Judgment : 1. The petitioner institution was established in the year 2010. They applied for permission to start a medical college in terms of Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. By a letter dated 14.05.2010, the Central Government granted permission to the petitioner to start a Medical College with an annual permitted intake of 150 students from the academic year 2010-11. 2. By an order dated 28.06.2011, the permission was renewed for the admission of the second batch for the academic year 2011-12. By the next order dated 28.08.2013, renewal for the admission of the third batch was granted for the academic year 2013-14. 3. After the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the MCI) was plunged into a huge crisis, the Government appointed a Board of Governors superseding the elected body of the Council. The Board of Governors issued a Circular on 09.10.2013 inviting applications for renewal of permission for the academic year 2014-15. 4. On 23.10.2013, the petitioner submitted a proposal seeking renewal of permission for the admission of the 5th batch for the academic year 2014-15. After sleeping over the application for about 6 months and 23 days, the MCI sent a team of Assessors. The assessors conducted an inspection of the college on 01.05.2014 and 02.05.2014 and submitted a report pointing out certain deficiencies. On the basis of the inspection report, the Executive Committee of the MCI passed a resolution on 09.05.2014, recommending the refusal of permission for renewal. Thereafter, the MCI forwarded a communication dated 17.05.2014 to the Central Government recommending rejection of the application for renewal. The Central Government communicated the recommendation of the MCI to the petitioner on 28.05.2014. 5. Immediately, the petitioner sent a compliance report dated 02.06.2014 to the MCI claiming either that there were no deficiencies or that the deficiencies did not exist any more. However, the MCI rejected the compliance report by a communication dated 13.06.2014. 6. Unaware of the recommendation of the MCI dated 13.06.2014, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15748 of 2014. While ordering notice in the said writ petition, this Court passed an interim order dated 17.06.2014 directing the respondents to take steps to conduct a compliance verification inspection and pass orders on or before 30.06.2014. The petitioner communicated the said order to the respondents by their letter dated 18.06.2014. While ordering notice in the said writ petition, this Court passed an interim order dated 17.06.2014 directing the respondents to take steps to conduct a compliance verification inspection and pass orders on or before 30.06.2014. The petitioner communicated the said order to the respondents by their letter dated 18.06.2014. Since the respondents did not take any action, another interim order was passed in the same writ petition on 01.07.2014 directing the respondents to conduct a compliance verification inspection. 7. However, on 4.07.2014, the petitioner found from the website of the Central Government that the Secretary to Government had called upon the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing on 07.07.2014 in terms of section 10-A (4) of the Act. The website also indicated that the compliance report dated 02.06.2014 sent by the petitioner was rejected by the MCI on 13.06.2014. 8. Therefore, the petitioner participated in the personal hearing on 07.07.2014 and made oral as well as written submissions. Thereafter, this Court dismissed M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.15748 of 2014, by an order dated 15.07.2014. However, the main writ petition was directed to be posted for final hearing on 23.07.2014. 9. In the meantime, the first respondent passed an order dated 15.07.2014 rejecting the request for renewal. Therefore, the previous writ petition became infructuous and hence the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the order of rejection of their request for renewal. 10. I have heard Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Kanagaraj, learned Senior Panel counsel for Central Government and Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the second respondent. 11. Assailing the impugned order of the Central Government, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions: (i) The decision of the Executive Committee of the MCI dated 09.05.2014, was based upon 8 alleged deficiencies pointed out by the inspection team that visited the college on the 1st and 2nd day of May 2014. Out of those 8 deficiencies, 2 deficiencies alone can be traced to proviso (b) of Regulation 8.3(I) of the Medical Council of India Regulations 1999. Therefore, all the deficiencies other than those two should not have been taken into account either by the Executive Committee or by the MCI or by the Central Government. Out of those 8 deficiencies, 2 deficiencies alone can be traced to proviso (b) of Regulation 8.3(I) of the Medical Council of India Regulations 1999. Therefore, all the deficiencies other than those two should not have been taken into account either by the Executive Committee or by the MCI or by the Central Government. (ii) Even though two deficiencies can be traced to proviso (b) of Regulation 8.3(I), one deficiency namely shortage of Residents was actually within the prescription contained in Proviso (b). Therefore, even if the report of the inspection team is taken to be the gospel truth, there was only one deficiency namely that of bed occupancy, which was allegedly less than the required percentage. But due to this sole deficiency, the respondents cannot refuse to renew permission for one full academic year contrary to public interest. (iii) The finding recorded by the inspection team about the bed occupancy was obviously wrong, as seen from the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The inspection team did not take note of the in-patients in the second unit located in the second floor, in respect of paediatrics ward. Similarly, they did not take into account the inpatients in the third floor of the general surgery department. Hence, the sole deficiency which is traceable to proviso (b) is also factually not correct. (iv) The inspection was held on a public holiday namely 1st May, 2014. Though the inspection team was available on 2nd May, 2014 in the campus, they did not take into account either the statistics on 2nd May 2014 or the bed occupancy ratio that was reflected by the records for the previous three months. (v) The impugned order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Central Government discloses total non-application of mind, inasmuch as none of the submissions made during the oral hearing held on 07.07.2014 was taken into account. The impugned order was passed by the Central Government solely on the basis of the letter of the MCI dated 12.07.2014 expressing inability to reassess/verify the compliance report. Therefore, the requirement of personal hearing under Section 10-A(4) of the Act has been rendered as an empty formality. (vi) The MCI cannot take a stand that they were unable to reassess or