Judgment Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Leave to amend prayer clause (d). Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally, in view of the urgency and as the matter is pertaining to the admission, affiliation and career of medical college students. 2. Petitioner No.1, a registered Public Charitable Trust, is running a Medical Collage in the name of Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College and General Hospital (Petitioner No.2) since 20072008 after fulfilling all requisite requirements in a prescribed standards as required by the Respondents. 3. Respondent No.1 is a Maharashtra University of Health Science Nashik, (for short, "MUHS") which is an examining body. Respondent No.2 is a State of Maharashtra having control over Respondent No.1 and 3. Respondent No.3 is a Directorate of Medical Education and Research, a competent authority for admission to under graduate and post graduate Health Science Courses i.e. MBBS, BDS, MD, MS, MDS etc. Respondent No.4 is a Medical Council of India (for short, "IMC") exercising its statutory functions and powers under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, IMC Act). 4. The Petitioners have challenged the inaction on the part of MUHS not approving the admissions of the students and not granting final affiliation to the new Post Graduate Degree Courses for the academic year 2013-2014. The challenge is also made to the inaction on the part of the State Government in non-issuing necessary Government Resolution granting its permission for starting 9 Post Graduate Degree Courses for the academic year 2013-2014. The challenge is also to the refusal by Respondent No.1 MUHS to accept the Application for extension and continuation of affiliation for the academic year 2014-2015. 5. It is necessary to note that the IMC has issued an amendment notification dated 3 November 2010 and thereby granted exemption to the medical colleges exempting them from the requirements of obtaining permission from the respective State Governments for introducing Post Graduate Courses in the concerned medical colleges which have had an approval by the State Government for conducting MBBS Courses. Such permission from the State Government was already granted to the Petitioners in the year 2007 under the provisions of Maharashtra University of Health Science (for short, “MUHS Act”). Such permission from the State Government was already granted to the Petitioners in the year 2007 under the provisions of Maharashtra University of Health Science (for short, “MUHS Act”). The issuance of amendment notification and exemption granted to the existing institution by the IMC, from obtaining permission of the State Government was within the knowledge of MUHS and therefore vide letter dated 29 November 2011, MUHS has duly communicated the aforesaid fact to the State Government. The MUHS constituted a Local Committee for inspection of the infrastructure available in the college, which visited the college and submitted its report. The MUHS permitted the Petitioners and granted provisional affiliation to start Post Graduate Courses in 12 subjects, subject to grant of permission by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi u/s. 10A of the IMC Act. 6. Thereafter, the Petitioners applied to IMC for the requisite permission for starting Post Graduate Courses in 12 subjects. After receipt of the Application the IMC deputed Assessment Committees to visit the college, to carry out inspection about availability of the necessary infrastructure and other requirements. The IMC issued the conditional LOP on 30 March 2013 for starting Post Graduate Degree Courses and directed the Petitioners to comply with the necessary requirements/directions. Accordingly, Petitioner No.2 on 6 April 2013 duly complied with the necessary requirements/directions and duly submitted their compliance to the IMC vide letter dated 6 April 2013. 7. After considering the compliance report submitted by the Petitioners, the IMC granted permission u/s 10A of the IMC Act to the Petitioner No.2 Medical College to start 9 Post Graduate Degree Courses with approved intake as given in letters dated 29 May 2013, 30 May 2013 and 17 June 2013. After receipt of the permission of the IMC, the Petitioners vide letter dated 15 May 2013 forwarded the copies of the letters of permission granted by the IMC and requested MUHS to immediately issue its affiliation so as to enable Petitioner No.2 College to start admission process in the respective Post Graduate Courses for the academic year 2013-2014. However, On 23 July 2013, the Petitioners were informed verbally that their request could not be considered until they receive the final permission/ Government Resolution/ Notification from the Department of Medical Education and Drugs Government of Maharashtra. However, On 23 July 2013, the Petitioners were informed verbally that their request could not be considered until they receive the final permission/ Government Resolution/ Notification from the Department of Medical Education and Drugs Government of Maharashtra. It is pertinent to note that in the said letter it was communicated to the MUHS regarding Application submitted by Petitioner No.2 college to the Respondent No.2 requesting for issuance of necessary Government Resolution and requested the University to issue final letter of Affiliation. 