI in other similarly placed matters in respect of alleged schedule date, took inspection and granted the permission even for removal of deficiencies. We are concerned with the additional seats, based upon the existing update facilities. It is made clear that this order is no way to interfere with the Criminal proceedings or complaint so pending. 27. Therefore, the case is made out to grant the scheme so prayed. However, it will be subject to further inspection and/or verification, if necessary, for the MCI to check and re-check the deficiency parts, as averred by the Petitioner. The Respondents are always at liberty to take steps in accordance with law. But that itself should not be the reason to deny the entitlement, at the instance of MCI, who has, as recorded above, adopted pick and choose policy, even by refusing to verify and/or to accept the clarification and/or compliance report of the College dated 23 June 2014, 7 July 2014, apart from compliance affidavit so filed in this High Court. We are inclined to observe that, as there are no deficiencies, therefore, there is no question of fresh inspection and therefore, the schedule mentioned in Priya Gupta's (Supra) case though extended from time to time, would not apply to deny the scheme of the Petitioner. Even otherwise, for the Respondents delay and/or inaction though applied on 25 October 2013, expressed their inability to inspect, should not be the reason to deny the rights, on the ground of delay and laches on their part also. 28. Even otherwise, for the Respondents delay and/or inaction though applied on 25 October 2013, expressed their inability to inspect, should not be the reason to deny the rights, on the ground of delay and laches on their part also. 28. Even otherwise, after considering the whole record, as well as, the deficiencies so referred and the affidavit in support of the removal of deficiencies, we are inclined to observe that the findings of Assessor and the Executive Committee are without application of mind and contrary to the material already placed on record, as there are no deficiencies of serious nature in the previous year's report, as well as, in the present situation. Therefore, the case is made out to grant reliefs as prayed. 29. Resultantly, the following order:- ORDER a) The present Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which read thus:- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of the impugned letter dated 15/07/2014 and the MCI's letter dated 10/07/2014 and after examining the legality and validity of the same be pleased to quash and set aside the said decision communicated in the impugned letters dated 15/07/2014 and 10/07/2014. (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to approve the scheme for renewal of permission of the Petitioner for the 4th batch of MBBS course for the Academic session 2014-2015 from 100 to 150 students." b) The Respondents to issue the letter of permission by 23 September 2014. c) Interim order dated 25 July 2014 granting prayer clause (c) is confirmed. d) The Respondent-MCI are at liberty to inspect the college premises as and when necessary. e) The Petitioners are under obligation to remove the deficiencies or breaches, if any, and/or directed by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare-Respondent No. 1/the MCI- Respondent No. 2, after due inspection. f) The Respondents-MCI to comply with the order as early as possible to avoid the dead-line issue of 30 September 2014. g) There shall be no order as to costs.