Judgment : 1. The petitioner, which is a medical college and research institute, has come up with the above writ petition challenging the decision taken by the Union of India, to refuse permission to the petitioner to admit students in the fourth batch for the academic year 2014-15 to Under Graduate Medical Courses. 2. Heard Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the second respondent. 3. The petitioner was established in the year 2011 as a medical college and they were granted recognition for the first time, in the academic year 2011-12 with an annual permitted intake of 150 students. The petitioner also obtained affiliation to the Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University. The petitioner had renewal of their permission for the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-14 for the second and third batches respectively. 4. In the year 2013, the Medical Council of India (hereinafter called the MCI) was hit by a huge scandal leading to the supersession of the elected Council by a Board of Governors appointed by the Central Government. On 9.10.2013, the Board of Governors issued a General Circular inviting applications for renewal of permission for the academic year 2014-15. The petitioner applied. 5. A surprise inspection was conducted on 10th and 11th March 2014 and the inspection team submitted a report to the MCI, pointing out certain deficiencies. On the basis of the report of the inspection team, the Executive Committee of the MCI passed a resolution dated 16.4.2014 not to grant renewal for admission of the fourth batch in the academic year 2014-15. On the basis of the said resolution passed by the Executive Committee on 16.4.2014, the MCI issued a recommendation dated 28.4.2014 to the Central Government not to grant renewal. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a compliance report dated 5.5.2014, contending that all deficiencies have been removed. It appears that on the basis of the said compliance report, the Central Government directed the MCI to conduct another inspection. Therefore, a surprise inspection was conducted again on 31.5.2014. According to the petitioner, the surprise inspection was conducted just for one hour from 9.30 AM to 10.30 AM and that too on a Saturday during summer holidays. It appears that on the basis of the said compliance report, the Central Government directed the MCI to conduct another inspection. Therefore, a surprise inspection was conducted again on 31.5.2014. According to the petitioner, the surprise inspection was conducted just for one hour from 9.30 AM to 10.30 AM and that too on a Saturday during summer holidays. According to the petitioner, a report was hurriedly prepared on the same day and the Dean of the College, therefore, refused to sign the report. 7. The petitioner took up the matter with the second respondent by a letter dated 2.6.2014, pointing out that no proper inspection was conducted on 31.5.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14729 of 2014, challenging the assessment report of the inspection team dated 31.5.2014. This writ petition came up for hearing on 11.6.2014. The maintainability of the writ petition was questioned by the second respondent, since the writ petition sought to challenge the report of the inspection team, which was liable to be placed before the Executive Committee and thereafter, the resolution of the Executive Committee of the MCI was to be placed before the Central Government for taking a decision as per Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act. 8. On 11.6.2014, when the said writ petition came up for admission, this court was informed that a meeting of the Executive Committee of MCI was scheduled to be held on 13-6-2014 and 14-6-2014. Therefore, this Court issued an interim direction to the MCI to take into account, in the meeting of the Executive Committee, (i) the original inspection report dated 11.3.2014, (ii) the compliance report dated 5.5.2014, (iii) the second inspection report dated 31.5.2014 and (iv) the explanation dated 2.6.2014. The learned Judge also gave liberty to the petitioner to produce any other relevant document before 10 AM on 12.6.2014 to enable the MCI to consider all of them in their meeting scheduled to be held on 13th and 14th June 2014. 9. However, the second respondent, by a recommendation dated 14.6.2014, reiterated its earlier decision not to recommend the renewal. Therefore, the petitioner came up with a second writ petition in W.P.No.15917 of 2014. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the recommendation of the MCI dated 14.6.2014. 20. 9. However, the second respondent, by a recommendation dated 14.6.2014, reiterated its earlier decision not to recommend the renewal. Therefore, the petitioner came up with a second writ petition in W.P.No.15917 of 2014. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the recommendation of the MCI dated 14.6.2014. 20. By a final order dated 2.7.2014, a learned Judge disposed of the writ petition W.P.No.15917 of 2014, setting aside the recommendation of the MCI dated 14.6.2014 and directing the MCI again to consider the original inspection reports dated 10th and 11th March 2014, the compliance report dated 5.5.2014, the second inspection report dated 31.5.2014, the explanation of the petitioner dated 2.6.2014 and the additional documents submitted on 12.6.2014. The learned Judge directed the MCI to pass fresh orders on or before 10.7.2014 and further directed the Central Government to take a decision on or before 15.7.2014 in view of the strict time schedule laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 21. As against the order of the learned Judge dated 2.7.2014 passed in W.P. No. 15917 of 2014, the MCI filed a writ appeal in W.A. No.904 of 2014. It appears that the writ appeal came up for admission on 10.7.2014 before a Division Bench. Eventually, the writ appeal was dismissed on 24.7.2014 on the ground that on 10.7.2014, the MCI had already sent a communication to the Central Government expressing their inability to re-assess and that on the basis of the said communication, the Central Government rejected approval by the order dated 15.7.