JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,JJ. Heard Sri S. K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in Special Appeal No.513 of 2016, Shri Sharad Pathak in Special Appeal No. 516 of 2016 and Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi in Special Appeal Nos.519 and 520 of 2016. 2. Special Appeal No.513 of 2016 has been filed by the institution, namely, Society for Advancement of Environmental Science that has setup a private Medical College and the dispute relates to admission against 150 seats in the M.B.,B.S., course in the year 2015 in the said institution. 3. The other appeals are by the students who claim admission in the institution on several grounds and they had been beneficiaries under the interim order of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.6703 (MB) of 2015 dated 24.9.2015 that was also filed by the appellant Society. The interim order dated 24.9.2015 is extracted hereunder for ready reference: - "Heard Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajat Rajan Singh and Sri Sameer Kalia appearing for the petitioner, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for Union of India, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent, Sri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. Considering the fact that the last date of admission of MBBS First Professional Course is 30.09.2015, we pass the following interim order, which will be followed by the reasons subsequently; (i) The Institution is permitted to admit 150 students in the MBBS First Professional Course as per the existing system of the admission applicable to the petitioner's institution. (ii) The admission of the students under this order will be subject to further orders which may be passed by this Court in this writ petition. (iii) The petitioner's institution, while making admissions, will clearly indicate and apprise the students in writing that their admission, if any, will be subject to further orders which may be passed by this Court in this writ petition and in case of failure of the writ petition, their admission to this institution shall stand automatically cancelled. (iii) The petitioner's institution, while making admissions, will clearly indicate and apprise the students in writing that their admission, if any, will be subject to further orders which may be passed by this Court in this writ petition and in case of failure of the writ petition, their admission to this institution shall stand automatically cancelled. The students so informed shall be required to furnish an undertaking to the Registrar of the University concerned to the effect that they have been informed about this order and they will not have any claim with regard to admission with this institution and that they understand that in case the writ petition fails, their admission shall stand cancelled. (iv) The petitioner's institution shall furnish Bank Guarantee to the extent of total fees with the Registrar, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Awadh University, Faizabad, which may be charged from the students for admitting them in MBBS First Professional Course. (v) The said order has been passed in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for Union of India, State Government, Medical Council of India and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Awadh University, Faizabad." 4. The said interim order was subjected to a challenge before the Apex Court by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and an interim order was passed on 29.9.2015 the operative part whereof directed that the status quo as on 24th September, 2015 shall be maintained and admission of students, if any, shall not be given effect to. 5. The said Special Leave to Appeal alongwith other connected matters were finally allowed vide judgment dated 10.3.2016 and the interim order passed by the High Court on 24.9.2015 extracted here-in-above was finally set aside. 6. It transpires from the pleadings that in between 24.9.2015 and the passing of the interim order by the Apex Court on 29.9.2015, admissions of all students were made by the institution against 150 seats. However, after the passing of the interim order, it is the case of the institution that the admissions were not given effect to, inasmuch as, even if the students were imparted some teaching, the institution never proceeded to act in violation of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. However, after the passing of the interim order, it is the case of the institution that the admissions were not given effect to, inasmuch as, even if the students were imparted some teaching, the institution never proceeded to act in violation of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. The submission on behalf of the institution is that no formalities that were required for completing the admission were attempted thereafter and as a matter of fact, those students who applied for refund of the fees realized by the institution, had also been refunded. 7. At this juncture, it would be relevant to mention that so far as the status of the institution to run as a Medical College is concerned, the same was subject to the grant of Essentiality Certificate as also the terms of recognition by the Medical Council of India and also affiliation by the concerned University. The issue with regard to the process adopted for carrying out the inspection and giving clearance to the institution by the Medical Council of India passed through several stages and it is not necessary to spell out the entire details as it would be suffice to mention that the same is subject matter of Writ Petition No.6703 (MB) of 2015 which is still pending consideration before this Court. 8. The issues relating to the status of the institution to run as a Medical College would therefore be subject to the outcome of the said writ petition and accordingly, the admission of the students in the institution would also be directly dependent upon the outcome thereof. It is however submitted on behalf of the institution that so long as the aforesaid dispute is not settled and that there is ample material to demonstrate that the institution is otherwise viable and conforms to all standards, it was appropriate in the circumstances that the institution was granted permission to admit students under the interim order dated 24.9.2015. It is therefore contended that neither any impropriety nor any mala fide can be attributed to the institution for having proceeded to take admission of 150 students under the directions of the Division Bench dated 24.9.2015. 