JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This instant writ petition has been filed with the following substantive prayers: (i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order striking down sections 3 (6), 3 (6) (a) and 3 (6) (b) of the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 as amended vide Amendment Act No. 24 of 2015 as null and void being wholly arbitrary, grossly malafide, in contravention of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in naked breach of the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. (ii) To issue the orders of appropriate nature that the petitioner No.1 MM Medical College and Hospital or any other intuitions of Medical Streams which may be started by petitioners be governed by the MMU (E&R) Act.” 2. It is vide notification dated 30.9.2015 that the State Government amended the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 (Act No. 24 of 2015). The amendment carried in section 3 reads thus: 3. Amendment of section 3.- In section 3 of the principal Act, for sub-section (6), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:- “(6) If the State Government is satisfied that the institution affiliated to the Himachal Pradesh University or any other University has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, it may recommend to that University for withdrawal of recognition or affiliation of such institution. (6-a) In order to insure common standards for maintaining the excellence of Medical Education in the State, the Himachal Pradesh University shall have the exclusive power to affiliate Private Medical Education Institutions set up in the State; and (6-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Private Medical Educational Institutions shall be bound to comply with all the rules, directions and notifications issued by the State Government, from time to time, and provide all such facilities and assistance as are required to implement such rules, directions and notifications.” 3. However, at the time of arguments, the petitioners have confined their arguments only to the amendment carried in sub-section (6-a) of section 3. 4. However, at the time of arguments, the petitioners have confined their arguments only to the amendment carried in sub-section (6-a) of section 3. 4. One of the moot questions that therefore arises for consideration in the instant petition is as to which authority has the power to decide regarding the affiliation of Medical College. Is it the Central Government through MCI or the State Government or is the petitioner-college, which is alleged to be constituent of Maharishi Markandeshwar University established under the Maharishi Markandeshwar University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2010, that can decide this question? However, before answering the question certain facts, as pleaded may be recapitulated: 5. The petitioner No.1 is an unaided private college established by the petitioner No.3-Maharishi Markandeshwar University Trust (for short ‘University Trust’) and is a constituent of petitioner No.2 Maharishi Markandeshwar University (for short University). 6. The University was set up pursuant to letter of intent issued by the State Government on 20.8.2008 under section 5 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Private Universities (Establishment and Regulations) Act, 2006 ( for short ‘Private University Act’). 7. The petitioner-trust was issued an essentiality certificate by the State for establishment of a Medical College, subject to its observing all codal formalities as per law/prevailing Act/Rules/Instructions and it was further made clear that the Trust would abide by the ‘Private University Act’. 8. The petitioner-University after obtaining the essentiality certificate purchased 125.02 bighas of land at Khalogra in Kumarhatti-Solan contiguous to the land purchased by it for setting up the petitioner-University. On 16.6.2010, the Maharishi Markandeshwar University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2010 (for short ‘MMU Act’) was brought into force. 9. The University-Trust vide its letter dated 27.7.2012, requested the State Government for the grant of Essentiality Certificate to establish a new medical college at Kumarhatti, Solan under petitioner No. 2-University, which though was granted by the State Government on 29.8.2012, however, the same was subject to the following conditions: (i) The institution concerned will have to abide by the regulations/terms issued by the Medical Council of India and State; and (ii) The admission, fee structure and related issues shall be governed as per the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Education Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006. 10. 10. Petitioner No.3-Trust upon the receipt of essentiality certificate/NOC applied to the Central Government along with required scheme under section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short ‘IMC Act, 1956) for grant of permission for establishment of a new Medical College at Kumarhatti under petitioner No.2-University. The application was processed by the MCI and after carrying out the physical inspection of the Medical College, granted letter of intent to the petitioner-trust for establishment of a new Medical College from the academic session 2013-2014 with certain conditions. 11. Thereafter, vide letter of permission dated 14.7.2013, approval of the Board of Governors of MCI was granted for the establishment of a new Medical College in the name and style of Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital, Kumarhatti, Solan Himachal Pradesh by the Maharishi Markandeshwar University. The State Government vide notification dated 14.8.2013 issued under section 3(3) of the Private University Act notified the procedure for admission and fee structure for the University. It is here that the dispute with regard to affiliation of the petitioner-University began to arise. 12. There was protracted correspondence between the MCI and the State with regard to the affiliation of the petitioner-University and finally the MCI vide its letter dated 2.9.2015 informed the State Government and reiterated its earlier view that the petitioner-University was statutorily empowered by way of section 5 (1) (xxvi) “to setup colleges” and further that the State Legislature had itself granted the right to the petitioner-University to have its own college, therefore, in such case insisting on affiliation of its medical college to another University, i.e. H.P. University appeared to be contrary to the Act of Himachal Legislature. 