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the final order dated 15.7.2014 passed by the Central Government in terms of Section 10A refusing the request for renewal of permission for the academic year 2014-15. 22. Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order of the Central Government as well as the recommendation of the Medical Council of India primarily on three grounds. 22. Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order of the Central Government as well as the recommendation of the Medical Council of India primarily on three grounds. They are:- (i) that before passing the impugned order dated 15.7.2014, the first respondent namely the Central Government was obliged to grant a personal hearing in terms of Section 10A(4) of the Act, but it was not granted; (ii) that the MCI was directed by this Court by two orders, one passed on 11.6.2014 and another passed on 2.7.2014, to consider all the earlier reports, the compliance reports as well as other documents, but the MCI simply sent a communication dated 10.7.2014 to the Central Government to the effect that they are unable to re-assess and verify the original compliance reports and make revised recommendations; and (iii) that the second respondent is actually guilty of disobeying the orders of this Court dated 2.7.2014, by which, the second respondent was directed by this Court to re-consider the matter in the light of the reports dated 10th and 11th of March 2014, the compliance report dated 5.5.2014 and the documents submitted on 12.7.2014. 23. I have carefully considered the above submissions. 24. Before taking up the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, I think it will be useful to bring on record the deficiencies pointed out in the two reports of the Assesors of the MCI, one made after their inspection on 10th and 11th March 2014 and another made after their inspection on 31.5.2014. They are as follows : "The deficiencies pointed out by the inspection team that visited the college of the petitioner on 10th and 11th March 2014 are as follows:- "1. Shortage of Residents is 18.75% (i.e. 24 out of 128) as under: (a) Senior Residents: 10 (General Medicine:2, Paediatrics:2 , Tb & Chest:3, Skin & VD:1, General Surgery:2, O.G.: 1) (b) Junior Resident: 14 (Paediatrics: 1, Tb & Chest:3, Skin & VD:1, Psychiatry:2, General Surgery:6, Ophthalmology:1) 2. Clinical material is not of good quality. Surgery department had 10 post-operative cases. Admitted cases were mostly of pain in abdomen and vomiting. None were having I.V. fluids, etc. running. Orthopaedics ward had mostly Osteoarthritis cases with very few post-operative cases. Basic surgical procedures were being performed in OTS. 3. Clinical material is not of good quality. Surgery department had 10 post-operative cases. Admitted cases were mostly of pain in abdomen and vomiting. None were having I.V. fluids, etc. running. Orthopaedics ward had mostly Osteoarthritis cases with very few post-operative cases. Basic surgical procedures were being performed in OTS. 3. There was no normal delivery & only 1 Caesarean section on the day of assessment. The number of deliveries is very less (only 10-20/month, incl. caesarean section). 4. There was no patient in NICU on day of assessment. 5. Accommodation for students is available for 330 students only against 452 students as per Regulations. 6. Quarters for non-teaching staff available are only 26 against requirement of 36 as per Regulations. 7. Lecture theater in the hospital is not of gallery type. 8. RHTC & UHC are located in leased accommodation for 11 months. Residential accommodation is not available at RHTC. 9. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the inspection report. The deficiencies pointed out by the inspection team that visited the college of the petitioner on 31st May, 2014 are as follows:- "1. Shortage of Residents is 40.57% (i.e 56 out of 138) as detailed in report as under: (a) Senior Resident: 33 - (b) Junior Resident: 23 - 2. Clinical Material isinadequate as under: (a) Total bed occupancy is 52%. In Surgical, Skin & VD and psychiatry wards, it is inadequate. (b) There was only 1 normal delivery & 1 Caesarean section on day of assessment. (c) Occupancy in NICU was only 1. 3. Students' Hostels: Total accommodation available is 348 against requirement of 450 as per regulations. What is shown as Block II of the hostels is under construction. Deficiency is not rectified. 4. Quarters: 28 quarters are available against requirement of 30 for teaching faculty and 28 quarters are available against requirement of 36 for non-teaching faculty. Deficiency is not rectified. 5. Lecture Theater: It is not available in the hospital. Only space is available. It is not of gallery type. Audiovisual aids are not available. Deficiency is not rectified.6. RHTC & UHC are running in rented premises. To that extent, deficiency is not rectified. 7. Deficiency of faculty is 24.30% (i.e. 35 out of 144) as detailed in report as under: (a) Professor : 1 (b) Asso. Prof : 11 (c) Asst. Prof. : 21 (d) Tutor : 2 8. Audiovisual aids are not available. Deficiency is not rectified.6. RHTC & UHC are running in rented premises. To that extent, deficiency is not rectified. 