9. It is therefore contended that neither any impropriety nor any mala fide can be attributed to the institution for having proceeded to take admission of 150 students under the directions of the Division Bench dated 24.9.2015. 9. As indicated above, when the interim order dated 24.9.2015 was subjected to challenge by the Medical Council of India the interim order that was passed on 29.9.2015 took notice of the submissions made on behalf of the institute about fulfilling the requirements at the time of the initial inspection. 10. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal before the Apex Court under the same interim order, directions were also issued for the inspection of the institution and a report to be submitted by the Medical Council of India in a sealed cover before the Apex Court itself. However, at the time of the final disposal of the appeals on 10.3.2016, the Apex Court did not express any opinion on the merit of the cases and simply set aside the interim order dated 24.9.2015 with a direction that the High Court shall finally decide the petitions at an early date. 11. It is in this background that the learned Counsel for the students contend that their admissions deserve to be saved more so keeping in view the terms and conditions of the Essentiality Certificate dated 30.9.2013 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. They also contend that they had filed separate writ petitions giving rise to the present appeals for a Mandamus that they be granted permission to appear in the examinations and even otherwise if the institution did not conform to the guidelines of the Medical Council of India then according to the terms of the Essentiality Certificate the State Government was under an obligation to take over the responsibility of the students and to admit them with the permission of the Central Government. 12. The relief however prayed for in the writ petition was to hold the annual examinations of the petitioners which was opposed by the institution on the ground that they have not yet been granted admission. 12. The relief however prayed for in the writ petition was to hold the annual examinations of the petitioners which was opposed by the institution on the ground that they have not yet been granted admission. The institution therefore according to Sri S. K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel on its own had not granted admission and it was after the passing of the interim order by the High Court that the admissions were attempted but they were not given effect to after passing of the interim order passed by the Apex Court on 29.9.2015. 13. Learned Single Judge after having noticed all these facts came to the conclusion that the institution has acted in violation of the orders passed by the Apex Court in proceeding to take admissions and therefore, apart from being in violation of the procedure prescribed for such admissions the same was legally unsustainable as a result whereof the institution has been saddled with a cost of Rs.25,00,000/- per student, irrespective of the fact as to whether they are petitioners or not. The amount was to include the fee realized and also damages to that extent. A further direction has been given for realization of the total amount as arrears of land revenue and a compliance report has been called for within three months. 14. Sri S. K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel for the institution submits that there was neither any pleading nor any relief prayed for damages by any of the students nor was there any pleading on behalf of the State Government on record or the Central Government in relation to the status of the institution, but at the same time, the learned Single Judge proceeded on the strength of the oral arguments advanced to assume that the institution has taken admission in violation of the norms prescribed as also in teeth of the interim order of the Apex Court and has therefore proceeded to impose damages which according to the learned counsel cannot be attributed as a fault on the part of the appellant-institution. He submits that the institution has been a victim of circumstances in the sense that Writ Petition No.6703 (MB) of 2015 is still pending that relates to a final declaration about the status of the institution to run as a recognized Medical College and to take admission of students and therefore unless that writ petition was decided, the writ petitions filed by the students otherwise ought not to have been entertained or at the best ought to have been heard together with the said writ petition. He therefore submits that in this background, the imposition of damages on the institution is absolutely unjustified. 15. The second argument of Sri Kalia is that as a matter of fact, when counseling was done there was one more institution that had taken admission and the admissions under that counselling have been saved, inasmuch as those admissions have not been questioned and the students who are studying in that College continued to receive benefits unhindered. 16. Learned Counsel for the students in the other three appeals on their part have urged that the students had no knowledge of the orders passed after the Division Bench order of this Court, and that they came to know of the setting aside of their admissions only after the Supreme Court passed the final judgment on 10.3.2016. Some of the students had however admittedly moved intervenor applications in Writ Petition No.6703 (MB) of 2015 and they are pending consideration. They submit that the students are nowhere at fault and that any intervention by the Court should not prejudice the case of the students who are otherwise entitled on merits to receive admission and pursue their studies. It has also been urged that if the quantification of damages have to be made then in that event, the students are entitled for higher damages as their entire career has been jeopardized. 17. It has also been urged that if the quantification of damages have to be made then in that event, the students are entitled for higher damages as their entire career has been jeopardized. 