8. After receipt of the permission of the IMC, the Petitioners immediately vide letters dated 7 May 2013 and 20 June 2013 forwarded the copies of the letters of permission granted by the IMC and requested Respondent No.3 to immediately issue Government Resolution/permission and further requested to include the Post Graduate Courses with approved intake in Petitioner No.2 College in the centralized admission process. Being aggrieved by the grant of permission to less number of intake of Post Graduate seats in Petitioner No.2 college, Petitioners filed 3 Writ Petitions before the Supreme Court of India. After hearing the respective parties, the Supreme Court disposed of the matters on 30 July 2013. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Apex Court, IMC issued three letters of permission on 1 August 2013 and thereby granted its permission for additional seats in three Post Graduate subjects. Immediately after receipt of the aforesaid letters of permission from the IMC, the Petitioners again communicated those permission to Respondent No.3 and requested to include those additional seats in the centralized admission process conducted by the Directorate of Medical Education, State Government. On 19 July 2013, being adversely and prejudicially affected by the inaction of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 6414 of 2013. However, this Court declined to interim relief in their favour on the ground that in the said Petition the Petitioners have not specifically challenged the condition of obtaining permission of State Government. Being aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 6414 of 2013, the Petitioners preferred Special Leave Appeal in the Supreme Court and by order 7 August 2013, Supreme Court allowed the Petitioners to withdraw the Writ Petition No. 6414 of 2013, filed before this Court with liberty to file fresh Petition with proper prayers. Being aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 6414 of 2013, the Petitioners preferred Special Leave Appeal in the Supreme Court and by order 7 August 2013, Supreme Court allowed the Petitioners to withdraw the Writ Petition No. 6414 of 2013, filed before this Court with liberty to file fresh Petition with proper prayers. The Petitioners filed Interlocutory Application No. 3 of 2013 in pending Writ Petition No. 244 of 2013 seeking direction against the State Government, as well as, MUHS for allotting students and to start Post Graduate Courses. On 29 August 2013, the counsel appearing for the State Government made statement before the Supreme Court that he has instructions that the State will provide students for admission on 31 August 2013 to the seats in Post Graduate Courses, which are vacant in Sinhgad Technical Education Society. The Supreme Court disposed of the Interlocutory Application in view of the statement made by the counsel. State Government accepted that order and in compliance to said order dated 29 August 2013, immediately vide letter dated 30 August 2013 it was communicated that they have included three Post Graduate Courses in centralized counseling admission process and therein further specifically recorded/ mentioned that in respect of other 6 courses the Directorate of Medical Education, State of Maharashtra is not in position to allot any student to Petitioner No.2 college and permitted the College to admit student directly on merit basis. Accordingly, the entire admission process in respect of Post Graduate Courses was duly conducted by Petitioner No.2 College in pursuance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court on the basis of statement made by the State Government. 9. The Petitioners vide letters dated 31 July 2013 and 16 September 2013 requested the Respondent State to issue necessary Government Resolution as insisted by the MUHS so as to enable the Petitioner College to submit the same to the University and further requested University to immediately grant necessary final affiliation to Petitioner No.2 college so as to enable the College to submit further Applications of those students with regard to the eligibility etc. On 28 October 2013, as required under the provisions of MUHS Act, Petitioner No.2 has duly submitted its proposal for extension of affiliation and continuation of affiliation for the academic year 2014-2015 along with requisite fees, in anticipation of grant of final affiliation for the academic year 2013-2014 by the MUHS, Nashik, as there is absolutely no infirmity and/or impediment for the University to grant the same on the basis of peculiar circumstances of the case and more particularly the State Government has made a specific statement before the Supreme Court and State Government has itself allotted students and/or permitted Petitioner No.2 College to admit student directly, in pursuance of directions issued by the Supreme Court. The MUHS vide letter dated 11 November 2013 returned the proposal for extension of affiliation and continuation of affiliation for the year 2014-2015, of the Petitioners on the ground that the MUHS has not granted its final affiliation to new Post Graduate Courses in Petitioner No.2 college for the academic year 2013-2014. 