Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1085 (KAR)

Shridevi Charitable Trust (R) v. Union of India

2015-09-10

G.NARENDRA, N.KUMAR

body2015
ORDER : N. Kumar, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the Communication dated 15.06.2015 issued by the 1st respondent as per Annexure-"G" not to admit any students in 3rd batch of MBBS Course at the petitioners institution for the Academic Year 2015-16. Similarly, they want the Communication dated 11.05.2015 of respondent No. 2-MCI as per Annexure-"E" recommending for disapproval of the petitioners' scheme for renewal of the permission and for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' scheme for renewal of permission for 3rd batch of MBBS Course and for other consequential reliefs. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Trust, formed with the object of rendering various Educational and Charitable services by promoting education, providing medical relief, etc. In pursuance of the said objectives, the 1st petitioner has established the 2nd petitioner, a medical college, which offered multi-speciality tertiary care and a super specialty hospital for the purpose of teaching MBBS Graduate students, in addition to catering to the health needs of the general public. The 2nd petitioner was established pursuance to the grant of permission dated 13.07.2013, by the MCI for running a Medical College with an annual intake of 150 students. Thee permission was renewed for the Academic Year 2014-15 by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application for renewal of the permission for the 3rd batch, i.e., for the Academic Year 2015-16, which was referred to the MCI., which got caused an assessment of the physical and other teaching facilities available for renewal of permission by conduct of an Inspection on 12th - 13th January, 2015. The MCI Visitors/Inspectors reported certain deficiencies and submitted the same to the MCI. The MCI in turn forwarded the said report to the Central Government with a recommendation not to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of permission for the Academic Year 2015-16. The Central Government on receipt of the recommendations of the MCI., addressed a letter to the petitioners dated 04.03.2015 informing them that the MCI recommended for disapproval of their under-graduate Scheme for the Academic Year 2015-16. The Central Government on receipt of the recommendations of the MCI., addressed a letter to the petitioners dated 04.03.2015 informing them that the MCI recommended for disapproval of their under-graduate Scheme for the Academic Year 2015-16. In pursuance of the provisions contained in Scheme 10(A)(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, they decided to grant a hearing on 12.03.2015 at 10.00 a.m. by the Hearing Committee, constituted for the said purpose, in Room No. 151, "A" Wing, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi. The petitioners were requested to appear in person or to depute an authorized representative to present the case of their college vis-a-vis the rejection letter of the MCI along with the requisite recommendations in the enclosed format on the specified date and time, failing which, the Scheme would be decided ex-parte. They were also called upon to bring two hard copies and one soft copy in MS Word document of the attached format. On receipt of the said notice, by letter dated 11.03.2015, the petitioners wrote back informing the Central Government that they have authorized Dr. Raman M.Hulinayakar, Nodal Officer to represent their case on 12.03.2015 before the Committee. The petitioners appeared before the Central Government and submitted a compliance report. The Committee, after considering the said compliance report and after hearing the petitioners, addressed a letter to the MCI on 24.03.2015 stating that they have given a personal hearing to the authorized representatives of the Medical Colleges/applicants on 11th, 12th and 13th March, 2015. Based on the compliance report submitted by the colleges concerned in support of their claim, the Committee has recommended for review of the assessment of the following schemes of the MCI. The compliance report, submitted by the colleges concerned, in originals along with the recommendations of the Committee and its observations was also sent. The petitioners' college is noted at Sl. No. 19 and the recommendation by the Committee was to review by MCI. Thereafter, the MCI has declined to review as directed by the Central Government. The reason for not reviewing as directed by the Central Government, is clearly set out in their letter dated 11.05.2015, which is extracted in full as under: "MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Pocket-14, Sector-8 Dwarka Phase-1 New Delhi-110 077. No. MCI-34-[41][R-38]/2014-Med/106503 Date: 11/5/2015 The Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011. The reason for not reviewing as directed by the Central Government, is clearly set out in their letter dated 11.05.2015, which is extracted in full as under: "MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Pocket-14, Sector-8 Dwarka Phase-1 New Delhi-110 077. No. MCI-34-[41][R-38]/2014-Med/106503 Date: 11/5/2015 The Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011. Sub Renewal of permission for MBBS course for 3rd batch [150 seats] of Shridevi Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Hospital, Tumkur, Karnataka under Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore u/s 