JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash that part of the direction contained in Ext.P1 letter issued by the 1st respondent dated 2.2.2018, whereby petitioner was directed to produce documents regarding the settlement of bank issues for furtherance in the matter. 2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; petitioner institute was granted recognition by the Government of India for 50 seats for the BDS course as per letter dated 24.1.2013. Petitioner institute thereafter applied for increase of admission capacity from 50 to 100 seats in BDS course. Petitioner was granted permission for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year BDS course with an increased intake from 50 to 100 seats. While continuing so, petitioner is served with Ext.P1 which read thus; “To The Principal AL-Azhar Dental College Perumpillichira P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki Dt. Kerala - 685605 Email:alazhardentalcollege@gmail.com Sub: Personal Hearing - Regarding Sir, I am directed to state that the Executive Committee of the DCI at its meeting held on 31st January, 2018 at New Delhi considered letter No.V.12017/09/2017-DE(Pt.I)(FTS-3137796) dated 22.1.2018 received from the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi thereby forwarding compliance of Al-Azhar Dental College, Kerala on the (i) Note dated 27.12.2017 received from Legal Section on the financial issue raised by S.B.I. and (ii) Joint Inspection Report of the Council's Inspectors Dr. Balaji Manohar, Udaipur and Dr. Himadri Chakrabarty, Kolkata (Carried out on 7th & 8th December, 2017) to verify the achievement of the annual target for renewal of the Central Government permission for admitted 5th batch of students in BDS Course with increased intake capacity from 50 to 100 seats at Al-Azhar Dental Collage, Kerala for the academic session 2018-2019 and requested DCI to review/re-consider the scheme in the light of the compliance along with supporting documents submitted by the colleges/applicants and the recommendation of the committee and requested to furnish the revised recommendations to the Ministry and after discussion & deliberation decided as under: Personal hearing to the Principal of the college. With the above, the aforesaid decision of the Executive Committee (31.1.2018) is communicated to you with a request to visit the DCI office on 13.2.2018 at 12:00 noon for Personal Hearing to produce original documents and clarification regarding settlement of bank issues for furtherance in the matter. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Dr. With the above, the aforesaid decision of the Executive Committee (31.1.2018) is communicated to you with a request to visit the DCI office on 13.2.2018 at 12:00 noon for Personal Hearing to produce original documents and clarification regarding settlement of bank issues for furtherance in the matter. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Dr. Sabyasachi Saha) Secretary Dental Council of India.” 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, 1st respondent has no power or authority for issuing such a letter, since there is no enabling power vested with the 1st respondent under any law, after granting recognition. Such a contention is advanced mainly relying upon the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Courses of Study or Training and increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006, (hereinafter called Regulations, 2006) r/w section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948. It is the contention advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that, the stipulations with respect to the financial capacity of the petitioner is insisted under the Regulations for the purpose of granting recognition. Therefore, there is no power vested with the 1st respondent to issue a direction as is contained under Ext.P1. It is an admitted fact that, since the petitioner failed to comply with the financial requirements of the State Bank of India, action was initiated in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act. The property and the building in question is mortgaged by the petitioner for availing a loan of Rs.23 Crores, and on failure to repay the same, the 2nd respondent has taken necessary steps under the SARFAESI Act. The said issue of nonpayment was also brought to the notice of the 1st respondent by the bank. It was accordingly Ext.P1 notice is issued by the 1st respondent. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to secure the following reliefs: (i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other in the said nature, quashing that part of the direction issued on 2.2.2018 which directs production of documents regarding settlement issues with the bank. (ii) to declare that the 2nd respondent bank has not entitled to take steps either what is provided for under the SARFAESI Act or under the Civil Procedure Code, for the purpose of recovery of money. (ii) to declare that the 2nd respondent bank has not entitled to take steps either what is provided for under the SARFAESI Act or under the Civil Procedure Code, for the purpose of recovery of money. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or such order or direction, directing the first respondent to take a decision on the issue of approval of enhancement of seats from 50 to 100 for the academic year 2018-19, untrammeled by the objection placed on record by the respondents. (iv) to issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. A detailed counter affidavit and statement is filed by the 1st respondent refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, 1st respondent is vested with ample powers to issue an order like Ext.P1 since it is more concerned with the interest of the students joining the petitioner college, especially due to the fact that, the property in which the college is situate is under collateral security to the 2nd respondent for availing loan of Rs.23 Crores which stands unpaid by the petitioner college. 