13. It is thereafter that the State Government issued a notification thereby carrying out an amendment in the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006, as aforesaid. 14. 13. It is thereafter that the State Government issued a notification thereby carrying out an amendment in the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006, as aforesaid. 14. It is this amendment, which has been assailed in this writ petition mainly on the ground that the co-ordination and determination of standards in higher education falls in Entry 66, List-I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and therefore, the State Government cannot by controlling education in the State encroach upon the standards in the institutions for higher education, as these powers lie only within the purview of the University Grant Commission and the power vested in the MCI under Section 3 of the MCI Act, which are not merely advisory in nature, but are mandatory and the Universities are bound by the standards prescribed. 15. The respondent-State has contested the petition by taking various preliminary objections. It is averred that it is the State Government who alone is competent to regulate the standards of education to be imparted in Medical Colleges and this has so been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements. 15. In addition to that, it is averred that in view of Entry 25 of List-III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, Union as well as State have the power to legislate subject to the provisions of Entry 66 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule, which deals with determination of standards in institutions for higher education. Therefore, the State has a right to control education, including medical education. 17. It is further averred that the letter of intent was actually issued in favour of petitioner No-1-Medical College and not to petitioners No.2 or 3. Moreover, the essentiality/feasibility certificate was issued to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: (i) The institution concerned will have to abide by the regulations/terms issued by the Medical Council of India and State; and (ii) The admission, fee structure and related issues shall be governed as per the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Education Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006. 18. It has thereafter been specifically denied that the State Government had approved to establish College under the MMU Act. 18. It has thereafter been specifically denied that the State Government had approved to establish College under the MMU Act. It has been reiterated that it is the State Government, which alone has power to regulate any profession with regard to causing standards of quality, public welfare, equality of opportunity etc. and merely because the petitioners Institution is in the business of imparting education, cannot have unregulated right of admitting students in a non-transparent manner. 19. The MCI has filed a separate reply wherein it is averred that it is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the MCI Act, 1956 and has been given the responsibility of discharging the duties of maintenance of highest standards of Medical Education throughout the country and in this regard by virtue of provisions of Section 33 of the MCI Act, 1956 has been empowered with the prior approval of the Central Government to frame regulations for laying down minimum standards of infrastructure, teaching and other requirements of conduct of medicine courses. 20. It is further averred that the regulations so issued are binding and mandatory and State enactments, rules and regulations framed by the Universities in relation to the conduct of medicine courses, to the extent they are inconsistent with the Act and the regulations made thereunder by the MCI, are repugnant by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. 21. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 22. Incidentally, both the parties have referred to and have heavily relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2016 (7) SCC 353 , in support of their respective claims. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 101 of the judgment (supra) has though held that Entry 66 of List-I is a specific Entry having a very specific and limited scope and the same deals with coordination and determination of standards in institution of higher education or research as well as scientific and technical institutions, however, it has further clarified the words “coordination and determination of standards” and has recognized the exclusive domain of the Union in prescribing such standards. 23. 23. On the other hand, learned Advocate General would rely upon the observations made in paras 101, 103 and 107 of the judgment in Modern Dental College’s case (supra) to contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that regulating “education” includes even Medical Education, i.e. prescribed in List-II Entry 25, thereby giving concurrent powers to both Union as well as State and it has been clarified that when two Entries relating to Education, one to the Union List and other in the Concurrent List, co-exist, they have to be read harmoniously and then it becomes manifest that when it comes to coordination and laying down of standards in the higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, power rests with the Union/Parliament to the exclusion of the State Legislatures. However, the other facets of education, including technical and medical education as well as governance of universities is concerned; even State Legislatures are given power by virtue of Entry 25, which is wide enough and is only circumscribed to the limited extent of it being subject to List-1 Entries 63 to 66. 