17. The contention on behalf of the students for the claim of damages has however been opposed by Sri S. K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel for the institution contending that the students had taken admission and according to the interim order dated 24.9.2015 itself their admissions were subject to the terms and conditions therein but so far as the institute is concerned, it did not travel far beyond the order dated 24.9.2015 of the Division Bench and rather did not take any further steps for giving effect to the admissions after the interim order of the Supreme Court dated 29.9.2015. In such a situation, the students are not entitled for any damages that too even in the absence of any pleadings or any material to substantiate that they had been prejudiced or any loss had been caused to them on account of any act on the part of the institution. Sri Kalia therefore submits that quantifying of the damages as against the institution is not founded on any rationale basis and even for that matter no exercise was undertaken either in the shape of affidavits having been filed by either side or for assessing the quantum of compensation. 18. Thus, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that neither on the issue of the legality of the claim nor on equities is the order of award of damages justified. Hence, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 19. He further submits that neither the case of the institution nor the students can be put in jeopardy vis-a-vis either the running of the Medical College or the admissions so long as Writ Petition No.6703 (MB) of 2015 is pending. 20. The learned Single Judge according him has therefore committed an error in virtually sealing the rights of the parties by pronouncing upon the procedure of the admissions as also the running of the institution. 21. 20. The learned Single Judge according him has therefore committed an error in virtually sealing the rights of the parties by pronouncing upon the procedure of the admissions as also the running of the institution. 21. Sri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anand Dwivedi for the Central Government, Sri G. K. Srivastava for the Medical Council of India and Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Director General Medical Education, State of U.P. as well as Sri Shobit Mohan Shukla for the University have urged that once the order of the Supreme Court had been passed, then the institution clearly acted in breach of the orders passed, by the Supreme Court and consequently, the damages if any are clearly attributable to the appellant-institution and not to either of the respondents. It is further submitted that in these circumstances, the award so made does not deserve any interference, inasmuch as even otherwise on merits, it is clear that the institution did not have the authority to take admissions or run the college without having been granted the requisite permission or recognition that is subject matter of Writ Petition No.6703 (MB) of 2015. They therefore contend that bereft of all the facts that there were no pleadings for damages, the conduct of the institution was such that the imposition of damages by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be unjustified as the institute has played with the future of the students. In such circumstances, any interference is not called for and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. We have considered all the submissions raised and the first issue is about the status of the institution itself. There is no dispute that so far as the institution is concerned, it had rightly instituted Writ Petition No.6703 (MB) of 2015 seeking declaration of it's rights to run the Medical College and seek admissions which is still pending consideration. Thus in the said background the writ petitions filed by the students seeking a Mandamus for appearing in the examinations or alternatively adjusting them in some other institution do not appear to be maintainable and they ought to have avoided any chance for admission before the decision in Writ Petition No.6703 (MB) of 2015. Thus in the said background the writ petitions filed by the students seeking a Mandamus for appearing in the examinations or alternatively adjusting them in some other institution do not appear to be maintainable and they ought to have avoided any chance for admission before the decision in Writ Petition No.6703 (MB) of 2015. The reason is very simple that unless the institution is entitled to receive admissions the petitioners cannot by any method of counselling be entitled for admission in an institution which is yet to receive formal authorization to run the Medical College. 23. There appears to be another noticeable fact that when the Writ Petition No.6703 (MB) of 2015 was filed by the institution, what appears from the record is that the Medical Council of India had time and again been commanded to bring forward the report if any with regard to the inspection that was required to be made either on it's own or on the directions issued by the Central Government. The Medical Council of India for reasons best known to it was unable to finally comply with such directions at least before the last date of admissions, i.e., 30.9.2015. 24. It is at this stage that the institute was compelled to filed the writ petition and therefore taking notice of these facts the Division Bench of this Court in the given circumstances proceeded to pass the interim order dated 24.9.2015. The said order thereafter gave rise to a further controversy raised by the Medical Council of India by filing an appeal before the Apex Court. 25. The Apex Court very categorically directed the maintenance of status quo prior to 24.9.2015 and admissions of students if any were not to be given effect to. The same position was maintained with the setting aside of the interim order passed by the High Court but while disposing of the appeals finally, the Apex Court did not express any view on the merits except for setting aside the interim order of the High Court with a further direction that the High Court shall finally decide the petitions at an early date. The aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court leave no room for doubt that the direction of the Apex Court was categorical vis-a-vis the admissions of the students, and consequently no benefit can accrue to the students with regard to their claim of either holding of examination or even few adjustments unless they were validly admitted. 26. It is the violation of the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court that has led to the passing of the impugned judgment. We have given our thoughtful consideration and do not find any infirmity in the conclusions so drawn by the learned Single Judge in relation to the admissions that were an outcome of the interim order dated 24.9.2015. 