5. It is also the contention of the 1st respondent that, the report of the Councils Inspectors dated 7th and 8th December, 2017 was placed before the Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India in its meeting held on 28th December, 2017. The Executive Committee upon discussion and deliberation at length and considering the fact that in case DCI recommends for the renewal of permission, the fate of the students to be admitted at the college in the academic session 2018-2019 would be at stake and it would have adverse effect on their academic career. The Executive Committee therefore, recommended to the Central Government not to renew and not to allow the admission at the petitioner institution with increased capacity from 50 to 100 students for the academic session 2018-2019. Consequentially, the Central Government vide its letter dated 22.1.2018 forwarded the compliance report submitted by the petitioner institute to the Central Government during the personal hearing granted to the petitioner institute. Consequentially, the Central Government vide its letter dated 22.1.2018 forwarded the compliance report submitted by the petitioner institute to the Central Government during the personal hearing granted to the petitioner institute. The compliance report was placed before the Executive Committee of the DCI in its meeting held on 31.1.2018 and upon discussion and deliberation at length decided to grant personal hearing to the petitioner institute on 13.2.2018 and also ask them to produce original documents and clarification regarding settlement of bank issues. It was accordingly that, Ext.P1 is issued to the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the personal hearing and submitted their compliance report dated 12.2.2018, in which it is stated that, the period of loan is expiring only in the year 2021 and therefore, the bank is illegally compelling them to pay the loan amount before the period of completion of loan. It is also specified thereunder that, their trust have assets worth Rs.2,000 Crores and therefore, there is no reason for any worry. The said compliance report was placed before the Executive Committee of the DCI in its meeting held on 8th March, 2018 and after due deliberation it was decided not to recommend for renewal of permission, unless and until the bank transaction in question is finally settled, bearing in mind the future and career of the students securing admission in the college for the academic session 2018-2019. The decision of the Executive Committee was communicated to the college vide its letter dated 17.3.2018. It is also submitted that, DCI is a statutory body incorporated under an Act of Parliament i.e., the Dentists Act, 1948 to regulate the dental education and the profession of dentistry throughout India. In consonance with the provisions of the Act, the Dental Council of India is entrusted with the objective of maintenance of uniform standards of dental education, both at Undergraduate and Postgraduate levels. 6. Prior to 1992, no permission of the DCI and Central Government was required before opening of a dental college. The un-amended provision provided only for recognition of course by the Central Government. However, in 1992 provisions are incorporated in the statute after a careful consideration of the plight of hundreds of students, who are admitted in the private professional institutions, which were unable to maintain academic standards. As a result, midway through the courses, the institutions closed down putting into jeopardy professional careers of hundreds of students. However, in 1992 provisions are incorporated in the statute after a careful consideration of the plight of hundreds of students, who are admitted in the private professional institutions, which were unable to maintain academic standards. As a result, midway through the courses, the institutions closed down putting into jeopardy professional careers of hundreds of students. It was to prevent such a situation that section 10A of the Dentists Act was incorporated. Other contentions are also raised with respect to Regulation 21, of the Regulations, 2006 issued in exercise of the powers contained in Section 10A r/w. Section 20 of the Dentists Act, which stipulates that, the Council will evaluate the scheme submitted by the dental college under Regulation 20 to ascertain the desirability and prima facie feasibility for increasing the admission capacity at the dental colleges and the capacity of the dental colleges to provide necessary resources and infrastructure for the scheme, and the Council while evaluating the scheme under the Regulation may seek further information/clarification or additional documents from the applicant as considered necessary or may carry out physical inspection to verify the information. According to the 1st respondent, as the financial capacity of the institution is one of the necessary criteria to be fulfilled under the Regulations, Ext.P1 issued by the 1st respondent is within its powers and the challenge made by the petitioner against the same cannot be sustained under law. 7. Second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit producing Exts.R2(a) to R2(g) right from the sanction letter issued by the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore dated 21.3.2013 and all other attendant details which finally culminated in Ext.P1 order under challenge. 8. However, I am of the considered opinion that, the relief sought for by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent is not germane to the issues raised in this writ petition. Moreover, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, the relief sought against the 2nd respondent bank is not pressed. 9. I have heard learned senior counsel for petitioner, learned ASGI and respective Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 10. Moreover, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, the relief sought against the 2nd respondent bank is not pressed. 9. I have heard learned senior counsel for petitioner, learned ASGI and respective Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner predominantly contended that, in accordance with Regulations, 2006, the 1st respondent is not vested with any power to make any direction as is made in Ext.P1, since the requirements contained under Regulations, 2006 is only in respect of the grant of permission and therefore, 1st respondent is not having any power to interfere with the functioning of the college on account of non-compliance of certain financial commitments made by the petitioner with the 2nd respondent bank. Learned senior counsel has taken me through various provisions right from regulation 18 to regulation 24, which deals with application for increasing the admission capacity. 11. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contentions advanced by the learned senior counsel is that, once the stipulations contained under regulations 18 to 24 is complied with by the petitioner for the increased capacity of students, then 1st respondent has no manner of power to interfere with its functioning for want of compliance of financial commitments with the 2nd respondent bank. Therefore, the question remains to be considered boils down to the power of the 1st respondent to take any action consequent to the action initiated by the bank to recover the loan amounts from the petitioner, proceeding against the property of the college under the mortgage, wherein the college is functioning. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent on the other hand invited my attention to the statutory Form No.1 appended to Regulations, 2006, whereby as per Sl.No.11, the banker's name and address is to be provided by the petitioner. Sl.No.15 stipulates the financial capability and on account of the same petitioner had to produce balance sheet for the last three years to be provided, if the applicant is a society/trust. Again learned counsel invited my attention to Part-II of the format dealing with means of financing the project wherein the details with respect to the following had to be furnished: (a) Contribution of the applicant. (b) Grants (c) Donations (d) Equity (e) Term Loans (f) Other sources, if any. 13. Again learned counsel invited my attention to Part-II of the format dealing with means of financing the project wherein the details with respect to the following had to be furnished: (a) Contribution of the applicant. (b) Grants (c) Donations (d) Equity (e) Term Loans (f) Other sources, if any. 13. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Part-III of the aforesaid format, which deals with list of enclosures and Sl.No.9 therein read thus: “Authorization letter addressed to the Bankers of the Applicant authorising the Central Government/Dental Council of India to make independent enquiries regarding the financial track record of the applicant.” 14. Learned counsel also invited my attention to Form-3, which is dealing with application for permission of the Central Government to increase the admission capacity in the recognized dental colleges/institutions, wherein also similar stipulations as that of Form-1 is insisted upon, which thus means the petitioner had to furnish such details in order to have the increased capacity of seats from 50 to 100. 15. On evaluation of the situation and taking in to account the Regulations and the statutory stipulations contained under the format, it cannot be said that, 1st respondent is not vested with any power to take necessary action consequent to the financial instability demonstrated by the petitioner due to the failure to pay the loan amount by the petitioner. As pointed out above, upto the year 1992, no permission of the DCI and Central Government was required for opening up a dental college, however, the Dentists Act, 1948 was amended and section 10A was brought into existence. Regulations 2006 was introduced to regulate establishment of new dental colleges, opening of new or higher course of study or training and increase of admission capacity in dental colleges, made applicable from the academic year 2006-2007. It is also explicit and clear, for the increased seating capacity also stipulations and conditions are introduced mandatory in nature with the avowed object of protecting the interest of the student community undertaking various courses in the college. 16. So also as discussed above, the format for the increased intake of students also stipulates that, necessary documents with respect to the bank and details of the account maintained by the petitioner is to be produced by the petitioner in order to follow-up the track record of the institution, financial stability etc. 16. So also as discussed above, the format for the increased intake of students also stipulates that, necessary documents with respect to the bank and details of the account maintained by the petitioner is to be produced by the petitioner in order to follow-up the track record of the institution, financial stability etc. etc., which thus means 1st respondent is vested with ample powers to ensure that, the institution is complying with the financial requirements in the larger interest of the students, and ensure that, the students are completing the course without any adverse consequences, on the part of the petitioner institution. These are all mandatory and significant guiding factors to arrive at a safe conclusion that, the action taken by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P1 is in accordance with law. It is also evident from the pleadings of the 1st respondent that, further action was taken by the 1st respondent consequent to Ext.P1, and decided not, to renew the admission at the petitioner's institution with increased intake capacity from 50 to 100 seats for the academic session 2018-2019. The said decision is not under challenge also. However, learned Counsel for petitioner at that point of time submitted, if it is found that, Ext.P1 action is not in accordance with law, all the consequential action taken thereunder cannot have any legal bearing. As I have pointed out earlier, there is every power vested with the 1st respondent to ensure the interest of the students joining the institution in accordance with the terms and conditions of Regulations, 2006. To top up all, the permission is granted every year for a period of five years, and the academic year 2018-2019, is the last among the five years, and the additional intake of 50 seats during the last four years were undertaken consequent to the permission granted by the 1st respondent. This is also a clear indicative factor to show that, before permission is granted for each year, 1st respondent is duty bound to ensure that the functioning of the college is in accordance with the mandates contained under Regulations, 2006. Therefore, contrary to the contentions advanced by the petitioner, the provisions of Regulations, 2006 not only applies to the initial permission of additional intake, but also during the successive years. 17. Therefore, contrary to the contentions advanced by the petitioner, the provisions of Regulations, 2006 not only applies to the initial permission of additional intake, but also during the successive years. 17. Therefore, reckoning the circumstances mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs as is sought for in the writ petition, there being no arbitrariness, illegality or unfairness on the part of the 1st respondent in taking action against the petitioner. It is also evident that petitioner is provided with sufficient opportunity to contest the proceedings and therefore, the action is taken after compliance of principles of natural justice. However, if the petitioner makes any application/representation with sufficient financial security like bank guarantee, additional documents etc. etc., or clears the transaction under question, it shall be considered by the 1st respondent in accordance with law, bearing in mind the larger and significant fact that, 50 competent and eligible students can be accommodated for the academic session 2018-2019. If any such application/representation is submitted, a final decision shall be taken in accordance with law, at the earliest possible time and at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The reliefs sought for against the 2nd respondent bank and the questions of fact and law raised thereunder are left open. Writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.