24. In order to better appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it would be necessary to advert to the observations as are necessary for the adjudication of this case and the same are contained in paras 98 to 103, which read thus: “[98] The next issue to be considered is whether the subject matter of admissions was covered exclusively by Entry 66 of List I, thereby the States having no legislative competence whatsoever to deal with the subject of admissions or determination of fee to be charged by professional educational institutions. [99] Main reliance placed on behalf of the appellants is on Bharti Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2004 11 SCC 755 Heavy reliance was also placed by the appellants on Gujarat University & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors.,1964 Supp1 SCR 112 and the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors., 1999 7 SCC 120 [100] The competing Entries are: List I, Entry 66 and List III, Entry 25. In the process, List II, Entry 32 also needs a glance. Thus, for proper analysis, we reproduce these Entries below: "List I 66. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors., 1999 7 SCC 120 [100] The competing Entries are: List I, Entry 66 and List III, Entry 25. In the process, List II, Entry 32 also needs a glance. Thus, for proper analysis, we reproduce these Entries below: "List I 66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. List II 32. Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporation, other than those specified in List I, and universities; unincorporated trading, literacy, scientific, religious and other societies and associations; co-operative societies. List III 25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour." [101] To our mind, Entry 66 in List I is a specific Entry having a very specific and limited scope. It deals with coordination and determination of standards in institution of higher education or research as well as scientific and technical institutions. The words 'co-ordination and determination of standards' would mean laying down the said standards. Thus, when it comes to prescribing the standards for such institutions of higher learning, exclusive domain is given to the Union. However, that would not include conducting of examination, etc. and admission of students to such institutions or prescribing the fee in these institutions of higher education, etc. In fact, such co-ordination and determination of standards, insofar as medical education is concerned, is achieved by Parliamentary legislation in the form of Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and by creating the statutory body like Medical Council of India (for short, 'MCI') therein. The functions that are assigned to MCI include within its sweep determination of standards in a medical institution as well as co-ordination of standards and that of educational institutions. When it comes to regulating 'education' as such, which includes even medical education as well as universities (which are imparting higher education), that is prescribed in Entry 25 of List III, thereby giving concurrent powers to both Union as well as States. It is significant to note that earlier education, including universities, was the subject matter of Entry 11 in List II 5. Thus, power to this extent was given to the State Legislatures. It is significant to note that earlier education, including universities, was the subject matter of Entry 11 in List II 5. Thus, power to this extent was given to the State Legislatures. However, this Entry was omitted by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from July 03, 1977 and at the same time Entry 25 in List II was amended 6. Education, including university education, was thus transferred to Concurrent List and in the process technical and medical education was also added. Thus, if the argument of the appellants is accepted, it may render Entry 25 completely otiose. When two Entries relating to education, one in the Union List and the other in the Concurrent List, co-exist, they have to be read harmoniously. Reading in this manner, it would become manifest that when it comes to co-ordination and laying down of standards in the higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, power rests with the Union/Parliament to the exclusion of the State Legislatures. However, other facets of education, including technical and medical education, as well as governance of universities is concerned, even State Legislatures are given power by virtue of Entry 25. The field covered by Entry 25 of List III is wide enough and as circumscribed to the limited extent of it being subject to Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. [102] Most educational activities, including admissions, have two aspects: The first deals with the adoption and setting up the minimum standards of education. The objective in prescribing minimum standards is to provide a benchmark of the caliber and quality of education being imparted by various educational institutions in the entire country. Additionally, the coordination of the standards of education determined nationwide is ancillary to the very determination of standards. Realizing the vast diversity of the nation wherein levels of education fluctuated from lack of even basic primary education, to institutions of high excellence, it was though desirable to determine and prescribe basic minimum standards of education at various levels, particularly at the level of research institutions, higher education and technical education institutions. As such, while balancing the needs of States to impart education as per the needs and requirements of local and regional levels, it was essential to lay down a uniform minimum standard for the nation. As such, while balancing the needs of States to impart education as per the needs and requirements of local and regional levels, it was essential to lay down a uniform minimum standard for the nation. Consequently, the Constitution makers provided for Entry 66 in List I with the objective of maintaining uniform standards of education in fields of research, higher education and technical education. [103] The second/other aspect of Education is with regard to the implementation of the standards of education determined by the Parliament, and the regulation of the complete activity of Education. This activity necessarily entails the application of the standards determined by the Parliament in all educational institutions in accordance with the local and regional needs. Thus, while Entry 66 List I dealt with determination and coordination of standards, on the other hand, the original Entry 11 of List II granted the States the exclusive power to legislate with respect to all other aspects of education, except the determination of minimum standards and coordination which was in national interest. Subsequently, vide the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the exclusive legislative field of the State Legislature with