10. It is relevant to note that apart from above facts and as there is no communication received, though the concerned Respondents are under obligation to decide the Application so made by the Petitioners within reasonable time, so that all the concerned can act and proceed before the beginning of relevant academic session. In the present case, 2013-2014 and also as the Petitioners have applied for academic session 2014-2015 to the IMC for the very same seats-it is well within the knowledge of all the parties that IMC is required to consider the same in accordance with law with their norms and take a decision before 31 January 2014. The Respondents though served, unable to submit and/or communicate any decision and/or reason for the denying/rejecting and/or not taking action on the pending Applications, as referred above, till this date, even since 21 November 2013, apart from earlier Petitions which were filed in July 2013. 11. The Respondents are expected to take decision as the Petitioners submitted/forwarded their Applications as the same are mere formality in view of the specific permission already granted by IMC referring to Section 64 and 65 of the MUHS Act and IMC Act also. 12. The situation in the matter is that for want of these formalities of the communication/consent/affiliation, the Petitioners are unable to proceed further with the Course. 12. The situation in the matter is that for want of these formalities of the communication/consent/affiliation, the Petitioners are unable to proceed further with the Course. Respondent IMC also threatened to take action of withdrawing the consent so granted for want of above consent/affiliation. The students, as already recorded, pursuance to the order of the Supreme Court, have already been provided by the State Government. Now the issue is also of the next batch of the students for the year 2014-2015. 13. The inspection if not carried out by IMC and the decision if not taken by 31 January 2014, the Petitioners, as well as, the students will suffer because of inaction and/or uncommunicated reasons of the Respondents State and MUHS. The Petitioners' submission and insistence for a decision at this stage, without waiting for reply affidavit and/or approval/consent on the representations/applications already filed, need to be accepted. The Writ Court, in such matters, cannot further delay in passing the order in the interest of justice, basically when the submission is based upon, apart from above admitted facts, a Division Bench Judgment Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati and Anr. Vs. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & Ors. ( 2012 (1) Mh.L.J. 799 )of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3888 of 2011 dated 4 October 2011, which as submitted, has attained finality, as the SLP against the same was dismissed on 9 April 2012. The point of law, however kept open as contended by the other side, in no way is sufficient to overlook the final decision given by the Division Bench in similarly situated matter like the Petitioners involving the same provisions of both the Acts and so also the procedure with regard to the State Government Resolution and the affiliation by the University, once the permission granted by the IMC to support the particular Post Graduate Course. There is no dispute that the IMC have already granted the necessary permission for the Post Graduate Courses in question. The finding and conclusion of the Division Bench binds all based upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court - i) Gujarat University Vs. Krishna Rangnath Mudholkar, ( AIR 1963 SC 703 ). ii) Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (1996 SC 2384). iii) Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Krishna Rangnath Mudholkar, ( AIR 1963 SC 703 ). ii) Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (1996 SC 2384). iii) Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State and Another, (2000) 5 SCC 231 ). iv) State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Other, (2006) 9 SCC 1 ). v) State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. Vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and Other, (1995) 4 SCC 104 ). 14. The relevant conclusion of the Division Bench in Para 13 and 15, in our view clinches the issue for the purpose of deciding the issue in the present Petition which read as under:- 13. In view of decision of the Supreme Court in case of Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and others (supra) the provisions of section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act override the provisions of section 64 and 65 to the extent they are contrary. As has been held in Sant Dnyaneshwar V/s. State of Maharashtra 2006(9) S.C. 1, the provisions of sections 64 and 65 will have to be held as not applicable in the present case. That means, once the permission has been granted by Indian Medical Council to start the particular post graduate course, the further resolution by the State Government as well as the affiliation by the University would be a mere formality and would not debar the college in admitting the students. 15. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (ii), however, to the extent and relating to those post graduate courses for which approval by the Medical Council under Section 10A of I.M.C. Act, 1956 has been granted.” 15. In the present case, the Respondents were fully aware of the decision of the Division Bench and its effect, including the clear observation that the Resolution of the State Government and affiliation of the University would be mere formality. The Petitioners, inspite of above judgment and observation to complete the formality and to avoid further delay made their representation and sought appropriate permission/ consent and also prayed for the necessary Resolution. There is no justification coming forward till this date. The importance of timely decision, just cannot be denied in such matter. The Petitioners, inspite of above judgment and observation to complete the formality and to avoid further delay made their representation and sought appropriate permission/ consent and also prayed for the necessary Resolution. There is no justification coming forward till this date. The importance of timely decision, just cannot be denied in such matter. In the situation where there is delay in communicating the decisions/consent/permissions and in view of the binding Division Bench judgment of this Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, also covers the law which are discussed in judgment ShriShivaji Education Society, Amravati and Anr. (Supra), we see, there is no reason now to wait for the approval and/or the affiliation, which the concerned Respondents are not communicating till this date. 16. There is no justification whatsoever, unless specific case made out by the Respondents of any fraud and/or misrepresentation, to discontinue and/or not to grant permission and/or approval so sought for. There is no such case even averred and/or made out. Therefore, we see there is no reason that the reliefs as prayed for by the Petitioners, should not be granted. 17. The submission is made by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents that, the Court may consider the legal issue also, however, in the present case, at such late stage, we should not overlook the Division Bench Judgment (Supra) based upon the similar facts and circumstances and to wait and/or decide the issue which has attained finality till this date since the date of the Judgment i.e. 4 October 2011 and also for the fact that no contesting Respondents have challenged the same further. This in no way can be the reason to refuse the prayers and deny the reliefs to the Petitioners. We are inclined to observe that the decision given by the Division Bench in ShriShivaji Education Society (Supra) itself is sufficient to grant the relief as prayed for. The Respondent MUHS also in view of above judgment, cannot insist for the NOC from the State Government, while considering the Application for affiliation. The State Government themselves proceeded in respect of the Petitioners college on the basis of the permission granted by the IMC. The Respondent MUHS also in view of above judgment, cannot insist for the NOC from the State Government, while considering the Application for affiliation. The State Government themselves proceeded in respect of the Petitioners college on the basis of the permission granted by the IMC. Once mandatory permission from the IMC, as recorded above, has already been obtained, the formality part of permission and/or Resolution of the State Government for grant of affiliation, cannot be stated to be mandatory condition, as sought to be contended by the concerned Authorities while denying the relief/rejecting the proposals given by the Petitioners. The Respondents have themselves failed to take action within reasonable time, cannot be permitted to deny the entitlement to the Petitioners, once the mandatory permissions from the IMC have been obtained. Therefore, this Court in the present facts and circumstances, is inclined to direct final affiliation to the New Post Graduate Courses in medicines with approved intake to Petitioner No.2 College for year 2013-2014 and further grant for extension and continuation of affiliation for the year 2014-2015 forthwith, as the same are interconnected and interlinked, however subject to requisite conditions, if any, in accordance with law. 18. For the above reasons, we are inclined to allow this Petition in terms of prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d). The concerned Respondents to comply with this order forthwith and definitely by 13 January 2014. 19. It is made clear that Respondent No.1-MUHS to consider the Application dated 28 October 2013 filed by the Petitioners and pass the order without insisting for fresh Application, in view of the order passed today. 20. The Petition is accordingly partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. The parties to act on the basis of authenticated copy of this Order.