verify the compliance report, solely on the basis of the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the requirement of personal hearing under Section 10-A(4) of the Act has been rendered as an empty formality. (vi) The MCI cannot take a stand that they were unable to reassess or verify the compliance report, solely on the basis of the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court. If the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court could not be adhered to by the MCI, it was entirely due to their own carelessness and negligence. The notification inviting applications was published by the MCI on 09.10.2013 and the petitioner submitted their application on 23.10.2013. But, the inspection was made after 6 months and 23 days on 01.05.2014. Therefore, a person who brought upon himself such a state of affairs, cannot plead helplessness. (vii) The opportunity of personal hearing contemplated under Section 10A(4) of the Act turned out to be an empty formality and the impugned order was based upon irrelevant considerations, ignoring relevant considerations. Under Section 10A(4) of the Act, the Central Government is obliged to point out deficiencies to the college and allow them to rectify the same. Therefore, the first respondent ought not to have imposed upon the petitioner, the extreme penalty of refusing renewal for one full academic year just on account of a very few insignificant and unimportant alleged deficiencies. (viii) The refusal of renewal is also contrary to public interest especially in respect of an existing college. 97 out of the total permitted intake of 150 seats are filled up by the State Government and hence, larger public interest, apart from the interests of the institution, will suffer due to refusal; (ix) In respect of Government colleges, the respondents have taken a different view, thereby creating a discrimination. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. (x) The refusal to grant renewal for a full academic year is an extreme penalty completely disproportionate to the deficiencies complained. What the respondents are obliged to see is whether there was substantial compliance or not. 12. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Before proceeding to consider the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it will be useful to take note of the deficiencies pointed out by the inspection team, on the basis of which the Executive Committee of the Council resolved to reject the request. 12. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Before proceeding to consider the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it will be useful to take note of the deficiencies pointed out by the inspection team, on the basis of which the Executive Committee of the Council resolved to reject the request. The resolution of the Executive Committee, which contains in brief the findings of the inspection report, is extracted in the letter of the MCI dated 17.05.2014 which is extracted as follows:- "The Executive Committee of the Council considered the Council Assessor report (1st & 2nd May, 2014) and noted the following:- 1. ICUs: Occupancy in SICU & RICU is 2 out of 5 (i.e. 40%) & in PICU/NICU: 2 out of 5 (i.e.20%) on day of assessment. They were not critical but regular patients. 2. Shortage of Residents 6.6% (9 out of 137) as under: (a) Senior Resident: 7 (Gen.Surgery: 3, Anaesthesiology:2, ENT:2) (b) Junior Resident: 2 (Orthopaedics:2) 3. Majority of Senior Residents are not staying in campus or Resident hostel. On second day of assessment, 11 Senior Residents out of 59 (2 in Radio diagnosis, 2 in Orthopaedics, 4 in Gen. Surgery, 2 in Gen. Medicine & 1 in Tb & Chest) were absent on physical verification; resultantly, shortage of Residents is increased to 14.60%. 4. Bed occupancy on day of assessment was 60% against requirement of 75% as per Regulations. Occupancy in wards of Gen. Medicine, Gen. Surgery & Paediatrics was less on day of assessment. 65 patients out of 135 beds in Gen. Surgery, 74 patients out of 130 beds in Gen. Medicine & 16 patients out of 60 beds in Paediatrics. 5. Histopathology workload is inadequate (6 on day of assessment). 6. Data of last 6 months showed that only 1 patient was put on ventilator. 7. Operative workload: Major operations like abdominal & laparoscopic surgeries are very few in number. There are no complex or supra major surgeries performed. Routinely mainly excisional biopsy, minor ano-rectal procedures or other minor procedures are performed. In Orthopaedics, major operations include only fracture fixation. No arthroscopic surgery or arthroplasty are performed. In Ophthalmology, mainly cataract or Phaco surgeries are performed. No retinal, glaucoma or squint surgeries are performed. " 13. There are no complex or supra major surgeries performed. Routinely mainly excisional biopsy, minor ano-rectal procedures or other minor procedures are performed. In Orthopaedics, major operations include only fracture fixation. No arthroscopic surgery or arthroplasty are performed. In Ophthalmology, mainly cataract or Phaco surgeries are performed. No retinal, glaucoma or squint surgeries are performed. " 13. After the MCI forwarded its recommendations by a communication dated 17.05.2014, on the basis of the inspection report dated 02.05.2014 and the resolution of the Executive Committee dated 09.05.2014, the petitioner submitted a compliance report dated 02.06.2014. This compliance report was forwarded by the Central Government to the MCI on 09.06.2014. After considering the compliance report, the MCI sent a communication dated 13.06.2014 to the Central Government, which reads as follows:- Sl. No. Deficiencies pointed out Objections of the petitioner remarks of MCI 1 ICUs: Occupancy in SICU and RICU is 2 out of 5(i.e. 40%) and in PICU/NICU 1 out of 5( i.e. 20%) on the day of assessment. They were not critical but regular patients. PICU/NICU: The following are the details of patients in the ICU Complex as per Assessor report in page no:16 MCU - 4 ICCU - 3 NILCU/PICU - 1 RICU/SICU -4 As per the Assessors report the available PICU/NICU patients was mentioned as 1 instead of 4, (3 patients in PICU and 1 patient in NICU). If those 3 patients are to be added to the total number of mentioned 12 patients as per the Assessor report the total strength will be 15 out of 20 beds of ICU complex. Therefore the percentage of occupancy stands more than 75. The details of patients are furnished below: 1. Child aged 2 years was admitted with acute febrile illness with Pneumonias for intensive care and monitoring of vital signs the patient was admitted in PICU. 2. Child aged 2 years was admitted with acute gastroenteritis with dehydration. The patient was given intensive cared and the vital signs were monitored in PICU. 3. A case of 8 years old boy with scorpion string/Hypotension for intensive care treatment and vitals monitoring hence admitted in PICU. 4. NICU: LSCS was done for foetal distress with meconium stained liquor one minute apgar score showed 7/l0 and 5 minutes apgar score showed 9/10. The baby was intensively monitored in NICU. RICU/SICU: There were 4 patients in RICU/SICU on the day of Assessment. 