10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2015-2016. Sir, Please refer to your letter No. U. 12012/1057/2015-ME[P-II] [Part-I] dated 24.03.2015, on the subject noted above. I am directed to inform you that the matter with regard to grant of renewal of permission for MBBS course for 3rd batch [150 seats] of Shridevi Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Hospital, Tumkur, Karnataka under Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore u/s 10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2015-2016 was re-considered by the Executive Committee of the Council at its meeting held on 29/04/2015 and it was decided as under:- "the Executive Committee of the Council observed that at its meeting dated: 10/02/2015, the Executive Committee had decided as under: "the Executive Committee of the Council considered the Council Assessors report [12th & 13th January 2015] and noted the following:- 1. Deficiency of faculty is 37.23% as detailed in report. 2. Shortage of Residents is 69.56% as detailed in the report. All Residents are not staying in the campus. 3. Residents' Hostel: It is under construction. 4. Nurses' Hostel: It is under construction. 5. Residential Quarters: No residential quarters are available for faculty and non-teaching staff. 6. Bed Occupancy is 55% on day of assessment. 7. There was no normal delivery & only 1 caesarean section on day of assessment. 8. Workload of special Radiological investigations like Ba, IVP is NIL on day of the assessment. 9. Histopathology workload is NIL. 10. ICUs: There was only 1 patient each in ICCU, MICU, NICU/PICU and only 2 patients in SICU on day of assessment. 11. ETO Sterilizer is not available. 12. RHTC: It is not under control of Dean which is not as per Regulations. 13. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report. 9. Histopathology workload is NIL. 10. ICUs: There was only 1 patient each in ICCU, MICU, NICU/PICU and only 2 patients in SICU on day of assessment. 11. ETO Sterilizer is not available. 12. RHTC: It is not under control of Dean which is not as per Regulations. 13. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report. In view of the above, the Executive Committee of the Council decided to recommend to the Central Govt. not to renew the permission for admission of 3rd batch [150 seats] of Shridevi Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Hospital, Tumkur, Karnataka under Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore u/s10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2015-2016. It was further decided to apply clause 8(3)(1)(a) of Establishment of Medical College Regulation (Amendment), 2010 [Part-II], dated 16th April, 2010 which read as under:- "8(3)(1).... (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". The committee further observed that the Central Govt. vide its communication dated:24.3.2015 has requested the Council to review/assess the scheme in the light of the documents submitted by the college/applicants in compliance and recommendations of the Committee with request to take necessary action[s] for review and furnish its recommendations accordingly to the Ministry. The Executive Committee of the Council perused the legal opinion of the Ld. Addl. Solicitor General of India and decided to accept it, which reads as under:- "The querist MCI as sought my opinion on the interpretation of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), 8(3)(1)(b) and 8(3)(1)(c) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. My opinion has been sought on the following issues:- "1. Whether the Council should process the applications of the medical college for renewal of permission for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic session 2015-16 wherein the Council has invoked Regulations 8(3)(1)(a), 8(3)(1)(b) and 8(3)(1)(c) of Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999. 2. My opinion has been sought on the following issues:- "1. Whether the Council should process the applications of the medical college for renewal of permission for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic session 2015-16 wherein the Council has invoked Regulations 8(3)(1)(a), 8(3)(1)(b) and 8(3)(1)(c) of Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999. 2. Whether the Council while applying Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) of Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999 can deny recognition of the MBBS degree granted by medical colleges for the students who have already completed their MBBS course or whether the same will be applicable while considering the case of a medical college for grant of renewal of permission for 5th batch of MBBS students." I have gone through the Note for Opinion forwarded by the querist and have also discussed the matter for the querist. The amendment notification dated 16.4.2010 inserting Clause 8(3)1 made it amply clear that the Central Govt. may at any stage convey the deficiencies found during the inspection of the applicant-medical college and provide them an opportunity to rectify the same. However, in case of renewal of permission at different stages, in case the deficiencies with regard to teaching faculty and bed occupancy are found in the medical college above the percentage provided in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), 8(3)(1)(b) and 8(3)(1)(c) respectively of the Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999, the application of the medical colleges cannot be processed further since, considering the fundamental nature of the deficiencies in clause 8 the rectification is not statutorily contemplated. In such cases there is no provision to grant any time to the medical college for rectification of the deficiencies as the same cannot be rectified within a short span of time. The relevant portion of the above Regulation are reproduced as under:- "........ (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. 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......" I am informed that the assessment of MCI is carried out by the assessors who are Professors of eminence and high integrity belonging to various Govt. Medical Colleges of the Country and the assessment report is also acknowledged by the Dean/Principal of the concerned medical college. The truthfulness and veracity of the contents of the report which incorporates factual findings, therefore, cannot be doubted, since, it is done by independent persons in the presence of the Dean/Principal of the concerned medical college. Medical Colleges of the Country and the assessment report is also acknowledged by the Dean/Principal of the concerned medical college. The truthfulness and veracity of the contents of the report which incorporates factual findings, therefore, cannot be doubted, since, it is done by independent persons in the presence of the Dean/Principal of the concerned medical college. The medical college is statutorily required to maintain minimum academic standards for the benefits of the medical education and the students so as to ensure that the MBBS students get best of teaching and training. The above Regulations are required to be and were notified with the prior approval of the Central Govt. to ensure that each medical college maintains atleast a minimum teaching faculty, infrastructure, clinical material and other physical facilities in their medical colleges. The Regulations framed by the querist are statutory in nature and hence the Council as well as the Central Govt. is bound to follow the same in letter and spirit. I am of the considered opinion that in cases of the medical colleges wherein the Council has invoked Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), 8(3)(1)(b) and 8(3)(1)(c) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999, after an inspection by the MCI assessors, there is no statutory provision either under the Acts or under the Regulations authorizing the querist to process the same further. As far as the second question is concerned, I am of the opinion that the applicability of Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999 while considering the case of a medical college for grant of recognition of MBBS degree will directly affect the MBBS students who have already completed their MBBS course/studies. The language in Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, clearly provides that in case the institute fails to provide minimum teaching faculty and bed occupancy, the institute shall not be considered for renewal of permission. The statutory scheme does not however bar an institute to be considered for the purpose of recognition of MBBS degree of the students who have successfully completed the course. Any such action on part of the querist will be too harsh on such students who have already completed their studies and had/have no control over either the college, the querist or the Central Govt..." In view of above and legal opinion of ld. Any such action on part of the querist will be too harsh on such students who have already completed their studies and had/have no control over either the college, the querist or the Central Govt..." In view of above and legal opinion of ld. Additional solicitor General of India and upon application of clause 8(3)(1)(a) of Establishment of Medical College Regulations [Amendment], 2010 [Part-II], dated 16th April, 2010, the Executive Committee of the Council decided to reiterate its earlier decision to recommend to the Central Govt. not to renew the permission for admission of 3rd batch [150 seats] of Shridevi Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Hospital, Tumkur, Karnataka under Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore u/s 10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2015-2016. Yours faithfully, Sd/- [S. Savitha] Section Officer" 3. Thereafter, on 22.05.2015, the Central Government addressed a letter to the MCI stating that in view of the recommendations for disapproval of about 57 cases of renewal permission, which includes 18 Government Colleges, some State Governments have requested the Ministry for recommendation of their case in view of their undertaking furnished and rectification of deficiencies as pointed out in the MCI inspection. In some other cases, MCI may not have been able to carry out compliance verification due to paucity of time. Since the last date for MCI to make recommendations to the Central Government for Academic Year 2015-16 was 15.05.2015 and for the Central Government to issue permission on 15.06.2015 in terms of time schedule being presently followed, they suggested that the MCI should approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court to get order for extending the time lines by one month to enable the MCI to reconsider some of its recommendation for the Academic Year 2015-16. This will enable MCI to make its recommendations by 15.06.2015 and for the Central Government to issue permissions by 15.07.2015. Thereafter, they addressed a Communication dated 15.06.2015 to the 2nd petitioner College informing that they have accepted the recommendations of the MCI dated 11.05.2015 not to renew the permission for the students of 3rd batch of MBBS course at their institution and therefore, they called upon the petitioners not to admit any students in the 3rd batch of MBBS Course. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions. 4. After service of notice, the MCI has entered appearance and have filed a detailed counter. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions. 4. After service of notice, the MCI has entered appearance and have filed a detailed counter. In the counter, they have set-out the visit of the Committee to the College, the deficiency they have noted, the Constitution of the MCI under the statute, the relevant provisions of the same, the Regulations passed under the Act and after referring to several Judgments of the Apex Court referable to the point, have reiterated what they have stated in their letter dated 11.05.2015, Annexure-"E" which is impugned in these writ petitions. They contended that the Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) bar any consideration of their case for this Academic Year. This is to prevent sub-standard education and also to ensure that the college takes it seriously for the next Academic Year. Therefore, the Central Government letter dated 22.05.2015 pertaining to extension of time to carry-out verification of the compliance and to pass orders will not apply in the instant case. The Central Government has accepted their stand and issued a letter dated 15.06.2015 refusing renewal to the petitioners. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. No statement of objections was filed on behalf of the Central Government. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Sri. Madhusudan R. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) does not either expressly or by necessary implication bar the MCI or the Central Government from reviewing the recommendations made. Earlier regulation 8(3)(1) expressly provides the Central Government may at any stage convey the deficiencies to the applicants and provide them an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies. The proviso to the said regulation cannot be read so as to nullify the main provision. They have to be read harmoniously. If so read, once the MCI has made the recommendations pointing out the deficiencies, as set out in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), and if the said deficiency persists after verification certainly institution will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year. However, a discretion is vested with the Central Government to provide an opportunity to the applicant to rectify the deficiency and if the deficiency is rectified, it has the power to renew the permission for the Academic Year itself. However, a discretion is vested with the Central Government to provide an opportunity to the applicant to rectify the deficiency and if the deficiency is rectified, it has the power to renew the permission for the Academic Year itself. The MCI has committed a serious error in not properly understanding the legislative intent and they have relied on the opinion given by the Solicitor General of India, which runs counter to the statutory provisions and the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, he submits that the impugned order requires to be set aside. 8. Per contra, Sri N. Khetty, learned counsel appearing for the MCI submitted that Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) is a statutory bar for reconsideration of the report by the MCI. Notwithstanding the fact that the Central Government directed them to review the earlier order their stand is based on the legal opinion rendered by the learned Solicitor General of India and therefore, he submits that no fault could be found with their plea. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Central Government Smt. Manjula R. Kamadolli submitted that in the facts of the case, when the MCI has refused to review its recommendations, the Court may direct the Central Government to get the verification of the compliance report submitted by the petitioners by any other agency, so that ultimately, the Central Government can act on such a report. 10. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration in these writ petitions is; Whether Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of the Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 acts as a statutory bar either for the MCI or for the Central Government to review the recommendation made by the MCI on the basis of the report pointing out the deficiency, if those deficiencies are removed well in time? 11. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 10A read with Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the MCI, with the previous sanction of the Central Government has made a Regulation, which are called as Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. 11. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 10A read with Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the MCI, with the previous sanction of the Central Government has made a Regulation, which are called as Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. Regulation 8 speaks of the grant of permission, which reads as under: "(1) The Central Government on the recommendation of the Council may issue a Letter of Intent to set up a new medical college with such conditions or modifications in the original proposal as may be considered necessary. This letter of Intent will also include a clear cut statement of preliminary requirements to be met in respect of buildings, infrastructural facilities, medical and allied equipments, faculty and staff before admitting the first batch of students. The formal permission may be granted after the above conditions and modifications are accepted and the performance bank guarantees for the required sums are furnished by the person and after consulting the Medical Council of India. (2) The formal permission may include a time bound programme for the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities. The permission may also define annual targets as may be fixed by the Council to be achieved by the person to commensurate with the intake of students during the following years." (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 achievement 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 admission 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." 12. Sub-Section (1) deals with issue of a Letter of Intent for establishment of a new Medical College. Further admission 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." 12. Sub-Section (1) deals with issue of a Letter of Intent for establishment of a new Medical College. Sub-Section (2) provides for time bound programme setting out annual targets which has to be complied with by the colleges. Sub-Section (3)(1) which was inserted on 16.04.2010, provides that 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 provides for a time frame within which certain application has to be filed and it categorically states that admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. It also cast an obligation on the Central Government to convey the deficiencies to the applicant if it is pointed out by the MCI and provide an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies. 13. Therefore, the recommendations of the MCI to the Central Government is not final. If the MCI recommends for grant of permission, probably the Central Government rarely refused to accept the recommendations and grant the permission. On the other hand if the College has not complied with the scheme and there are deficiencies as pointed out in the report, an obligation is cast on the Central Government coupled with power to convey the deficiencies to the applicants and providing an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies. Once the deficiencies are rectified, the Central Government is the authority, which is empowered to grant renewal of permission to such Colleges. The proviso to the said Regulation deals with how these renewal of permission to be considered in the case of 2nd renewal, 3rd renewal and also in respect of Colleges, which are already recognized for an award of MBBS Decree Course. The proviso to the said Regulation deals with how these renewal of permission to be considered in the case of 2nd renewal, 3rd renewal and also in respect of Colleges, which are already recognized for an award of MBBS Decree Course. In these cases, we are concerned with the 1st proviso, which reads as under: "(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." 14. The said proviso makes it clear if in the report submitted by the MCI, it is pointed out that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is <60%, then it is well within the power of the Central Government to accept the said report and such institute will not be considered for renewal of the permission in that Academic Year. This is not a provision, which confers any power to the MCI to say that it will not obey the directions of the Central Government, decline to verify the compliance report or decline to review its report. This proviso do not prevent the MCI from reviewing its recommendations. It is not a statutory bar as contended by the MCI. This is a proviso to the main Regulation. Therefore, the main Regulation confers a discretion on the Central Government either to accept the report or refuse to consider the case of the College for renewal of permission or may convey the deficiencies to the applicants and providing an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies. In fact, after Regulation 8, an express provision for reconsideration is made, which reads as under: "Reconsideration: Whenever 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." 15. This provision empowers the Central Government to issue a direction even at the initial stage when the Council has not recommended for Letter of Intent. The Council shall, thereafter, submit its report in the same manner as prescribed for the initial report." 15. This provision empowers the Central Government to issue a direction even at the initial stage when the Council has not recommended for Letter of Intent. Therefore, it follows when the MCI has recommended for issue of Letter of Intent on that basis permission is granted to start a College and already permission is granted for the 1st and 2nd batches in the college. When they make an application for 2nd renewal i.e., admission for 3rd batch, if the Central Government on being satisfied with the compliance report submitted by the colleges in pursuance of the notice issued to them by the Central Government calls upon the MCI to review, Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) would not be a statutory bar for the MCI to perform its duties under the Act and Regulation. Therefore, the interpretation that the MCI is trying to place based on the advise of the Solicitor General of India on Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) runs counter to the express words contained in the said Regulation. In this context, it is necessary to point out various Judgments rendered by the Apex Court interpreting the Act and the Regulations. This Court had an occasion to consider the same in the case of Rajarajeshwari Medical College and Hospital Vs. Union of India and Others in W.P. No. 28614/2015 decided on 27.08.2015, where we have relied on the said decisions. The same is extracted as under:- "12.......In fact, in a recent judgment of the Apex Court, after reviewing the entire case law and after referring to various judgments of the Apex Court in the case of ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGISTERED) AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER the law on the point has been summarized. 13. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has affirmed the law declared in SWAMI DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL AND DENTAL COLLEGE vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ (2014) 13 SCC 506 ] rejecting the interpretation placed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that Section 10-A of the Act only deals with permission for establishment of new dental colleges, new course of studies, etc., but it did not apply to the case of renewal of such permission as well. Thereafter, the Apex Court proceeded to hold that, "13. Thereafter, the Apex Court proceeded to hold that, "13. the procedure prescribed in Section 10-A contains the requirement of following this principle of natural justice at two stages. In the first place, by DCI when it finds deficiencies while examining the school in the second stage at the level of the Central Government before it passes away adverse orders, as it is the final administrative authority vested with powers to pass such an order. The law, thus, specifically requires that at the stage of a decision by the Central Government, again an opportunity of being heard is to be provided. This proviso, thus, acknowledges the need of and confers a very valuable right in favour of the petitioner". 14. In the aforesaid case, referring to the judgment in the case of Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [(2008) 14 SCC 151 where it was held at para 19 as under:- "19. Thus, it is trite that unless a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of principles of natural justice, because in that event the court would not ignore the legislative mandate, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences for the party affected. The principle will hold good irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial" Thereafter, they proceeded to hold that, "15.....even in the absence of specific provisions of giving hearing, the hearing is required in such cases unless specifically excluded by a statutory provision. In such a situation the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 10-A has to be liberally construed to encompass the cases of renewal of permission as well". 15. In fact, in the Royal Medical Education Trust's case, the learned senior counsel appearing for MCI fairly submitted that, in view of sub-section (4) of Section 10A of the Act, before any disapproval of Scheme was recorded, reasonable opportunity ought to have been given and that such opportunity is available even in Renewal Cases in Category III. In the aforesaid Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital's case, the expression "opportunity of being heard" is explained which is accepted by the Apex Court in the Royal Medical Education Trust's case also. Para 22.3 reads as under:- "22.3. In the aforesaid Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital's case, the expression "opportunity of being heard" is explained which is accepted by the Apex Court in the Royal Medical Education Trust's case also. Para 22.3 reads as under:- "22.3. The expression "opportunity of being heard" occurring in this proviso would mean that the material that goes against the applicant and is to be taken into consideration, is to be supplied to the applicant within an opportunity to make representation. For this purpose either the report of DCI itself can be supplied or at least the deficiencies pointed out in the report have to be communicated by the Central Government to the applicant with an opportunity to furnish its comments thereupon. At that stage while giving its reply, if the applicant claims personal hearing, such a personal hearing should also be accorded." Thereafter, at para 25 dealing with renewal cases it was held as under:- "25. As regards cases of renewal, it was laid down in Priyadarshini that the process of decision making for grant of fresh or initial permission for establishment of a new college is exhaustive and elaborate when compared to such decision making in regard to grant of renewal of permission for the four subsequent years. It was further stated that before grant of initial permission the aspects whether the institution would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of education in conformity with the Act and Regulations and whether the institution has adequate resources and whether the institution has provided or will be able to provide within the time limit specified in the Scheme all the required facilities and faculty are required to be considered and scrutinized very closely. On the other hand for the purposes of grant of renewal what is required to be considered is whether the prescribed faculty and infrastructure is available. Considering renewal cases on a parameter distinct and different from that relating to