JUDGMENT This is a writ petition preferred by the N.C.Medical College and Hospital, Israna(Haryana). 2. The grievance raised is an oft repeated one before the Courts where the private institutions plead satisfactory compliance of all requisites commanded by the Regulatory Bodies and with the Regulatory Bodies controverting the stand of the Institute to deny the permission to carry out the educational courses year after year. The petitioner institute has been in existence since the year 2013 and was permitted functionality by admitting 150 students for the Session 2016-17 on certain conditions prescribed by the Over-Sight Committee, one of which was furnishing bank guarantee of 2 crores. For the subsequent years 2017-18, the permission was not granted and eventually the Institute was debarred altogether from making any further admissions. The bank guarantee was also invoked by the respondents which led to a petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where initially a stay of invocation of bank guarantee was granted with a direction to the Medical Council of India(hereinafter referred to as the 'MCI') to conduct a fresh Inspection which was done on 17th and 18th November, 2017. MCI recorded certain deficiencies. Thereafter, the petitioner Institute while insisting that it was compliant in all respects demanded a personal hearing. Petitioner Institute submitted a detailed reply on 19.01.2018(on record as Annexure P-6) and on 07.03.2018 the MCI recorded the Institutes compliance in all regards except the one pointed out earlier at item No. 3, 6 and 7. For the purposes of reference, the relevant portion of the communication by the MCI is extracted herein below:- "Kindly refer to you letter dated 23.02.2018 forwarding therewith the revised compliance in reference to the MCI's letter dated 09.02.2018 with regard to renewal of permission for MBBS course for 3rd batch(150 seats) of N.C.Medical College & Hospital, Panipat, Haryana under Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak u/s10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2018-2019. In this regard, I am directed to inform you that the said compliance was considered by the Sub-Committee of the Council as its meeting held on 05.03.2018 and it is observed that "Deficiencies at #3, 6, 7 are not Rectifies, Status remains as it is." Compliance is not satisfactory. In view of the above, you are requested to resubmit the detailed point-wise satisfactory compliance on or before 15.03.2018, for further necessary action in the matter. In view of the above, you are requested to resubmit the detailed point-wise satisfactory compliance on or before 15.03.2018, for further necessary action in the matter. The compliance report should be submitted alongwith soft copy(Pen Drive/C.D.)." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Institute states that the Institute has already removed these deficiencies by 15.03.2018 and even though the mandate was to take a decision in this regard by 31.03.2018, the needful was not done. Since no decision was being arrived at, the petitioner Institute made a representation and on 13.04.2018 pursuant to the efforts of the petitioner Institute the MCI made another Inspection to raise similar objections as the one which were pointed out earlier. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that once on 07.03.2018 the deficiencies had been narrowed down to only 3 which he has since removed, the report by the Verification Committee of Inspection on 13.04.2018 can not be said to be justified for the simple reason that barely a month back they themselves on an Inspection in March, 2018 established only 3 deficiencies. 5. It has been categorically asserted that deficiencies at item No. 3 pertained to installation of a CT Scan which though was installed but was not functional on account of lack of license by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Body but this report has since been received and the CT Scan has now been functional. So far as deficiency at item No. 6 is concerned it pertained to the USG machines which are also installed and are functional. Deficiency at item No. 7 pertained to the Research Laboratory being inadequate. 6. Learned counsel representing the MCI states from the record that once the deficiencies have been highlighted the college has no option but to report compliance if it has to seek permission for admitting the students. 7. Learned counsel representing the UOI states that if the MCI records its satisfaction, they would have no objection to take a decision in terms of the Regulation allowing the petitioner college to proceed with the admissions. 8. We are conscious of the fact that notice qua the respondents was very short for them to respond but the compulsion arises from the fact that Letter of Permission has to be granted by 31.05.2018 to enable the college to proceed with the admissions. 9. 8. We are conscious of the fact that notice qua the respondents was very short for them to respond but the compulsion arises from the fact that Letter of Permission has to be granted by 31.05.2018 to enable the college to proceed with the admissions. 9. We have considered the matter at some length and are of the opinion that the Petitioner Institute has been functional since the year 2013 and it would serve no ones purpose to throttle it particularly when atleast one batch of students has progressed to the third year and unless the college gets more students for the subsequent years it may not be able to improve upon its facilities. The Court can not lose sight of the fact that in order to ensure continuity to professional courses, it is imperative that subsequent batches of students be admitted as a continuous stream not only to maintain the vibrancy of the Institution but also to ensure a proper atmosphere for the good medical professionals to breed. 10. We are also equally conscious of our duties as a Court to ensure that colleges which lack infrastructure do not continue to play with the careers of gullible students and therefore to balance both the interests that we have noticed above, we deem it appropriate to direct another Inspection by the MCI to be undertaken within a period of 2 weeks from today. Since college is already on notice regarding the deficiencies and despite their assertion that they are compliant, we still mandate the College to remove each and every deficiency that they will be confronted in the eventuality of a fresh inspection. 11. We permit the provisional admission for the current Session 2018-19 but subject to the following condition:- The MCI shall conduct the inspection as indicated above within a period of 2 weeks from today and in case the College is still found deficient, it shall apprise the college within one week of its inspection so that they can make the college compliant with respect to the latest inspection of MCI. MCI would then again conduct an inspection within a period of one week of the compliance report submitted by the College, to ensure no deficiency. 12. Report in this regard would also be submitted to the Court by the next date of hearing. MCI would then again conduct an inspection within a period of one week of the compliance report submitted by the College, to ensure no deficiency. 12. Report in this regard would also be submitted to the Court by the next date of hearing. The students shall be put on notice while granting them admission about the pendency of the instant writ petition. The petitioner institute shall also furnish an undertaking that they would abide by all the conditions required by the MCI in this regard. 13. The UOI shall issue necessary Letter of Permission by 31.05.2018. 14. To come up on 11.07.2018 for further proceedings. 15. A copy of this order be handed over to learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Court.