7. Deficiency of faculty is 24.30% (i.e. 35 out of 144) as detailed in report as under: (a) Professor : 1 (b) Asso. Prof : 11 (c) Asst. Prof. : 21 (d) Tutor : 2 8. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report. " 25. A careful comparison of the deficiencies noted during the first inspection conducted on 10th and 11th of March 2014 and during the second inspection conducted on 31.5.2014 would show that there has been a deterioration in the standards. The second inspection dated 31.5.2014 was actually invited by the petitioner themselves, by filing a compliance report on 5.5.2014 and requesting for re-inspection. After inviting a second inspection on 31.5.2014, the petitioner also went one step further and filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14729 of 2014 and sought a direction to the second respondent to consider all the reports. This Court also disposed of the said writ petition by an order dated 11.6.2014 with a direction to the MCI to consider (i) the inspection report dated 10th and 11th March 2014; (ii) the compliance report dated 5.5.2014; (iii) the inspection report dated 31.5.2014; and (iv) the explanation dated 2.6.2014. 26. Therefore, the Executive Committee of the MCI passed a resolution on 13.6.2014, taking into account all the above and proposing to reject the application. Hence, if the resolution of the Executive Committee of the MCI dated 13.6.2014 is an injury, it was inflicted only at the instance and invitation of the petitioner. 27. But, the grievance of the petitioner is that there is no mention about the compliance report, in the resolution of the Executive Committee passed on 13.6.2014. However, this myth can be exploded, if we really have a look at the so called compliance report dated 5.5.2014. The compliance report dated 5.5.2014 submitted by the petitioner is in a tabular form and hence, it is extracted as follows: S. No. Deficiency Explanation 1. Shortage of Resident is 18.75% (i.e. 24 out of 128) Declaration form of Senior and Junior Residents are enclosed with necessary documents as (Annexure -I). a. Shortage of Residents: 10 (General Medicine: 2, Paediatrics:2, TB & Chest: 2, Skin & VD:1, General Surgery: 2, OBG:1) 2 Clinical material is not of good quality. Shortage of Resident is 18.75% (i.e. 24 out of 128) Declaration form of Senior and Junior Residents are enclosed with necessary documents as (Annexure -I). a. Shortage of Residents: 10 (General Medicine: 2, Paediatrics:2, TB & Chest: 2, Skin & VD:1, General Surgery: 2, OBG:1) 2 Clinical material is not of good quality. Surgery department had 10 postoperative cases. Admitted cases were mostly of pain in abdomen and vomiting. None were having I.V. fluids, etc. running. Orthopaedics ward had mostly Osteoarthritis cases with very few postoperative cases. Basic surgical procedures were being performed in OTS. Variety of cases are being admitted in the department of General Surgery and Orthopaedics. Normal register of General Surgery and Orthopaedics for the month of March and April 2014 has been enclosed. Nominal register of Operation Theatre for the month of March and April 2014 has been enclosed . (ANNEXURE-II) 3 There was no normal delivery & only 1 Caesarean section on the day of assessment. The number of deliveries is very less (only 10-20/month, incl. caesarean section). In the department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we are having an average of 80% bed occupancies. The numbers of deliveries are 2 per day. Statistics for the month of March and April 2014 has been enclosed. (ANNEXURE-III) 4 There was no patient in NICU on day of assessment. Nominal register for the month of March and April 2014 has been enclosed. (ANNEXURE-IV) 5 Accommodation for students is available for 330 students only against 452 students as per Regulations. The total available accommodation for students is 516 against the requirement of 452. Block-I= 84 rooms (double occupancy) -168 Block-II=84 rooms (double occupancy) -168 Block-III=60 rooms (triple occupancy) - 180 Total - 516 occupancies available 6 Quarters for non-teaching staff available are only 26 against requirement of 36 as per Regulations. The total available accommodation for teaching and non-teaching staff is 84 against the requirement of 66. Staff Quarters Block-I = 28 houses Staff Quarters Block-II = 28 houses Staff Quarters Block-III = 28 houses Total = 84 houses Out of 84 houses, 40 houses = Teaching Staff 44 houses = Non-Teaching Staff 7 Lecture theater in the hospital is not of gallery type. There are 5 lecture theaters with 180 seating capacity available against the requirement of. 2. All the 5 lecture theaters are of gallery type and well equipped with air-conditioners and AV aids. There are 5 lecture theaters with 180 seating capacity available against the requirement of. 2. All the 5 lecture theaters are of gallery type and well equipped with air-conditioners and AV aids. 8 RHTC & UHC are located in leased RHTC RHTC & UHC are located in leased accommodation for 11 months. Residential accommodation is not available at RHTC. RHTC & UHC are in leased accommodation, which will be renewed every year. Residential accommodation is available at RHTC for which Blue print of the RHTC is enclosed. (ANNEXURE - V) 28. It will be clear from the above tabular column that at least some of the deficiencies pointed out by the inspection team with respect to shortage of Residents, were not rejected as false or non existent by the petitioner. The petitioner merely claimed that they have been rectified. Unless the deficiencies pointed out by the inspection team that visited the college on 10th and 11th March 2014 were real and existent, the question of rectification would not have arisen. 