establishment of a new college for the first time, it was observed that the entire process of verification and inspection relating to renewal ought to be done well in time so that the existing colleges have adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies or offer explanation to the deficiencies." They have proceeded to hold that, "27. The MCI and the Central Government have been vested with monitoring powers under Section 10A and the Regulations. The MCI and the Central Government have been vested with monitoring powers under Section 10A and the Regulations. It is expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well within the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule to the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part of non-observance of the time Schedule, it is bound to have adverse effect on all concerned. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India shows that though the number of seats had risen, obviously because of permissions granted for establishment of new colleges, because of disapproval of renewal cases the resultant effect was net loss in terms of number of seats available for the academic year. It thus not only caused loss of opportunity to the students community but at the same time caused loss to the society in terms of less number of doctors being available. The MCI and the Central Government must therefore show due diligence right from the day when the applications are received". 16. The Supreme Court held, the Schedule giving various stages and time limits must accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time must comply with the requirements of observance of natural justice at various levels. Then, they have discussed the various stages which are provided in the Schedule. According to the schedule in the case of renewal of permission in existing Medical College by the Central Government under the Medical Council of India, 30th September is prescribed as the last date for seeking renewal to the MCI. On such application by 31st January, the Medical Council has to inspect and communicate the deficiency, if any, to the College. The Central Government has to hear the college under Section 10A(4) between the 1st to 20th February. 28th February is fixed as the last date for compliance where compliance verification is required. 15th May is the last date prescribed for issuance of letter of permission or not to grant renewal of permission. If the Central Government decides to issue the letter of permission, it should be done by 15th June. Now so far as possible, this time schedule has to be adhered to. 15th May is the last date prescribed for issuance of letter of permission or not to grant renewal of permission. If the Central Government decides to issue the letter of permission, it should be done by 15th June. Now so far as possible, this time schedule has to be adhered to. The said schedule is modified by insertion of a note to the following effect: The admission schedule indicated above may be modified by the Central Government for reasons to be recorded in writing in respect of class or category of applicants. 17. This note probably became necessary in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Priya Gupta's case where a direction was given that the schedule to the regulations must be strictly and scrupulously observed. Subsequent to the said decision, the regulation stood amended incorporating the above note empowering the Central Government to modify the status and time limits to the schedule to the Regulations. Therefore, the Central Government is thus statutorily empowered to modify the schedule in respect of class or category of applicants for reasons to be recorded in writing. Because of subsequent amendment and incorporation of the note, as aforesaid, the matter is now required to be seen in the light of and in accordance with Priya Gupta's case where a similar note was considered by the Apex Court. Therefore, they proceeded to hold that the directions in Priya Gupta's case must now be understood in the light of the statutory empowerment and they declared that it is open to the Central Government in terms of the note to extend or modify the time limits in the schedule to the regulations. However, it was made clear that the dead line namely 30th September for making admissions to the First MBBS course as laid down by the Apex Court in Madhu Singh's case is always to be observed. 18. From the aforesaid judgment, now it is clear that the admissions to First MBBS course has to be done before 30th September. However, the time schedule prescribed in the schedule can be modified for reasons to be recorded in writing by the Central Government. xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx 25. 