regard to Education was removed and deleted, and the same was replaced by amending Entry 25, List III, granting concurrent powers to both Parliament and State Legislature the power to legislate with respect to all other aspects of Education, except that which was specifically covered by Entry 63 to 66 of the List I.” 25. Having gone through the judgment in Modern Dental College’s case (supra), the relevant portion whereof has been extracted above, we find that the issue of affiliation has in fact not really been considered or dealt with in the aforesaid judgment. However, nonetheless the observations in para 101 (supra) have a definite bearing to the controversy in dispute. It has been clearly held that Entry 66 in List I deals with coordination and determination of standards which essentially means laying down the standards. It has been held that such standards insofar as medical education is concerned are achieved by the Parliamentary Legislation in the form of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by creating the statutory body like MCI. It has further been held that the functions that have been assigned to MCI include within its sweep determination of standards in a medical institution as well as coordination of standards and that of educational institutions. It has further been held that the functions that have been assigned to MCI include within its sweep determination of standards in a medical institution as well as coordination of standards and that of educational institutions. However, when it comes to regulating education, as such, which includes even medical education, the same is prescribed under List III Entry 25 thereby giving concurrent powers to both Union as well as States. 26. Judged in the light of aforesaid exposition of law, it would be necessary to advert to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Section 10-A provides for permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study, etc. and reads thus: “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 recognized 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.—For the purposes of this section, "person" includes any University or a trust but does not include the Central Government. Explanation 1.—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 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. (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 subsection (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 subsection (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. (7) The Council, while making its recommendations under clause (b) of subsection (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 recognized 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.” 27. Section 19 provides for withdrawal of recognition and reads thus: “19. WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION 1. When upon report by the Committee or the visitor it appear to the Council:- 1. Section 19 provides for withdrawal of recognition and reads thus: “19. WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION 1. When upon report by the Committee or the visitor it appear to the Council:- 1. that the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from candidates at any examination held by any University or medical institution, 2. that the staff, equipment accommodation, training and other facilities for instruction and training provided in such University or medical institution or in any college or other institution affiliated to that University, do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council, the Council shall make a representation to that effect to the Central Government. 2. After considering such representation, the Central Govt. may send it to the State Government of the State in which the University or medical Institution is situated and the State Government shall forward it along with such remarks as it may choose to make to the University or Medical Institution, with an intimation of the period within which the University or medical institution may submit its explanation to the State Government. 3. On the receipt of the explanation or, where no explanation is submitted within the period fixed, then on the expiry of that period, the State Government shall make its recommendations to the Central Government 4. The Central Government, after making such further inquiry, if any, as it may think fit, may by notification in the official Gazette, direct that an entry shall be made in the appropriate Schedule against the said medical qualification declaring that it shall be a recognized medical qualification, only when granted before a specified date or that the said medical qualification if granted to students of a specified college or institution affiliated to any university shall be a recognized medical qualification only when granted before a specified date or, as the case may be, that the said medical qualification shall be a recognized medical qualification in relation to a specified college or institution affiliated to any University only when granted after a specified date. 28. Section 19-A provides for minimum standards of medical education and reads thus: “19A. MINIMUM STANDARDS OF MEDICAL EDUCATION 1. The Council may prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognized medical qualifications (other than postgraduate medical qualifications) by universities or medical institutions in India. 2. 28. Section 19-A provides for minimum standards of medical education and reads thus: “19A. MINIMUM STANDARDS OF MEDICAL EDUCATION 1. The Council may prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognized medical qualifications (other than postgraduate medical qualifications) by universities or medical institutions in India. 2. Copies of the draft regulations and of all subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Council to all State Governments and the Council shall before submitting the regulations or any amendment thereof, as the case may be, to the Central Government for sanction, take into consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of the copies as aforesaid. 3. The Committee shall from time to time report to the Council on the efficacy of the regulations and may recommend to the Council such amendments thereof as it may think fit.” 29. Under section 33, the Council has been conferred with powers to make Regulations with the previous sanction of the Central Government and in terms thereof it has framed the Establishment of New Medical Colleges, Opening of Higher Courses of Study and Increase of Admission Capacity in Medical Colleges Regulation, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations”). 