29. Similarly, the compliance report dated 2.6.2014 was not actually a compliance report, but was actually a statement of objections. This can be seen from the relevant portion of the letter dated 2.6.2014, which reads as follows : "1. Clinical Material-Total Bed Occupancy as per the actual number of In-patients and according to our MRD statistics was 80%. The inspection report has clearly mentioned that the admissions were not verified, but the bed occupancy was reported as 52%. 2. Hostel Accommodation for students:- Block-II with 84 rooms (capacity of 168) was reported as under construction. We wanted them to report the exact status of the building but they were not willing to mention it in their report. For your kind attention, in the previous inspection assessment report dated 11.03.2014 & 12.03.2014, it has been clearly reported as construction is over and only the final findings has to be done. 3. Quarters:- Reported as one new block of 28 houses is under construction, so teaching staff quarters only 28 which are inadequate against the requirement of 36. But only 30teaching quarters are required as per MCI norms. To your kind notice according to the last inspection report dated 11.03.2014 & 12.03.2014, the inspection team has clearly reported the completion of the teaching quarters. But only 30teaching quarters are required as per MCI norms. To your kind notice according to the last inspection report dated 11.03.2014 & 12.03.2014, the inspection team has clearly reported the completion of the teaching quarters. We wanted this mistake to be corrected and also to mention the exact status of the building but they were not willing to correct. 4. As it was a weekend and the college was on summer vacation, some of the faculties were on leave and some of the faculties were on duty-off/shift duties. We informed them to report immediately. The inspection team refused to accept their presence after 10.30 am. We requested to mention the faculty reported after 10.30 am but it was not accepted by the inspection team. " 30. Therefore, when the Executive Committee met on 13.6.2014, what they had before them was actually a statement of objections labelled as a compliance report. This is why the Executive Committee passed a resolution on 13.6.2014 deciding to reject the request for renewal. This resolution of the Executive Committee was communicated by the MCI, by a letter dated 14.6.2014 to the first respondent. 31. Keeping this background in mind, let me now take up for consideration each of the three primary contentions of the petitioner. CONTENTION NO.(i) : 32. The first contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent namely the Central Government failed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing, before passing the impugned order. An opportunity of personal hearing is mandated by Section 10A(4). Section 10A(4) reads as follows : "10A. Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study.” (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force,” (a) no person shall establish a medical college; or (b) no medical college shall (i) open a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognised medical qualification; or (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training), except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section. Explanation 1. Explanation 1. For the purposes of this section, “person” includes any University or a trust but does not include the Central Government. Explanation 2. “For the purposes of this section, “admission capacity”, in relation to any course of study or training (including post-graduate course of study or training) in a medical college, means the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being admitted to such course or training. (2)(a) Every person or medical college shall, for the purpose of obtaining permission under subsection (1), submit to the Central Government a scheme in accordance with the provisions of clause (b) and the Central Government shall refer the scheme to the Council for its recommendations. (b) The scheme referred to in clause (a) shall be in such form and contain such particulars and be preferred in such manner and be accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed. (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, (a) 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; (b) 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. (4) The Central Government may, after considering the scheme and the recommendations of the Council under sub-section (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or college concerned, and having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7), either approve (with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall be a permission under sub-section (1): Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent any person or medical college whose scheme has not been approved by the Central Government to submit a fresh scheme and the provisions of this section shall apply to such scheme, as if such scheme has been submitted for the first time under sub-section (2). (5) Where, within a period of one year from the date of submission of the scheme to the Central Government under sub-section (2), no order passed by the Central Government has been communicated to the person or college submitting the scheme, such scheme shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Government in the form in which it had been submitted, and, accordingly, the permission of the Central Government required under sub-section (1) shall also be deemed to have been granted. (6) In computing the time-limit specified in sub-section (5) the time taken by the person or college concerned