18. From the aforesaid judgment, now it is clear that the admissions to First MBBS course has to be done before 30th September. However, the time schedule prescribed in the schedule can be modified for reasons to be recorded in writing by the Central Government. xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx 25. In this context it is useful to refer to the observation made by the Apex Court in Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital v. Union of India [ (2011) 4 SCC 623 ], wherein it was observed that, applicants for renewal were existing dental colleges, which were functioning for three or four years and each college had admitted hundreds of students either directly or through the state Government allotment. The colleges had the benefit of initial permission and several renewals of permission. Refusal of renewal of permission in such cases should not be abrupt nor for insignificant or technical violations. Nor should such applications be dealt in a casual manner, by either granting less than a week for setting right the 'deficiencies' or not granting an effective hearing before refusal. The entire process of verification and inspection relating to renewal of permission should be done well in time, so that such existing colleges have adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies or offer explanations to the deficiencies. The object of providing for annual renewal of permissions for four years, is to ensure that the infrastructural and faculty requirements are fulfilled in a gradual manner and not to cause disruption. The need for renewal of permission emanates from the fact that a newly established college is not required to have in place, full complement of the teaching faculty and complete infrastructure in the first year itself This is because, during the first year, the college will be catering only to a limited number of first year students. During the second, third and fourth and fifth years, the student strength will increase and every year correspondingly the infrastructure and faculty will have to be increased. 26. During the second, third and fourth and fifth years, the student strength will increase and every year correspondingly the infrastructure and faculty will have to be increased. 26. The Apex Court in the case of Al-Karim Educational Trust v. State of Bihar [(1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 330], at paragraph No. 11 has observed that, it is impractical to insist, for a fool proof or absolute adherence to all requirements without regard to their importance or relevance, for the purpose of imparting education, in a practical way, especially because the institution has begun to function, students admitted to institution have taken the examination and the fate of a good many number of students should not hang in the balance in an unending or everlasting manner. The question to be posed, is whether there exists the minimal and satisfactory requirements to keep the matter going, and not whether better arrangements that will render the set up more efficient and more satisfactory, should be insisted as "a wooden" rule. It may be that there are some minor deficiencies here and there which call for rectification. Time can certainly set right such matters. What is required is a total, practical, overall view and not literal compliance with the deficiencies pointed out. Finally, in paragraph No. 12 it is observed that, the totality of the circumstances disclosed in the said case and having regard to the fact that at each stage new deficiencies are being pointed out and they were satisfied beyond any manner of doubt, that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with and minor deficiencies pointed out in the last mentioned report are not such as to permit withholding of the affiliation to which the appellants' institution is entitled, from the manner in which the deficiencies have been pointed out from time to time, each time the old deficiencies are shown to have been removed, new deficiencies are shown, gives the impression that the affiliation is unnecessarily delayed. Once the institution feels secure on the question of affiliation, we have no doubt that these minor deficiencies, if they exist, shall be taken care of by those in charge of the institution. For taking such further steps, the grant of affiliation need not wait. Therefore, the deficiencies which come in the way of renewal are of such a nature which are fundamental and even minimum requirements are not satisfied...." 16. For taking such further steps, the grant of affiliation need not wait. Therefore, the deficiencies which come in the way of renewal are of such a nature which are fundamental and even minimum requirements are not satisfied...." 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the stand of the Central Government as well as the MCI as reflected in the Communication dated 15.06.2015 [Annexure-"G"] is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. 17. In view of the fact that the MCI is declining to review its earlier order and to find out whether the compliance report submitted by the petitioners removes the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI in the earlier report, it is open to the Central Government to call upon them to review their earlier decision in the light of the compliance report or send the report of the MCI and the compliance report furnished by the petitioners to any other independent agency such as the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Karnataka as was done in other cases and find out whether the petitioners have removed the deficiencies pointed out in the report of the MCI and whether their case could be considered for grant of renewal of permission for the Academic Year 2015-16. Such exercise shall be done on or before 23.09.2015 as the last date prescribed for admission of the students to the undergraduate Course of the MBBS as per the Schedule is 30.09.2015. 18. In the event of the Central Government grants renewal of permission for admission to the undergraduate MBBS Course for the Academic Year 2015-16, the appropriate authority constituted for admission shall take note of the order and include the second petitioner College also in the seat matrix so that enable deserving students will get the seat. No costs.