4. NICU: LSCS was done for foetal distress with meconium stained liquor one minute apgar score showed 7/l0 and 5 minutes apgar score showed 9/10. The baby was intensively monitored in NICU. RICU/SICU: There were 4 patients in RICU/SICU on the day of Assessment. The details are as follows: 1. Patient admitted with features of Aspiration Pneumonia/Adult respiratory distress syndrome with Respiratory failure. For intensive care and treatment patient was admitted in RICU. 2. A case of Bilateral Bronchitises with Hypothalami for vitals monitoring and intensive care treatment patient was admitted in RICU. 3. A case of Lap. Appendectomy/1st POD for intensive care and vitals monitoring patient was observed in SICU. 4. A case of Gap arthroplastry/left osteotomy/1st POD for intensive care and vital monitoring patient was observed in SICU. Thus all the patients who were in critical care units required Intensive treatments (Case sheets are enclosed). Explanation not satisfactory. Dean has signed on the assessment report and he did not point these discrepancies as stated in compliance at that time. 2 Shortage of Residents 6.6% (9 out of 137) as under: (a) Senior Resident: 7 General Surgery: 3 Anaesthesiology:2, ENT: 2) (b) Junior Resident: 2 (Orthopaedics: 2) Senior Residents: 7 Junior Residents : 2 1 SR in General Surgery and 1 SR in Anaesthesias and 1 in ENT were on night duty on 30.04.2014. When they came around 11.30 AM after they were refreshing themselves, have not been allowed to sign by the Assessor. Similarly three Assistant Professors 1 in OBG, 1 in Orthopaedics and 1 in General Surgery were on post duty off following their 24 hours duty on 30.04.2014 ad they were called for from their houses. As they reported in front of the Assessor at 11.40 AM those 3 Assistant Professors were not permitted to sign the attendance and not taken for head count. Not rectified. 3 Majority of Senior Resident are not staying in campus or Resident hostel. On second day of assessment, 11 Senior Residents out of 59 (2 in Radio diagnosis, 2 in Orthopaedics, 4 in Gen. Surgery, 2 in Gen. Medicine and d1 in TB & Chest) were absent on physical verification. resultantly, shortage of Residents is increased to 14.60%. All the Residents had been provided with independent Residents and they do stay in the campus. Surgery, 2 in Gen. Medicine and d1 in TB & Chest) were absent on physical verification. resultantly, shortage of Residents is increased to 14.60%. All the Residents had been provided with independent Residents and they do stay in the campus. Whenever there are holidays and while they are not on duty they used to go over to their nearby residential houses. The list of Residents and the quarters allotted and occupied by them is furnished in the Annexure. The percentage of shortfall of Residents said to be 14.60% is not correct. In fact only 7 Residents i.e. 3 in Gen. Surgery, 2 in Anaesthesiology and 2 in ENT were not accepted during physical verification on 1st May 2014 since they appeared at 11.30 AM. On day two regular head count was not called for and while the Assessor was on rounds at OPD and wards they were randomly selected and arrived at the said figure as shortage but actually all the Residents amounting to 140 numbers were available very much in the departments OPD and wards as per their respective duty allocations Not rectified. Explanation not satisfactory 4 Bed occupancy on day of assessment was 60% against 75% as per regulations. Occupancy in wards of Gen. Medicine, Gen. Surgery and Paediatrics was less on day of assessment. 63 patients out of 135 beds in Gen. Surgery, 74 patients out of 130 beds in Ge. Medicine and 16 patients out of 60 beds in Paediatrics Paediatrics Ward: On the day of inspection there were 45 patients in the paediatrics ward. Out of which 20 patients of Unit 1 were in first floor and 25 patients of Second Unit were in second floor. When the Assessor visited, he has not taken the patients in the second unit into account for calculation of bed occupancy, since they have not verified. General Surgery: On the day of inspection General Surgery department had 102 patients. Out of which three units were in fourth floor with a bed occupancy of 65 patients and other two units were in third floor with a bed occupancy of 37 patients totalling to 102 patients. The 37 patients in the third floor were not taken into account for calculation of bed occupancy, since they have not verified. Out of which three units were in fourth floor with a bed occupancy of 65 patients and other two units were in third floor with a bed occupancy of 37 patients totalling to 102 patients. The 37 patients in the third floor were not taken into account for calculation of bed occupancy, since they have not verified. General Medicine: General Medicine department had a total strength of 98 patients in five units on the day of inspection during the visit of the Assessor 74 patients were present in the respective wards and out of the remaining 24 patients 8 patients were in Radiology departments for ultrasound investigations and 16 patients were in separate examination ward as they were segregated for the purpose of examination conducted on 02.05.2014 as a part of routine internal assessment for the final year batch. These 24 patients were not taken into account for calculation of bed occupancy. Hence the 29 patients of paediatrics, 37 patients in General Surgery and 24 patients in General Medicine totalling to 90 patients, if added to total available patients on the day of inspection the bed occupancy shall be 76% as against 60% mentioned by the Assessor. visit of the Assessor 74 patients were present in the respective wards and out of the remaining 24 patients 8 patients were in Radiology departments for ultrasound investigations and 16 patients were in separate examination ward as they were segregated for the purpose of examination conducted on 02.05.2014 as a part of routine internal assessment for the final year batch. These 24 patients were not taken into account for calculation of bed occupancy . Hence the 29 patients of paediatrics, 37 patients in General Surgery and 24 patients in General Medicine totalling to 90 patients, if added to total available patients on the day of inspection the bed occupancy shall be 76% as against 60% mentioned by the Assessor. Explanation unsatisfactory. Dean has signed assessment Report and he did not point out the Discrepancies at that time. 5 Histopathology workload is inadequate: (6 on day of assessment) On 1-5-2014, 12 major surgeries and 26 minor surgeries were done. At 11 AM when the assessors inspected six specimens (1 OP + 5 IP) were sent to Histopathology Dept. However by the end of the day we had sent a total of 16 specimens (including the 6) to Histopathology Department. At 11 AM when the assessors inspected six specimens (1 OP + 5 IP) were sent to Histopathology Dept. However by the end of the day we had sent a total of 16 specimens (including the 6) to Histopathology Department. 