submitting the scheme, in furnishing any particulars called for by the Council, or by the Central Government shall be excluded. (6) In computing the time-limit specified in sub-section (5) the time taken by the person or college concerned submitting the scheme, in furnishing any particulars called for by the Council, or by the Central Government shall be excluded. (7) The Council, while making its recommendations under clause (b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub-section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors, namely: (a) whether the proposed medical college or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training, would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of medical education as prescribed by the Council under section 19A or, as the case may be, under section 20 in the case of postgraduate medical education; (b) whether the person seeking to establish a medical college or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training or to increase its admission capacity has adequate financial resources; (c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical college or conducting the new course of study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme; (d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number of students likely to attend such medical college or course of study or training or as a result of the increased admission capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme; (e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such medical college or course of study or training by persons having the recognised medical qualifications; (f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine; and (g) any other factors as may be prescribed. (8) Where the Central Government passes an order either approving or disapproving a scheme under this section, a copy of the order shall be communicated to the person or college concerned." 33. But, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and hence, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is violative of Section 10A (4). 34. But, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and hence, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is violative of Section 10A (4). 34. Virtually, the above contention has gone unchallenged by the first respondent. No opportunity of personal hearing appears to have been granted by the Central Government, before the impugned order was passed. Therefore, there is no doubt about the fact that the mandate of Section 10A(4) is violated and the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice ingrained into Section 10A(4). 35. But unfortunately, this violation may not really advance the cause of the petitioner for two reasons. The first is that by the time the MCI complied with the orders passed by this Court on 11.6.2014 and passed a resolution on 13.6.2014 and communicated the resolution to the Central Government vide its letter dated 14.6.2014, the deadline fixed by the Supreme Court was almost on the door steps. The last date fixed for communicating the decision of the MCI to the Central Government is 15th June. On 18.6.2014, the petitioner filed the second writ petition in W.P.No.15917 of 2014 and this Court ordered notice. Eventually, the second writ petition in W.P.No.15917 of 2014 was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 2.7.2014, throwing the ball back into court of the MCI. Therefore, the Central Government could not have given a personal hearing to the petitioner on the recommendation of the MCI dated 14.6.2014. Had the Central Government granted a personal hearing to the petitioner on the recommendation of the MCI dated 14.6.2014, the Central Government would have been in contempt of the orders of the Supreme court, fixing a time schedule. 36. By the time the second writ petition was disposed of on 2.7.2014, the time limit fixed by the Supreme Court for the MCI to make a recommendation was already gone. The time limit made by the Central Government to seek extension of time by filing a miscellaneous petition before the Supreme Court, also failed. Therefore, the MCI was actually caught between the order of the Supreme Court fixing a time schedule and an order of this Court dated 2.7.2014 to reconsider the matter afresh. The time limit made by the Central Government to seek extension of time by filing a miscellaneous petition before the Supreme Court, also failed. Therefore, the MCI was actually caught between the order of the Supreme Court fixing a time schedule and an order of this Court dated 2.7.2014 to reconsider the matter afresh. Hence, they passed a resolution not only in respect of the case of the petitioner, but also in respect of various other colleges in the country, expressing inability to re-assess and reconsider the matter. Therefore, there was no point in the Central Government granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, on the stand taken by the MCI that it was legally not permissible for them to re-assess. 