30. It would be noticed that at the time of submitting an application for permission of the Central Government to establish Medical College, the desirous Medical College has to apply for permission to set up new Medical College, who in addition to other documents, is required to submit consent of affiliation for the proposed medical college from a recognized university. This would be evident from qualifying criteria No.4, which reads thus: “4. That Consent of Affiliation for the proposed medical college has been obtained by the applicant from a recognized university.” 31. In addition thereto, in terms of Part-III of the application, the same is required to contain the name of the university along with certified copy of consent of affiliation and State Government’s permission. 32. Appendix I to the Regulations provides for instruction to the applicant for permission of the Central Government for starting new or higher courses (including P.G. Degree/Diploma and higher specialties) in a Medical College/institution, which reads thus: For starting higher courses in medical subjects (Annexure I) in the medical colleges/ institutions, the applicant should be a recognized medical college or institution. Appendix I to the Regulations provides for instruction to the applicant for permission of the Central Government for starting new or higher courses (including P.G. Degree/Diploma and higher specialties) in a Medical College/institution, which reads thus: For starting higher courses in medical subjects (Annexure I) in the medical colleges/ institutions, the applicant should be a recognized medical college or institution. The applicant should conform to the guidelines laid down in the recommendations on Graduate/Postgraduate Medical Education adopted by the Medical Council of India and modified from time to time and approved by the Central Government. They should apply to the Central Government for this permission along with the State Government’s permission. University’s affiliation and in conformity with the Medical Council of India regulations along with the documentary evidence to show additional financial allocation, provision for additional space, provision for additional equipment and other infrastructural facilities and provisions of recruitment of additional staff as per Medical Council of India norms. 33. Appendix I also provides for Qualifying Criteria, which reads thus: 1-2……… 3. Letter of University’s permission for starting these courses at the existing medical college/institution has been obtained by the applicant from the University to which it is affiliated. 4……..6 34. It also provides for List of Enclosures, which reads thus: 1…… 2. Certified copy of the consent of affiliation issued by a recognized University. 3-4………. 35. Now, what we can gather from the provisions of the MCI Act is that the committee constituted by the MCI is required to entertain the application for recognition, consider State opinion, cause inspection to be conducted by an expert team then grant or refuse recognition in terms of the Act. Once recognition is granted and public institution is permitted to commence the course, it is required to take an affiliation from the affiliating body, which is the University. Thus, grant of recognition and affiliation to an institute is condition precedent to running of the courses of the institute. If either of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be in a position to commence the relevant academic courses. 36. Grant of recognition is the basic requirement for the grant of affiliation. Therefore, it cannot be said that affiliation is insignificant or a mere formality on the part of the examining body. If either of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be in a position to commence the relevant academic courses. 36. Grant of recognition is the basic requirement for the grant of affiliation. Therefore, it cannot be said that affiliation is insignificant or a mere formality on the part of the examining body. It is the requirement of law that the affiliation should be granted by the affiliating body in accordance with the prescribed procedure and upon proper application of mind. 37. ‘Recognition’ and ‘affiliation’ are expressions of distinct meaning and consequences. The affiliating body/examining body does not have any discretion to refuse the affiliation with reference to any of the factors which had been considered by the MCI while granting recognition. However, the examining body can always impose condition in relation to its own requirements. Some of which can be: (a) eligibility of students for admission; (b) conduct of examinations; (c) the manner in which the prescribed courses should be completed; and (d) to see that the conditions imposed by the MCI are complied with. 38. Despite the fact that ‘recognition’ itself covers the larger precept of ‘affiliation’ still the affiliating body is not to grant affiliation automatically but must exercise its discretion fairly and transparently while ensuring that conditions of the law of the university and the functions of the affiliating body should be complementary to the recognition of MCI and ought not to be in derogation thereto. 39. However, the purpose of ‘recognition’ and ‘affiliation’ is different. The difference was meticulously and succinctly delineated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Prdesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar and another vs Union of India and others, (2010) 12 SCC 609 , wherein it was held that the purpose of ‘affiliation’ is only to prepare and present the students for public examinations, whereas ‘recognition’ of the institute is for other purpose mentioned under the statute and unless the institute is recognized by the appropriate authority, the institute cannot be amenable to any other provision of the statute applicable in this regard. ‘Recognition’ is a governmental function, which signifies an admission or an acknowledgement of something existing before. ‘Recognition’ is a governmental function, which signifies an admission or an acknowledgement of something existing before. The State or the State Authority can lay down the condition for recognition of an educational institution that the same must have particular amount of funds or number of students or standard of education and so on and so forth subject to provisions of the Constitution. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant observations, which read thus: [20] In The Principal and Ors. v. The Presiding Officer and Ors., 1978 AIR(SC) 344, this Court held that 'recognition' means that the school has been recognized or acknowledged by the appropriate authority under the Statute and 'affiliation' means that the students of that school are eligible to appear in the examination. Therefore, purpose of affiliation is only to prepare and present the students for public examination, recognition of a private school is for the other purposes mentioned under the Statute and unless the school is recognized by the appropriate authority, the school cannot be amenable to any other provision of the Statute applicable in this regard. [21] In Re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957 AIR 1958 SC 956 ; and T.M.A Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 2002 8 SCC 481 , this Court held that it is always open to the State or the Statutory Authority to lay down conditions for recognition of an educational institution namely, that the institution must have particular amount of funds or properties or number of students or standard of education and so on and so forth and it is also permissible for the Legislature to make a law prescribing conditions for such recognition, however, such a law should be constitutional and should not infringe any Fundamental Right of the minorities etc. Recognition is a Governmental function. [22] This Court has persistently deprecated the practice of an educational institution admitting the students and to allow them to appear in the examinations without having requisite recognition and affiliation. This kind of infraction of law has been treated as of very high magnitude and of serious nature. Students of a unrecognized institution cannot legally be entitled to appear in any examination conducted by any government, university or board. (Vide Minor Sunil Oraon Thr. Guardian and Ors. v. C.B.S.E. and Ors., 2007 AIR(SC) 458). This kind of infraction of law has been treated as of very high magnitude and of serious nature. Students of a unrecognized institution cannot legally be entitled to appear in any examination conducted by any government, university or board. (Vide Minor Sunil Oraon Thr. Guardian and Ors. v. C.B.S.E. and Ors., 2007 AIR(SC) 458). [23] Similarly, recognition must be there with the school to make it subject to the provisions of the Act. Recognition signifies an admission or an acknowledgement of something existing before. To recognize is to take cognizance of a fact. It implies an overt act on the part of the person taking such cognizance. (Vide T.V.V. Narasimham and Ors. v. State of Orissa, 1963 AIR(SC) 1227). [24] In State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and Anr., 1991 3 SCC 87 , this Court held that students of un-recognized institutions are not entitled to appear in any public examination held by the Government and it is not permissible for the Court to grant relief on humanitarian grounds contrary to law to the person who claim to have passed any examination from such institutions. 25. In view of the above, it is evident that any institution which is not recognized cannot impart an education and students thereof cannot appear in the examination held by the government, university or Board.” 40. Closer to the point in issue is a subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhartia Education Society vs. State of H.P., 2011 (4) SCC 527 , wherein again the term ‘recognition’ and ‘affiliation’ came up for consideration and it was held that the purpose of ‘recognition’ and ‘affiliation’ is a different and it is apt to extract the relevant observations, which read thus: [19] The purpose of 'recognition' and 'affiliation' are different. In the context of NCTE Act, 'affiliation' enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in the public examinations conducted by the Examining Body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diplomas, certificates. On the other hand, 'recognition' is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teacher education. 41. In the context of NCTE Act, 'affiliation' enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in the public examinations conducted by the Examining Body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diplomas, certificates. On the other hand, 'recognition' is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teacher education. 41. It would be evidently clear from the aforesaid observations that ‘affiliation’ enables and permits an institution to send students to participate in the public examinations conducted by the Examining Body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diplomas, certificates. Whereas, on the other hand, 'recognition' is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teacher education. 42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was dealing with a case relating to National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short NCTE Act) and it was observed that prior to the NCTE Act, in absence of apex body to plan and coordinate development of teachers education system, respective regulation and proper maintenance of the norms and standards in the teacher education system, including grant of 'recognition' was largely exercised by the State Government and Universities/Boards. It is only after the enactment of NCTE Act, the functions of NCTE as 'recognizing authority' and the Examining Bodies as 'affiliating authorities' became crystallized, though their functions overlap on several issues. NCTE Act recognizes the role of examining bodies in their sphere of activity. 43. On the same analogy, it can conveniently be held that prior to the MCI Act, in the absence of apex body to plan and coordinate, the development of education system, respective regulation and proper maintenance of the norms and standards in the teacher education system, including grant of 'recognition' was largely exercised by the State Government and Universities/Boards. However, after the enactment of MCI Act, the functions of the MCI as recognizing authority and the examining body as affiliating authority became crystallized. Meaning thereby that the role of the MCI is mainly confined to recognition, whereas the affiliation is best left to the State Government or the examining university. 