6 Data of last 6 months showed that only 1 patient was put on ventilator. The Ventilator register of casualty department alone was verified by the Assessor at the time of inspection. However as per the ventilator register of ICU's 376 patients were put on ventilators during the past 6 months. No explanation is given for only 1 Patient on ventilator in 6 months in casualty. 7 Operative workload: Major operations like abdominal ad laparoscopic surgeries are very few in number. There are no complex or supra major surgeries performed. Routinely mainly excisional lbiopsy minor ano-rectal procedures or other minor procedures are performed in Orthopaedics major operations include only fracture fixation. No arthroscopic surgery or arthoplastry are performed. In Ophthalmology, mainly cataract or Phaco surgeries are performed. No retinal, glaucoma or quint surgeries are performed. 14. Keeping in mind the resolution of the Executive Committee dated 09.05.2014, pointing out the deficiencies and also keeping in mind the letter of the MCI dated 13.06.2014 in response to the compliance report of the petitioner dated 02.06.2014, let me take up the contentions of the petitioner one after another. CONTENTION NO:(i): 15. The first contention of the petitioner is that when an application for 4th renewal (admission for the 5th batch) is made by a college, the same can be rejected by the MCI only if there are two deficiencies that cannot be tolerated in the light of proviso (b) to Regulation 8.3.(I). But, the MCI took note of 8 deficiencies, six of which are not relatable to the said regulation. 16. Therefore, the first point to be considered is as to whether the power of the MCI to reject an application for 4th renewal is restricted only to two deficiencies as pointed out in proviso (b) to Regulation 8.3.(I) or not. In order to find an answer to that, it is necessary to extract Regulation 8.3.(I) which reads as follows:- "Regulation 8(3)(1) of Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (Amended upto April 2010) :-(3) “(1). In order to find an answer to that, it is necessary to extract Regulation 8.3.(I) which reads as follows:- "Regulation 8(3)(1) of Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (Amended upto April 2010) :-(3) “(1). The permission to establish a medical college and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal six months prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognition of the medical college is granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may at any stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies. PROVIDED that in respect of (a) Colleges in the stage upto II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch): If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is < 60 %, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year. (b) Colleges in the stage from III renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth batch) till recognition of the institute for award of M.B;B.S. degree: If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 20% and/or bed occupancy is < 70 %, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year. (c) Colleges which are already recognized for award of M.B.B.S. degree and/or running Postgraduate Courses: If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 10% and/or bed occupancy is < 80 %, such an institute will not be considered for processing applications for postgraduate courses in that Academic Year and will be issued show cause notices as to why the recommendation for withdrawal of recognition of the courses run by that institute should not be made for Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses which are recognized u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 along with direction of stoppage of admissions in permitted Postgraduate courses. (d) Colleges which are found to have employed teachers with faked / forged documents: If it is observed that any institute is found to have employed a teacher with faked / forged documents and have submitted the Declaration Form of such a teacher, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission / recognition for award of M.B.B.S. degree / processing the applications for postgraduate courses for two Academic Years i.e. that Academic Year and the next Academic Year also. However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 3 days before upto 3 days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Govt. (2) The recognition so granted to an Undergraduate Course for award of MBBS degree shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed. (3) The procedure for Renewal of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award of recognition. (4) Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause (a) supra shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Undergraduate Course of MBBS at the said institute. (4) The Council may obtain any other information from the proposed medical college as it deems fit and necessary. *As per the terms of Notification published on 16.04.2010 in the Gazette of India. RECONSIDERATION Wherever the Council in its report has not recommended the issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon being so required by the Central Government reconsider the application and take into account new or additional information as may be forwarded by the Central Government. RECONSIDERATION Wherever the Council in its report has not recommended the issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon being so required by the Central Government reconsider the application and take into account new or additional information as may be forwarded by the Central Government. The Council shall, thereafter, submit its report in the same manner as prescribed for the initial report." 17. A careful perusal of the above Regulation would show that the permission to establish a medical college and admit students can be granted initially for a period of one year and renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. The process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medical college and the expansion of the hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognition is granted. This is what the substantial part of Regulation 8.3.(I) stipulates. 18. What is stipulated by the main part of Regulation 8.3.(I) is circumscribed by two provisos. The first proviso relates to second renewal (admission of third batch) and the second proviso relates to the third renewal (admission of fourth batch). Both these provisos deal with two requirements namely (a) the existence of teaching faculty and/or Residents; and (b) the bed occupancy ratio. While the first part of the proviso under Clause (a) prescribes a tolerance limit upto 30% in so far as the deficiencies of teaching faculty and/or Residents is concerned, the second part of the proviso under clause (b) restricts the tolerance limit only upto 20% in so far as the very same deficiency is concerned. Similarly, Clause (a) prescribes a tolerance limit upto 40% in so far as bed occupancy is concerned. But, Clause (b) restricts the tolerance limit in respect of bed occupancy only upto 30%. Thus in essence, a greater tolerance limit is prescribed for the second renewal than for the third renewal in respect of the above 2 requirements. 