37. The second reason as to why the contention regarding the violation of the prescription of personal hearing contained in Section 10A(4) cannot be upheld is that today, no useful purpose will be served by upholding the said contention and remitting the matter back to the Central Government for a fresh consideration. There can be no doubt about the fact that if an administrative order is set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice or for violation of a statutory prescription providing for an opportunity of hearing, the matter has to be remanded back to the same authority. But today, the matter cannot be remanded back to the first respondent for rectifying the procedural irregularity, in view of the fact that the time limit fixed by the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court has refused to extend, is already gone. 38. While appearing for a college, which is identically placed as the present writ petitioner, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing in that case 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 is extracted as follows to highlight the futility of any exercise in remitting the matter back at this time : 39. Therefore, I am unable to uphold the first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, since it is not possible today to remand the matter for a compliance of the principles of natural justice. The said tabulation is extracted as follows to highlight the futility of any exercise in remitting the matter back at this time : 39. Therefore, I am unable to uphold the first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, since it is not possible today to remand the matter for a compliance of the principles of natural justice. This is in view of the mandate of the Supreme Court fixing a strict time schedule as water tight departments. 40. 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 - "Letter of Permission/Renewal Schedule as provided in Mridul Dhar & Priya Gupta:- (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. Hence the first contention of the petitioner, cannot be uphled, especially in view of the fact that as a consequence, I have to direct the respondents to violate the orders of the Supreme court. CONTENTION NO.(ii) : 41. Hence the first contention of the petitioner, cannot be uphled, especially in view of the fact that as a consequence, I have to direct the respondents to violate the orders of the Supreme court. CONTENTION NO.(ii) : 41. The second contention of the petitioner is that by two orders, one dated 11.6.2014 passed in the first writ petition and another dated 2.7.2014 passed in the second writ petition, the MCI was directed to take into account (i) the inspection report dated 10th and 11th March 2014, the compliance report dated 5.5.2014, the second inspection report dated 31.5.2014, the explanation of the petitioner dated 2.6.2014 and the additional documents submitted on 12.6.2014. But, the communication of the MCI, on the basis of which, the Central Government passed the impugned order dated 15.7.2014, did not take into consideration all those reports. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the recommendation of the MCI as well as the order of the Central Government are vitiated by non application of mind to relevant facts. 42. It is true that by the order dated 11.6.2014 passed in W.P.No.14729 of 2014, this Court directed the MCI to take into account the inspection report dated 10th and 11th March 2014, the compliance report dated 5.5.2014, the second inspection report dated 31.5.2014 and the explanation of the petitioner dated 2.6.2014 and also permitted the petitioner to file additional documents on 12.6.2014. The Executive Committee met on 13.6.2014. By the resolution passed on 13.6.2014, the Executive Committee of the MCI decided to reiterate their earlier decision. This was communicated vide letter dated 14.6.2014. 43. In the preamble to the resolution passed by the Executive Committee of the MCI, which forms part of the communication dated 14.6.2014, it is stated as follows : "The Executive Committee of the Council considered the compliance verification assessment report dated 31.5.2014 along with previous assessment report (10th and 11th March 2014) and documents submitted by the college before 10 AM on 12.6.2014 as per the orders of the Madras High Court dated 11.6.2014 and noted the following: The remaining part of the resolution has already been extracted by me elsewhere in this order. 44. 44. Therefore, the Executive Committee of the MCI, in its meeting held on 13.6.2014, appears to have taken into consideration the previous reports dated 10th and 11th March 2014 and the next report dated 31.5.2014 as well as the documents submitted on 12.6.2014. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the MCI did not take into account the relevant factors. 45. As an offshoot of the second contention, it is argued by Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the inspection report dated 31.5.2014 was completely perverse in as much as the inspection team spent just one hour between 9.30 AM and 10.30 AM and that too on a Saturday during summer vacation namely 31.5.2014. According to the petitioner, the representative of the college, who was present during the inspection, refused to sign the report on that score. In their letter of objections dated 2.6.2014, the petitioner has also highlighted the fact that the inspection team refused to accept the presence of the faculty beyond 10.30 AM. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the facts recorded after an inspection conducted just for one hour and that too on a Saturday during summer vacation cannot lead to such a disastrous result. 46. This contention that the inspection team spent just one hour, is refuted by Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the second respondent. Pointing out a statement recorded by the petitioner themselves in their letter dated 2.6.2014, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that the report itself was prepared even according to the petitioner only at 6.30 PM. It is further submitted by Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the second respondent that the fact that the date of inspection happened to be a Saturday is hardly of any significance, as diseases and disorders do not consult astrologers to arrange their affairs at auspicious timings. 