44. However, after the enactment of MCI Act, the functions of the MCI as recognizing authority and the examining body as affiliating authority became crystallized. Meaning thereby that the role of the MCI is mainly confined to recognition, whereas the affiliation is best left to the State Government or the examining university. 44. Here, it would be advantageous to refer to earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain and others, (1981) 4 SCC 296 wherein the powers conferred upon the MCI under MCI Act to make regulations to carry out the purpose of the Act have been clearly delineated and it was observed as under: “18. An analysis of the various sections of the Act indicate that the main purpose of the Act is to establish Medical Council of India, to provide for its constitution, composition and its functions; and the main function of the Council is to maintain the medical register of India and to maintain a proper standard of medical education and medical ethics and professional conduct for medical practitioners. The scheme of the Act appears to be that the Medical Council of India is to be set up in the manner provided in the Act and the Medical Council will maintain a proper medical register, will prescribe minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognized medical qualifications, will also prescribe standards of post-graduate medical education and will further regulate the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics for medical practitioners. The Act further envisages that if it appears to the Council that the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from candidates at any examination held by any University or Medical Institution do not conform to the standard prescribed by the Council or that the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for instructions and training provided in such University or medical institution or in any college or other institution affiliated to that University do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council, the Council will make a representation to that effect to the Central Government and on consideration of the representation made by the Council, the Central Government may take action in term of the provisions contained in Sec. 19 of the Act. The Act also empowers the Council to take various measures to enable the Council to judge whether proper medical standard is being maintained in any particular institution or not.” 45. It would be clear from the extracted portion that the Medical Council of India has been set up to maintain a proper medical register, prescribe minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognized medical qualifications and also prescribe standards of post-graduate medical education and to regulate the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics for medical practitioners. Whenever it appears to the Council that the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from candidates at any examination held by any University or Medical Institution do not conform to the standard prescribed by the Council or that the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for instructions and training provided in such University or medical institution or in any college or other institution affiliated to that University do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council, the Council will make a representation to that effect to the Central Government and on consideration of the representation made by the Council, the Central Government may take action in terms of the provisions contained in section 19 of the Act. 46. However, nowhere does the Act confer authority upon the Medical Council to itself affiliate a college with any particular University and that is best left to the State Government which is competent to affiliate the college to a State or other University provided the certificate for affiliation is otherwise in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Central Government, i.e. Medical Council of India. 47. The affiliation primarily is the subject of the University of the State/Affiliating University/examining Body. The MCI, the State Government, the Affiliating Body or the University, as the case may, have been assigned a definite role under the provisions of the MCI Act. The provisions of the MCI Act identify the scope and extent of power which each of the stakeholders is expected to exercise. While the MCI has been assigned the paramount role of according recognition, whereas the affiliation is best left to the State Government/University/examining body. 48. The provisions of the MCI Act identify the scope and extent of power which each of the stakeholders is expected to exercise. While the MCI has been assigned the paramount role of according recognition, whereas the affiliation is best left to the State Government/University/examining body. 48. Notably, the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 is the parent statute under which all the Universities in the State have to be constituted and this is so provided in section 7 of the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970, which reads thus: 7. Jurisdiction of the University. (1) Save as other wise provided by or under this Act, the powers conferred on the University shall be exercisable in the area constituting Himachal Pradesh. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no educational institution situated within the territorial limits of the University shall be admitted to any privilege of any other University, incorporated by law in India, and any such privilege granted by any such other University to any such educational institution prior to the commencement of this Act, shall unless otherwise directed by the State Government be deemed to be withdrawn on the commencement of this Act, and any such institution shall be deemed to be admitted to the privileges of the Himachal Pradesh University. (3) Where any institution or body established outside Himachal Pradesh seeks recognition from the University, then the powers and jurisdiction of the University shall extend to such institution or body subject to the laws in force in the State within which, and the rules and regulations of the University within whose jurisdiction, the said institution or body is situated. 