19. In the light of the language of both clauses of the Proviso to Regulation 8.3.I, the contention of Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that an application for third renewal (admission of fourth batch) cannot be rejected, except for two deficiencies namely a deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents of more than 20% and a deficiency relating to bed occupancy being more than 30%. 20. 20. But I do not think that such an interpretation is either warranted or borne out by the proviso to Regulation 8.3.(I). This is due to the fact there are actually 2 sets of Regulations, which operate in the field. The first is the "Minimum Requirements for 150 MBBS Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999", as amended by the Notification dated 15.7.2009. A careful look at these Regulations would show that every medical college with an annual permitted intake of 150 students should have about 21 departments. Under Regulation 4 of these Regulations, such a college should have accommodation for teaching and technical staff and equipment for each department as given in Schedules I, II and III annexed to those regulations. Schedule I contains requirements relating to accommodation both in the medical college and in its associated teaching hospitals. These requirements are prescribed department-wise and hospital-wise. Schedule II to these regulations lists out the staff requirements in respect of each of the departments. Schedule III provides the number and nature of the equipment to be in place in each of the departments of the college. Thus, it is seen from the 1999 Regulations that they prescribe standards relating to (i) accommodation; (ii) staff requirements; and (iii) equipment. 21. Apart from the aforesaid 1999 Regulations, there is also another set of regulations known as 'Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999". These Regulations, as amended by the Notification dated 30.7.2009 with effect from 16.4.2010, stipulate under Regulation 3 that no person shall establish a medical college except after obtaining prior permission from the Central Government by submitting a scheme as annexed to these regulations. The scheme for obtaining permission contains several stipulations such as (i) eligibility criteria; (ii) qualifying criteria; (iii) form and procedure; (iv) application fee; (v) registration; (vi) evaluation by the MCI; (vii) report of the MCI; and (viii) grant of permission. It is only in these second set of regulations namely Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 as amended with effect from 16.4.2010, that Regulation 8.3.(I) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is found. 22. It is only in these second set of regulations namely Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 as amended with effect from 16.4.2010, that Regulation 8.3.(I) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is found. 22. In other words, the second set of regulations (of which Regulation 8.3.(I) is a part), by themselves do not lay down the minimum standards, except certain requirements such as (i) that the applicant should be a society or a public religious or charitable trust or a company or an autonomous body promoted by the Central or State Government or a University; and (ii) that the institution should be located in a single plot of land measuring not less than a specified extent. 23. Keeping the above aspects in mind, if we now turn to Regulation 8.3.(I), it will be clear that the said regulation has a main part and four provisos, as we have already seen. The main part of the regulation states that permission to establish a medical college and admit students can be granted initially for a period of one year and that it would be renewed on yearly basis subject to the verification of the achievements of annual targets. To the main part of Regulation 8.3.(I), there are four provisos. The first proviso under Clause (a) relates to second renewal (admission of third batch). The second proviso under Clause (b) relates to third renewal (admission of fourth batch). Both clauses (a) and (b) deal only with two specific items namely (i) deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents; and (ii) a bed occupancy ratio. Both of them merely stipulate the tolerance limit in respect of two essential requirements. They do not deal with the other requirements meaning thereby that they do not dilute or dilate the other stipulations contained in the 1999 Regulations. 24. But proviso (b) under Regulation 8.3.(I) of the second set of regulations namely, "Establishment of Medical College Regulations", is sought to be read by the petitioner as restricting all the stipulations contained in the first set of Regulations namely, "Minimum Requirements for 150 MBBS Students Annually Regulations, 1999". This is not permissible in law. 25. In other words, there are two fallacies in the fist contention of the petitioner. The first is that proviso (b) is sought to be read by the petitioner as restricting the requirements of the main part of the Regulation. This is not permissible in law. 25. In other words, there are two fallacies in the fist contention of the petitioner. The first is that proviso (b) is sought to be read by the petitioner as restricting the requirements of the main part of the Regulation. The second fallacy is that the petitioner is seeking to read this proviso found in one set of Regulations, into another set of Regulations. 26. In my considered view, the proper method of interpreting the proviso (b) to Regulation 8.3. (I) is to hold that in respect of two requirements namely bed occupancy and availability of teaching Faculty/ Residents, a tolerance limit is prescribed, enabling the Central Government to exercise a discretion, if the deficiencies in respect of those two requirements are within the permissible limits. In respect of other requirements, the Regulations do not stipulate any tolerance limit at all. If we do not understand and interpret Regulation 8.3.(I) in this fashion, we will only be diluting standards, contrary to the very object of the Indian Medical Council Act and the aforesaid Regulations, to maintain higher standards in the field of Medical Education. It is not permissible for this Court to adopt an interpretation that will dilute those standards. Therefore the first contention deserves to be dismissed. CONTENTION NOS.(ii) and (iii) : 27. The second contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that out of the two deficiencies, which could be traced to the proviso (b) to Regulation 8.3(I), one was within the tolerance limit. The shortage of Residents was only 6.6% (9 out of 137). This shortage as per the findings of the inspection team rose to 14.60%. But under proviso (b) to Regulation 8.3(I), the rejection of the request for renewal, can be made only if the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or the Residents is more than 20%. 