47. I have carefully considered the rival submissions on this score. In the letter dated 2.6.2014 sent by the petitioner to the Vice President of the MCI, there are three sentences, which actually indicate the total time taken by the inspection team for completing the inspection. 47. I have carefully considered the rival submissions on this score. In the letter dated 2.6.2014 sent by the petitioner to the Vice President of the MCI, there are three sentences, which actually indicate the total time taken by the inspection team for completing the inspection. These three sentences are :- (i) In the subject column of the letter dated 2.6.2014, it is stated as follows : 'Surprise inspection conducted by the Medical Council of India on Saturday 31.5.2014 (wrongly mentioned as 2015 in the letter) at 8.30 - explanation - regarding.' (ii) It is stated in the first two lines of the said letter dated 2.6.2014 by the petitioner as follows : 'A surprise inspection was conducted by Medical Council of India Team on Saturday 31.5.2014. After inspection, report was prepared by the inspection team at 6.30 PM and I was asked to countersign the same.' (iii) In paragraph 4 of the said letter dated 2.6.2014, it is stated by the petitioner as follows : 'The inspection team refused to accept their presence after 10.30 AM. We requested to mention the faculty reported after 10.30 AM. But, it was not accepted by the inspection team.' 48. Therefore, it is clear that the inspection team was present in the college throughout the day on 31.5.2014. Perhaps, the attempts made by the petitioner to "improve the statistics" by summoning the doctors, who had allegedly gone on leave and by summoning out-patients, were not accepted by the team. There is no prescription either in the Act or in the Regulations for the inspection team to give an opportunity during inspection, to improve the performance of the college or improve the statistics. Paragraph 4 of the letter dated 2.6.2014 sent by the petitioner makes it clear that the statistics as recorded by the inspection team on 31.5.2014 were not factually wrong. All that the petitioner states in paragraph 4 of their letter dated 2.6.2014 is that the doctors, who went on leave and who were summoned after 10.30 AM were not taken into account. 49. As a matter of fact, the inspection team was not obliged to take into account the above. It was a surprise inspection and such surprise inspection is now recognised by the Apex Court. 49. As a matter of fact, the inspection team was not obliged to take into account the above. It was a surprise inspection and such surprise inspection is now recognised by the Apex Court. Allowing an opportunity to a college to compensate for the deficiencies, found out during surprise inspection, would tantamount to a gross misconduct on the part of the inspection team. This is why the inspection team refused to allow the petitioner to summon doctors after 10.30 AM. 50. In fact, the petitioner raised the very same contention in the affidavit filed in support of their second writ petition W.P.No.15917 of 2014. In response, the MCI filed a counter affidavit (MCI did not get an opportunity to file a counter in the first writ petition), in paragraph 43 of which, they denied the averment that the inspection was carried out only for one hour. The fact that the inspection team started preparing the report only at 6.30 PM and completed the same by 8.30 PM is borne out by the very letter of the petitioner dated 2.6.2014. Therefore, the second contention of the petitioner cannot also be upheld. CONTENTION NO.(iii) : 51. The third contention of the petitioner is that the order passed by this Court on 2.7.2014 in the second writ petition has not been complied with and that therefore, the second respondent is virtually guilty of violation of the order of this Court. 52. But unfortunately, as rightly pointed out by Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, the writ appeal in W.A.No.904 of 2014 arising out of the order passed in the second writ petition W.P.No.15917 of 2014, was closed by the Division Bench, on the basis of a statement made on behalf of the petitioner across the bar that an order has been passed on 15.7.2014. Therefore, the second respondent virtually lost the opportunity to canvass in their writ appeal, the correctness of the order passed by a learned Judge in the writ petition on 2.7.2014. Once the second respondent lost their opportunity to canvass in their writ appeal, the correctness of the order passed by the learned Judge dated 2.7.2014 in the writ petition, it is not open to the petitioner to put against the second respondent an alleged violation of the order dated 2.7.2014. Hence, the third contention is also liable to be rejected. 53. Hence, the third contention is also liable to be rejected. 53. As a matter of fact, in the course of the arguments, I pointed out to the learned counsel on both sides that at this distance of time, there is no point in looking into the technicalities. If the impugned order is found to be invalid only on technicalities, the order can at the most be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondents. But, in view of the lapse of the deadline fixed by the Supreme Court, there is no point in directing reconsideration at least in respect of the academic year 2014-15. 