JUDGMENT : Per Virender Singh, C.J.: 1. The appellant-writ petitioner (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the petitioner-trust') through the medium W.P.(C) No.900 of 2015, challenged the order dated 18.02.2015, whereby the application dated 31.01.2015, submitted by the petitioner-trust for establishing a new medical college was returned. It stands dismissed, vide impugned order dated 09.03.2015, aggrieved thereof, the petitioner-trust has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal, in which, Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned ASGI has put his appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. We do not feel the necessity of issuing notice to the respondent no.3 as the grievance projected by the petitioner-trust is against the respondent No.2 only. The instant appeal is at admission stage, but, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the sides, we have taken it on Board for its final disposal. 3. For establishing Swawlambi Medical College at Hazaribagh, the petitioner-trust submitted a proposal/ scheme before the respondent-Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 22.08.2014, which was returned on 15.10.2014 on the ground that the consent for affiliation issued by the respondent Vinoba Bhave University was not in a proper format. There was defect with regard to essentiality certificate also. The petitioner-trust, thereafter, approached the writ Court through W.P.(C) No.6590 of 2014 and it is, thereafter, on the direction of the Court, the University issued the consent for affiliation in a proper format. The petitioner-trust, thereafter, submitted the proposal along with a fresh consent for affiliation on 31.01.2015, but, the same was returned vide order /correspondence dated 18.02.2015 on the ground that the last date for receipt of application was 31.08.2014. This gave the cause to the petitioner-trust to knock at the door of the writ Court, interalia, on the ground that under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the MCI Act'), the respondent Ministry of Health and Family Welfare could not point out any defect in the scheme and it is only the Medical Council of India (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the MCI'), who could evaluate and recommend the scheme. It was further the case of the petitioner-trust that before rejecting the application, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was required, under the law, to give an opportunity of hearing, which, admittedly, was not given in the present case. It was further the case of the petitioner-trust that before rejecting the application, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was required, under the law, to give an opportunity of hearing, which, admittedly, was not given in the present case. Thus, the order contained in the letter dated 18.02.2015 was liable to be quashed. 4. The learned writ Court, finding no substance in the case of the petitioner-trust, dismissed the writ petition holding that the time schedule prescribed in the Regulation itself are to be adhered to, and admittedly, in the present case, when for the second time the proposal was submitted, which was initially found to be defective as the consent for affiliation was not in proper format, the last date for receipt of application was already over. 5. Mr. Sidhartha Ranjan, appearing for the petitioner-trust, once again contended that according to the Regulations, as amended up to date, it is after the entire evaluation is done by the MCI, after conducting the necessary physical inspection, etc., the report is submitted by it to Central Government for issuance of Letter of Intent to set up a new college. But, the scheme, which is in the shape of an application, initially submitted is not to be cross-checked by the Central Government and its job is to just register the scheme only and forward it to the MCI for further evaluation and recommendation. Learned counsel wanted to impress upon that the job of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is more or less of a postman and not beyond that. 6. We are not convinced with the submissions advanced by Mr. Sidhartha Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-trust. 7. It is relevant to have revisit to the relevant provisions of Section 10A of the M.C.I. Act. 8. Sub-Section (2) and Sub-Section (3) of Section 10A of the MCI Act provides for the procedure for submission of the scheme/ application for such permission and processing of the same by the Central Government and the MCI. Section 10A of the MCI Act, to that extent, may be reproduced hereunder for ready reference. “10A. Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study etc. Section 10A of the MCI Act, to that extent, may be reproduced hereunder for ready reference. “10A. Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study etc. (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) (a) Every person or medical college shall, for the purpose of obtaining permission under sub-section (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. xxx xxx xxx” 9. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10A read with Section 33 of the MCI Act, the Medical Council of India made the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 which deal with the procedure for making the application seeking permission to establish a medical college and the processing of the same. The said Regulations inter alia prescribed the Form and particulars to be contained in the scheme/ application referred to in Section 10A (2) (a) of the MCI Act. The scheme/ application for obtaining permission to establish a new medical college shall be in Form I annexed to the Regulations. Further, under Clause (3), it is mandatory to submit the applications to the Central Government from 01st August to 31st August (both days inclusive) of any year. It is also relevant to refer to the qualifying criteria prescribed under the Regulations and the same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: 2. Further, under Clause (3), it is mandatory to submit the applications to the Central Government from 01st August to 31st August (both days inclusive) of any year. It is also relevant to refer to the qualifying criteria prescribed under the Regulations and the same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: 2. QUALIFYING CRITERIA- The eligible persons shall qualify to apply for permission to establish a medical college if the following conditions are fulfilled:- 1. that medical education is one of the objectives of the applicant in case the applicant is an autonomous body, registered society or charitable trust. 2. that a suitable single plot of land measuring not less than 25 acres is owned and possessed by the person or is possessed by the applicant by way of 99 years lease for the construction of the college. 