49. Indubitably, the petitioners have not assailed the constitutionality of the aforesaid provision. Sub-section (2) of section 7 starts with the non-obstante clause and, therefore, would have predominance and would prevail in spite of anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force. Once that is so, the petitioners can have no right to claim that it should be affiliated to a University of its choice despite the fact as contained in section 7 (supra). 50. Once that is so, the petitioners can have no right to claim that it should be affiliated to a University of its choice despite the fact as contained in section 7 (supra). 50. Even otherwise the State Government in its quest and endeavour to ensure common standards of maintaining the excellence of medical education within the State can always exercise its power to affiliate a private educational medical institute set up in a State to a particular University set up within the State, as this power vests within the exclusive domain of the State. The State can always act as a regulatory authority to ensure good quality education and see that the excellence of education standard does not fall below than what has been prescribed by the State Government. Rather, it is crucial for the State to act as a regulator even if this may have some effect on the autonomy of the private institution as that would not mean that the freedom of the Institute under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India has been violated. 51. Similar issue came before this Court in CWP No. 7668 of 2013, titled as H-Private Universities Management Association (H-PUMA) Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 23.7.2014 and this Court observed as under: 20. In view of the various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can safely be concluded that in a right to establish an institution, inherent is the right to administer the same which is protected as part of the freedom of occupation under Article 19 (1) (g). Equally, at the same time, it has to be remembered that this right is not a business or a trade, given solely for the profit making since the establishment of educational institutions bears a clear charitable purpose. The establishment of these institutions has a direct relation with the public interest in creating such institutions because this relationship between the public interest and private freedom determines the nature of public controls which can be permitted to be “permissible”. Even the petitioners concede that they have established the institutions to ensure good quality education and would not permit the standard of excellence to fall below the standard as may be prescribed by the State Government. The petitioners also conceded that the State makes it mandatory for them to maintain the standard of excellence in professional institutions. Even the petitioners concede that they have established the institutions to ensure good quality education and would not permit the standard of excellence to fall below the standard as may be prescribed by the State Government. The petitioners also conceded that the State makes it mandatory for them to maintain the standard of excellence in professional institutions. Thus, ensuring that admissions policies are based on merit, it is crucial for the State to act as a regulator. No doubt, this may have some effect on the autonomy of the private unaided institution but that would not mean that their freedom under Article 19 (1) (g) has in any manner been violated. The freedom contemplated under Article 19 (1) (g) does not imply or even suggest that the State cannot regulate educational institutions in the larger public interest nor it be suggested that under Article 19 (1) (g), only insignificant and trivial matters can be regulated by the State. Therefore, what clearly emerges is that the autonomy granted to private unaided institutions cannot restrict the State’s authority and duty to regulate academic standards. On the other hand, it must be taken to be equally settled that the State’s authority cannot obliterate or unduly compromise these institutions’ autonomy. In fact it is in matters of ensuring academic standards that the balance necessarily tilts in favour of the State taking into consideration the public interest and the responsibility of the State to ensure the maintenance of higher standards of education. 23. The State has power to regulate academic excellence particularly in matters of admissions to the institutions and, therefore, is competent to prescribe merit based admission processes for creating uniform admission process through CET. Any prayer for seeking dilution or even questioning the authority of the State to act an regulator is totally ill-founded in view of the various judicial pronouncements, particularly in Visveswaraiah Technological University (supra) and reiterated in Mahatma Gandhi University (supra). 52. Importantly, not only the aforesaid judgment was assailed by filing Special Leave Petition, but the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 21.11.2014. 53. From the aforesaid detailed discussion, we are of the considered view that the provisions of the MCI Act identify the scope and extent of power which each of the State stakeholders, i.e. MCI, State Government, Affiliating Body or the University is expected to exercise. 53. From the aforesaid detailed discussion, we are of the considered view that the provisions of the MCI Act identify the scope and extent of power which each of the State stakeholders, i.e. MCI, State Government, Affiliating Body or the University is expected to exercise. While the MCI has been assigned the paramount role of according recognition, the affiliation is best left to the State Government/University/examining body and, therefore, it is beyond the competence of the MCI or the Central Government to dictate terms to the State insofar as the question of grant of ‘affiliation’ is concerned or direct the State to affiliate a Medical College to a particular University. This is clearly beyond the powers conferred by the Constitution upon the Central Government or for that matter even the MCI. Even the College seeking affiliation is bound by the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970, more particularly, the provisions contained in Section 7 thereof and cannot of its own claim any right or privilege to get affiliated to any University of its choice including petitioner No.2. 54. Having said so, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with all applications leaving the parties to bear their own costs.