54. After pointing this out, I examined the claim made by the petitioner even on merits, in view of the special fact that depriving the renewal to the petitioner college for the admission of the fourth batch will neither be in the private interest of the petitioner nor be in the public interest of the students, who aspire to enter into medical courses. Since the petitioner is a minority educational institution, with an annual permitted intake of 150 students, they are obliged to provide 75 seats to the State Government for being filled up through single window counselling. If the impugned order is upheld, 75 students will lose an opportunity to enter into the stream of medicine in the current academic year. Therefore, keeping this public interest in mind, I have also examined the facts, though I am not obliged, stricto sensu, to step into the shoes of an Expert Body like the MCI. 55. As I have pointed out earlier, eight deficiencies were pointed out by the inspection team that visited the college on 10th and 11th March 2014. I have already extracted those deficiencies in a previous paragraph. 56. Though the shortage of Residents was only 18.75% at the time of first inspection on 10th and 11th March 2014, this shortage became alarming at the time of second inspection on 31.5.2014, which was actually 40.57%. Out of 138 junior and senior Residents, who were supposed to be available in the campus, 56 were found unavailable. The very explanation given by the petitioner in their letter dated 2.6.2014 confirms this finding. As pointed out earlier by me, the petitioner did not state in their letter dated 2.6.2014, that the head count made by the inspection team was wrong. The very explanation given by the petitioner in their letter dated 2.6.2014 confirms this finding. As pointed out earlier by me, the petitioner did not state in their letter dated 2.6.2014, that the head count made by the inspection team was wrong. In paragraph 4 of their letter dated 2.6.2014, the petitioner claimed that being a Saturday, some of the doctors had gone on leave. Therefore, the non availability of Residents is actually (i) accepted, (ii) sought to be explained and (iii) requested to be condoned. 57. Similarly, the bed occupancy, at the time of inspection on 31.5.2014, was only 52%. The claim of the petitioner is that patients waiting for admission were not taken note of. 58. But, there is no provision in the regulation as to how the percentage of bed occupancy is to be counted. Therefore, the inspection team was bound only to take into account the actual number of beds occupied. 59. In the reports dated 10th and 11th March 2014 and 31.5.2014, the inspection team had taken note of several other deficiencies such as non availability of hostel accommodation for all the students as well as for non teaching staff. According to the petitioner, these buildings have already been completed and even as per the first report, the work in the interiors alone remained incomplete. 60. For the present, I would ignore the other deficiencies, which relate to buildings, quarters, etc. These deficiencies can always be set right in course of time. They are not incurable. But, the non availability of sufficient number of in-patients as reflected by the bed occupancy ratio and the non availability of 40% of the Residents at the time of inspection, are serious enough to warrant the action taken by the respondents. One more deficiency pointed out in the report dated 31.5.2014 is that there was deficiency of faculty at 24.3%. Out of 144 faculty members, who ought to have been there, there were only 109. This is also a serious deficiency, which could not have been ignored either by the inspection team or by the MCI or even by this Court. 61. Regulation 8.3.(I) makes it clear under proviso (b) that a college in the stage of renewal (admission for fourth batch) will not be considered for renewal, if the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 20% and the bed occupancy is less than 70%. 61. Regulation 8.3.(I) makes it clear under proviso (b) that a college in the stage of renewal (admission for fourth batch) will not be considered for renewal, if the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 20% and the bed occupancy is less than 70%. As per the report dated 31.5.2014, the deficiency of teaching faculty was 24.3%. The shortage of Residents was 40.57% and the bed occupancy was only 52%. As per proviso (b) to Regulation 8.3.(I), the decision taken by the MCI and the Central Government cannot be found fault with. 62. The percentage of deficiencies pointed out by the inspection team in its report dated 31.5.2014 cannot actually be challenged on factual basis. Therefore, it is challenged on the basis of the alleged duration of time spent by the inspection team and on the basis of the previous inspection held in March 2014. I have found both these objections unsustainable. Once it is accepted that a surprise inspection is permissible in law, the fact finding recorded by the team, which conducted the surprise inspection, cannot be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226. If the statute confers powers upon the inspection team to act as a referee or an umpire in a match, there is no scope for referring it to a third umpire. 63. The need to maintain standards prescribed by MCI, hardly requires any emphasis. It was pointed out by the Supreme Court in MCI vs. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC 131 , 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.........." Without sufficient number of in-patients and teaching faculty/Residents, it is not possible for students of medicine to acquire excellence. 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.........." Without sufficient number of in-patients and teaching faculty/Residents, it is not possible for students of medicine to acquire excellence. Therefore, it is not possible for me to allow a set of students to first acquire a degree and thereafter prune their skills at the cost of their patients. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MPs are also dismissed.