27. Having said so, the issue with regard to the grant of any relief of holding of the examinations of the students or their adjustment did not arise in the absence of valid admissions so long as the institution does not have the recognized status of a Medical College so as to entitle it to receive admissions. The question as to whether the institution was fully equipped or conforms to the norms of the Medical Council of India therefore cannot be a consideration herein which is subject matter of Writ Petition No.6703 (MB) of 2015. 28. In our considered opinion, the institute ought to have refunded the entire fee that had been collected once the Apex Court had set aside the interim order under which the admissions had been granted. According to the documents which have been brought on record in this appeal in respect of 56 students there appears to be a certain amount of balance retained by the institution, whereas some of the students appear to have sought refund of their fees which has been refunded. The aforesaid status is not with regard to all 150 students. 29. The question therefore now that remains to be determined is as to whether the imposition of damages by the learned Single Judge is justified or not. As indicated above, what we find is that the admissions were made by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court on 24.9.2015. Even though the writ petition had been filed by the institute yet the nature of the interim order clearly specified the terms for granting admissions. 30. As indicated above, what we find is that the admissions were made by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court on 24.9.2015. Even though the writ petition had been filed by the institute yet the nature of the interim order clearly specified the terms for granting admissions. 30. A perusal of the said interim order therefore brings us to the conclusion that so far as the institute is concerned, it had not volunteered to take admission but it admitted the students by virtue of the said interim order. However, the fact remains that the litigation had been instituted by the institute itself by filing Writ Petition No.6703 (MB) of 2015 and therefore the interim order was the natural outcome of the conscious act of the institution. In the said circumstances, the institution was to an extent responsible for having provided the foundation for admission by filing the aforesaid writ petition in which the interim orders were passed. The litigation therefore itself gave rise to hopes and expectations to students who were obviously in fine tune with the institution to seek admission. The learned Single Judge has recorded that the admissions have been given very promptly to students who appear to be belonging to different parts of the country within five days of the passing of the interim order by the High Court and that of the Supreme Court. The procedure and manner of invitation for counselling and conclusion of admissions at a lightning pace on the 28th September, 2015 has also been critically noticed by the learned Single Judge. This therefore clearly indicates that the students are also beneficiaries of the said interim order and were sitting on the fence for admission for which the institution cannot be entirely blamed to have acted in proceeding to grant admissions. The candidates and the institution were partners to the admission process. 31. The next question as to whether the institution after passing of the interim order dated 29.9.2015 did commit any voluntary act so as to make it liable for damages. 32. The candidates and the institution were partners to the admission process. 31. The next question as to whether the institution after passing of the interim order dated 29.9.2015 did commit any voluntary act so as to make it liable for damages. 32. The institution according to Sri S. K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel if had allowed the students to stay in the hostel without any further steps having been taken to finalize the admissions, the same would not amount to any willful and deliberate act on the part of the institution to either term it to be a contempt of the orders of the Supreme Court or even an act so as to impose damages. To the contrary, the institution has in all fairness refunded the amount to such students who had demanded the same. 33. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, we are of the opinion that the students and the institution were almost sailing in the same boat. The institution is trying to save the admissions and the students in the name of their career were also abetting the same. Consequently, the litigative pursuit that gave rise to this entire litigation may have been an outcome of the initial efforts made by the institute, but the same gained proportions with the students also filing writ petitions seeking the right to appear in the examination or in the alternative further adjustment. The students therefore did not expressly or even impliedly claim damages before the learned Single Judge and to the contrary, they were hoping to succeed on the crutches of the institute itself. The students do not appear to have even abided by the terms of the interim order dated 24.9.2015 by giving an undertaking as was desired therein. 34. Having said so, we are of the opinion that the extent of damages which have been quantified at Rs.25,00,000/- per student inclusive of all fee and damages have to be bifurcated as we do not find ample justification for the aforesaid amount having been imposed on the institution. 35. The students in the given circumstances however would be entitled to receive their full refund of fee together with 10% interest thereon on the fee that has not been refunded as yet. 36. 35. The students in the given circumstances however would be entitled to receive their full refund of fee together with 10% interest thereon on the fee that has not been refunded as yet. 36. So far as the extent of damages are concerned, the students having been dragged and trapped into the litigation initiated by the institution, they are entitled to damages of Rs.2,00,000/- each per head to be realized from the institute that shall be paid over to them. The damages would be payable on demand by such students who were admitted and had paid fees and were allowed to pursue their studies in the institution. 37. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is affirmed subject to the aforesaid modifications in respect of damages. 38. All the appeals stand disposed off with the said directions.