28. I agree with the above contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. In so far as the prescription relating to teaching faculty and /or Residents is concerned, the deficiency pointed out by the inspection team was only 14.60%. Therefore, it was within the tolerance limit. 29. But in so far as the third contention relating to bed occupancy ratio is concerned, proviso (b) prescribes a tolerance limit only upto 30%. But the bed occupancy ratio in the petitioner's college on the date of assessment was 60%. Therefore, it was within the tolerance limit. 29. But in so far as the third contention relating to bed occupancy ratio is concerned, proviso (b) prescribes a tolerance limit only upto 30%. But the bed occupancy ratio in the petitioner's college on the date of assessment was 60%. Therefore, certainly one of the two conditions stipulated in proviso (b) to Regulation 8.3(I) for the rejection of the request for renewal is attracted in the case on hand. 30. Realising the above difficulty, two submissions are made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. They are: (1) the very same inspection team found from the records and also noted in para 2.6 of their inspection report that the bed occupancy was 80%, on a daily average of three randomly selected dates. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that as against the data that the inspection team itself found from the records on a random verification, the bed occupancy ratio assessed on a single day which also happened to be a public holiday during summer vacation cannot prevail. But I am unable to accept the above submission. The very necessity for surprise inspection and the seal of approval granted to it by the Courts, is on account of the unreliability of the records maintained by the colleges in general. If the records are sacrosanct, there is no purpose in having surprise inspections. Therefore, the first submission cannot be accepted. (2) The second submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the inspection team did not take note of the patients in the second floor of the paediatrics ward and the patients in the third floor of the General Surgery department and the 24 patients in the Radiology Department and examination ward. Therefore it is his contention that the bed occupancy ratio recorded by the inspection team should not have been accepted. But this submission is also unacceptable for the simple reason that the representative of the petitioner who was present at the time of inspection, ought to have invited the attention of the inspection team to this fact. In their response dated 13.06.2014, to the Central Government, the MCI has clearly pointed out that the assessment report was signed by the Dean without any demur or protest and that no discrepancies were pointed out at that time. In their response dated 13.06.2014, to the Central Government, the MCI has clearly pointed out that the assessment report was signed by the Dean without any demur or protest and that no discrepancies were pointed out at that time. Therefore, this Court cannot now resolve a factual dispute. CONTENTION NO.(iv) : 31. The fourth contention of the petitioner is that the inspection was conducted on a public holiday namely the 1st May 2014 and that though inspection team was available on the next day, they did not take statistics on that date. The grievance of the petitioner is that the inspection team did not even take note of the bed occupancy ratio reflected by the records for the previous three months. 32. The petitioner had raised these objections, in their compliance report dated 02.06.2014. By a communication dated 13.06.2014, the Medical Council rejected these contentions, on the ground that at the time when the assessment report was prepared, these objections were not raised and that the Dean had signed it. Therefore, it is clear that these objections were considered by the Medical Council before making its recommendations. Once a factual finding is so recorded and the objections of the petitioner are overruled by an expert body, it is not open to this Court to interfere with the finding of fact under Article 226 of the Constitution. The contention that the inspection was held on the date of holiday, is hardly of any significance. Diseases are unwelcome visitors who never take any holiday. Consequently, the hospitals have no off-season and peak-season, except at times when there is out-break of seasonal or contagious diseases. Therefore, the fourth contention deserves to be rejected. CONTENTION NO.(v) : 33. The fifth contention is that the impugned order of the Central Government is vitiated by total non-application of mind, inasmuch as, none of the submissions made during the oral hearing, have been taken into account. The impugned order was passed by the Central Government solely on the basis of the letter of the Medical Council dated 12.07.2014 expressing inability to reassess/verify the compliance report. Therefore, it is contended that the report is vitiated by non-application of mind to relevant considerations. 34. It is true, that the impugned order reflects only the letter of the Medical Council dated 12.07.2014 expressing inability to reassess/verify the compliance report. Therefore, it is contended that the report is vitiated by non-application of mind to relevant considerations. 34. It is true, that the impugned order reflects only the letter of the Medical Council dated 12.07.2014 expressing inability to reassess/verify the compliance report. But it is a matter of fact that the Medical Council and the Central Government were actually racing against a time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court. Even the attempt made by the Central Government to take an extension of time from the Supreme Court failed when the Supreme Court rejected the request by an order dated 31.07.2014. The inability of the MCI to reassess/verify the compliance report, arose out of judicial orders and hence they cannot be found fault with. In any case, the Medical Council had applied its mind to the compliance report dated 02.06.2014 filed by the petitioner and hence the finding of fact recorded therein, could not have been belittled by the Central Government. Therefore, the 5th contention is also rejected. CONTENTION NO.(vi) : 35. The sixth contention of the petitioner is that the Medical Council itself has to take the blame for its inability to reassess/verify the compliance report. The Board of Governors of the MCI invited applications on 09.10.2013 and the petitioner submitted their applications for renewal on 23.10.2013. But the Medical Council sent an inspection team only on 01.05.2014 after a gap of six months and 23 days. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that a person who brought upon himself such state of affairs cannot plead helplessness. 36. I have carefully considered these submissions. But I am unable to agree. The petitioner was expected to maintain the prescribed standards at all points of time. If the petitioner had maintained the standards prescribed by the Medical Council throughout the year including on the date of surprise inspection namely 01.05.2014, the present situation would not have arisen. Therefore, in fact, it is the petitioner which brought upon itself the present state of affairs, by not maintaining the standards prescribed by MCI. 37. The need to maintain standards prescribed by MCI, hardly requires any emphasis. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in MCI vs. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC 131 , the maintenance of standards is a sine qua non. 37. The need to maintain standards prescribed by MCI, hardly requires any emphasis. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in MCI vs. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC 131 , the maintenance of standards is a sine qua non. A passage from the said decision may usefully be quoted as follows:- ".......A medical student requires gruelling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study.........." Therefore, the 6th contention is unsustainable. CONTENTION NO:(vii) : 38. The seventh contention is that the opportunity of personal hearing contemplated under Section 10A(4) turned out to be an empty formality and that the impugned order was passed on irrelevant considerations. According to the petitioner, the Central Government is obliged under Section 10A(4) to point out deficiencies to the petitioner and give them time to rectify the same. Without doing so, the respondents imposed the extreme penalty of refusal of renewal for one full academic year. 39. But the above contention, does not appeal to me. The material on the basis of which the Medical Council of India decided to recommend refusal, are sufficient for the Central Government to take the decision that they have actually taken in this case. The petitioner was granted an opportunity of personal hearing. Though the last part of sub-section (4) of Section 10A enables the Central Government to give a chance to the institution to rectify the defect, it is not mandatory that such an opportunity to rectify the defect should be given for the very same academic year. There is no room for such interpretation in view of the strict time schedule which the respondents are legally obliged to adhere. Some of the deficiencies in this case could not have been rectified at all before the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court. There is no room for such interpretation in view of the strict time schedule which the respondents are legally obliged to adhere. Some of the deficiencies in this case could not have been rectified at all before the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim that an opportunity could have been granted to them to rectify the defect. 40. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel furnished a very useful tabulation, indicating the time schedule prescribed by the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) Vs Union of India [2005 (5) SCC 65] as well as Priya Gupta Vs State of Chattisgarh [ 2012 (7) SCC 433 ]. The said tabulation statement is extracted as follows to highlight the futility of any exercise in remitting the matter back at this time: "Letter of Permission/Renewal Schedule as provided in Mridul Dhar & Priya Gupta:- Sl. No. Stage of Processing Last Date 1 Receipt of Applications by Central Government From 1st August to 31st August 2 Receipt of Applications by MCI from Central Government 30th September 3 Recommendations of MCI for issue of letter of intent 31st December 4 issue of letter of intent by Central Government 31st January 5 Receipt of reply from applicant 28th February 6 Receipt of letter by MCI from central Govt. for considering the issue of letter of permission 15th march 7 Recommendations of MCI to Central Government 15th June 8 Issue of letter of permission by Government 15th July The above time schedule is now over. It is true that in quite a few cases, this court as well as the Delhi High court had issued directions, beyond the time schedule prescribed by the Supreme court. It is also true that the Special Leave Petitions filed against such orders were dismissed by the Supreme court. It is true that in quite a few cases, this court as well as the Delhi High court had issued directions, beyond the time schedule prescribed by the Supreme court. It is also true that the Special Leave Petitions filed against such orders were dismissed by the Supreme court. But all those cases such as (i) the order dated 10-6-2011 of the Delhi High court in Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society vs. Medical Council (ii) the order dated 7-8-2013 of the Division Bench of this court in The Board of Governors vs. Tagore Medical College (iii) the order dated 14-8-2013 of the Division Bench of this court in Madha Medical College vs. Union of India and (iv) the decision of the Supreme court in Royal Medical trust vs. Union of India 2013 (12) SCALE 145, were decided, before the strict mandate now issued by the Supreme court in its order dated 19-5-2014 in Lipika Gupta that any violation of the time schedule would tantamount to contempt of court. This fact, coupled with Supreme court's dismissal of the petition for extension of time filed by the Government, on 31-7-2014, is a clear signal that no court shall enable any statutory authority to do anything that would tantamount to violation of the order of the Supreme court. If a High court has no respect for the time schedule fixed by the Supreme court and if a High court issues directions to statutory authorities to violate the orders of the Supreme court, there could be no redemption for the system. CONTENTION NO.(viii) : 41. The eighth contention is quite interesting. According to the petitioner, it has an annual permitted intake of 150 students, out of which 97 seats are to be allotted for being filled up through the single window counselling by the State Government. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that the refusal to grant renewal will deprive 150 meritorious students to gain admission this year into a medical course and that 97 students who would otherwise get allotted by the State Government to the petitioner college would also lose. 42. The above contention is certainly attractive, even if not sustainable. While on the one hand refusal to grant renewal goes contrary to public interest, the grant of renewal to an institution which does not qualify for the same is also contrary to public interest. 42. The above contention is certainly attractive, even if not sustainable. While on the one hand refusal to grant renewal goes contrary to public interest, the grant of renewal to an institution which does not qualify for the same is also contrary to public interest. Rather than allowing 150 bright students to undergo medical education in an institution which has deficiencies, it would be better to direct such institutions to pull up the socks and first set their houses in order. The public interest served by denying renewal to an institution which has deficiencies, is far greater than the public interest that would be served by granting renewal. CONTENTION NO:(ix) : 43. The ninth contention is about discrimination between the Self-Financing Colleges and Government Colleges. The petitioner has pleaded in their affidavit that some of the Government Colleges also have deficiencies, but they have been granted renewal. 