3. that Essentiality Certificate in Form 2 regarding No objection of the State Government/ Union Territory Administration for the establishment of the proposed medical college at the proposed site and availability of adequate clinical material as per the council regulations, have been obtained by the person from the concerned State Government/ Union Territory Administration. 4. that Consent of affiliation in Form-3 for the proposed medical college has been obtained by the applicant from a University. 5. that the person owns and mages a hospital of not less than 300 beds with necessary infrastructural facilities capable of being developed into teaching institution in the campus of the proposed medical college. (emphasis supplied) 17. That apart, the following Schedule has been appended to the Regulations prescribing the time schedule for receipt of applications and processing of the same by the Central Government and the Medical Council of India. Schedule Schedule For Receipt Of Applications For Establishment Of New Medical Colleges And Processing Of The Applications By The Central Government And The Medical Council Of India S. No. Stage of Processing Last Date 1. Receipt of applications by the Central Govt. From 1st August to 31 st August (both days inclusive) of any year 2. Receipt of applications by the MCI from Central Govt. 30th September 3. Recommendations of Medical Council of India to Central Government for issue of Letter of Intent. 31st December 4. Issue of Letter of Intent by the Central Government 31st January 5. Receipt of reply from the pplicant by the Central Government requesting for Letter of Permission. 15th March 6. Receipt of applications by the MCI from Central Govt. 30th September 3. Recommendations of Medical Council of India to Central Government for issue of Letter of Intent. 31st December 4. Issue of Letter of Intent by the Central Government 31st January 5. Receipt of reply from the pplicant by the Central Government requesting for Letter of Permission. 15th March 6. Receipt of Letter from Central Government by the Medical Council of India for consideration for issue of Letter of Permission. 28th February 7. Recommendation of Medical Council of India to Central Government for issue of Letter of Permission. 15th June 8. Issue of Letter of Permission by the Central Government. 15th July 10. Coming to the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the application of the petitioner-trust was received by the Central Government within the cut off date prescribed in the schedule i.e. 31.08.2014. However, the said scheme/ application was incomplete since the petitioner-trust could not enclose certain mandatory documents required to be furnished along with the scheme/ application form, therefore, the said application was returned and when submitted on the second occasion after meeting with the requirement, the schedule time was already over. In short, the contention of learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the Central Government ought to have accepted the proposed scheme/ application submitted by it and should not have returned it. 11. The issue, now cropped us for a discussion is, whether the Central Government was in error in assuming that it is bound to reject the application of the petitioner-trust even though the application is submitted after the expiry of the prescribed time schedule when the initial application was filed within the prescribed time schedule, may be without fulfilling certain requirements of furnishing mandatory documents. The other issues for consideration would be whether any prejudice would be caused to any other person if the required documents are filed subsequent to the last date of application. 12. We may, at the outset, point that a combined reading of Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Section 10A (2) of the M.C.I. Act shows that the Central Government is bound to refer the scheme/ application to the MCI for its recommendation only where the scheme is submitted in the format prescribed in the Regulation containing the particulars specified therein and accompanied with the fees prescribed. It is also clear that at that stage, the Central Government is not in an obligation to give an opportunity to the applicant to cure the defects, if any, although, subsection (3) of Section 10A empowers the MCI to give an opportunity to the applicant to rectify the defect, if any, in the scheme. It is significant to note that sub -section (2) does not provide for the same. The provisions of the MCI Act as well as the Regulation made thereunder mandate the reference of the scheme/ application for the recommendation of the Council only where the scheme/ application is complete in all respects. Further, the Regulations themselves provide that the documents in question i.e. the Essentiality Certificate and the Certificate of Affiliation shall be submitted along with the application seeking permission under Section 10A of the MCI Act. The combined reading, thus, makes it clear that the Central Government can reject the application at the threshold if it is incomplete. Such power of rejection , in our considered view, is implicit under Section 10A (2) of the MCI Act. In the light of the mandatory provision of the MCI Act and the Regulations made thereunder, it cannot be said that the Central Government would not look at the application /scheme at all despite it is incomplete with regard to not attaching of certain essential documents. 13. So far as the present case is concerned, no doubt, the petitioner-trust submitted its scheme/ application for setting up a new medical college nine days before the last date of receipt of the application by the Central Government, which was returned as it was not in the proper format on account of certain deficiencies pointed out by the Central Government and when it was submitted after meeting with all those requirements, not only the time schedule for receipt of the application by the MCI from Central Government i.e. 30th September was over, even the time for making recommendations by the MCI to Central Government for issuance of Letter of Intent was also over as the petitioner-trust submitted the application for the second time on 31.01.2015 and by this time, even the Letter of Intent should have been issued by the Central Government as per stage of processing. Therefore, we do not find the discretion exercised by the Central Government in returning the application/ scheme of the petitioner-trust erroneous and contrary to law so as to issue a positive direction at the fag end of the statutory schedule to the Central Government to forward the application/ scheme of the petitioner-trust to the MCI for processing it further. Prescribed time schedule is mandatory to ensure that the process is not delayed at any stage. Here the question of prejudice or no prejudice would not arise, otherwise, the whole purpose would be defeated. The petitioner-trust, thus has no case at all. 14. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment handed down by the learned Single Judge on any count calling for our indulgence. Resultantly, the instant appeal merits dismissal. 15. Ordered accordingly.