44. But I do not think this contention is legally sustainable. At the outset, if a statutory authority has permitted an illegality to go unnoticed in one institution, it is no ground for the Court to perpetuate the illegality in other institutions, on the ground of equality in illegality. 45. In any case, the Government institutions stand on a totally different footing. All the Government Institutions are capable of being tamed. Therefore, the special treatment meted out to Government Institutions, even if true, cannot be a ground for extending the benefit to the Self-Financing Institutions. CONTENTION NO:(x): 46. The tenth contention of the petitioner is that the refusal of renewal amounted to an extreme penalty completely disproportionate to the deficiencies complained. According to the petitioner, the respondents are actually obliged to see whether there was substantial compliance or not and that if there was substantial compliance, the respondents cannot impose the extreme penalty. 47. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Kumar vs. Union of India, ( 2001(2) SCC 386 , Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the concept of proportionality has always been applied by the Indian Courts, with a view to maintain a proper balance between the adverse effects which an administrative order may make, on the rights, liberties or interests of persons, keeping in mind the purpose that they intend to serve. In this case, the respondents have refused renewal of permission to the petitioner college for the academic year 2014-15, jeopardising both private interest as well as public interest. The Regulations of the MCI stipulate hundreds of requirements, all of which have been fulfilled by the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that on account of a few minor discrepancies, the extreme penalty of refusal of renewal cannot be imposed. 48. The learned Senior Counsel also relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Land Development Corporation vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011)15 SCC 616), to drive home the point that the decision taken by the respondents would pass neither the test of reasonableness (Wednesbury Principle) nor the test of proportionality. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 49. But at the outset, I am unable to accept that the refusal of the respondents to grant renewal amounted to a penalty. The principles of reasonableness and proportionality, that are applicable to administrative and Legislative action which are punitive in nature, cannot be applied to an administrative action refusing to renew permission and that too on account of non-fulfilment of prescribed standards. The projection of the case of the petitioner as though an extreme penalty has befallen upon them, is not acceptable. In so far as Wednesbury Principle is concerned, it is, even according to Professor Wade, on the terminal decline even in England. 50. If the respondents had passed an order cancelling even the permission granted in the first instance, then it would be a case of imposition of penalty. In such a case, the lives and career of four batches of students numbering 600 would have also been in peril. The mere refusal to grant 4th renewal to enable the petitioner to admit one batch of 150 students in the first year of the MBBS Course during the academic year 2014-15, cannot be equated to a penalty. 51. The principle of proportionality is inapplicable to cases where standards of education are involved. A student who had secured distinction in five out of six papers but had failed in one paper by a margin of one mark cannot claim that the ultimate result is completely disproportionate to his deficiency. Therefore, the 10th contention cannot also be accepted. 52. 51. The principle of proportionality is inapplicable to cases where standards of education are involved. A student who had secured distinction in five out of six papers but had failed in one paper by a margin of one mark cannot claim that the ultimate result is completely disproportionate to his deficiency. Therefore, the 10th contention cannot also be accepted. 52. It is claimed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there was substantial compliance with the Regulations and that therefore on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Al-Karim Educational Trust vs. State of Bihar (1996) 8 SCC 330 ), the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. But the said contention cannot stand in the light of the 1999 Regulations. Even if there was one deficiency beyond the tolerance limit prescribed by Proviso (b) to Regulation 8.3.(I), the Central Government was obliged to reject the request for renewal. This is the mandate of the regulations. Al-Karim arose out of peculiar circumstances where the Court came to the conclusion that affiliation was withheld unreasonably and that every time new deficiencies were pointed out after the old ones were removed. Even in Al-Karim, the Supreme Court pointed out in para 11 that the importance of fulfilling the essential pre-requisites stipulated by the Medical Council cannot be diluted. Therefore, the theory of substantial compliance has no application especially when the deficiencies pointed out are very serious in nature. 53. Mr. G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also assailed the impugned orders on the ground that they are vitiated by malice in law. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. S.R.Venkataraman vs. Union of India (1979)2 SCC 491 ) and in Kalabharathi Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010)9 SCC 437, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the act of the respondents was a wrongful one, without just cause. 54. But the above contention is misconceived. Legal malice or malice in law is something which is done without lawful excuse or for an unauthorised purpose. In the case on hand, the respondents have pointed out deficiencies with reference to the standards and requirements prescribed by the Regulations. Therefore, the act done by the respondents is neither without lawful excuse nor for an unauthorised purpose. Legal malice or malice in law is something which is done without lawful excuse or for an unauthorised purpose. In the case on hand, the respondents have pointed out deficiencies with reference to the standards and requirements prescribed by the Regulations. Therefore, the act done by the respondents is neither without lawful excuse nor for an unauthorised purpose. The surprise inspection conducted by the assessors of the Medical Council, the recommendation made by them to the Central Government and the order passed by the Central Government are all for the authorised purpose of considering the request of the petitioner for renewal. Hence the last contention of the petitioner also deserves the very same fate as the other contentions. 55. In view of the above, I find no justifiable reason to interfere with the decision of the Central Government. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014 are also dismissed.