JUDGMENT : Surendra Mohan, J. The petitioners in these writ petitions are all conducting Private Self Financing Medical Colleges. They are aggrieved by the action of the Central Government in declining to grant them permission to admit students to the MBBS Course conducted by them, for the academic year 2018-2019. It is contended that the action of the Central Government is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Since the issues that arise for consideration are common, the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 19386 of 2018 is the Chairman of SR Educational and Charitable Trust which is conducting a Medical College by name S.R. Medical College and Research Centre. The petitioner was granted a Letter of Permission ('LOP' for short) by the Central Government to establish a Medical College as per Ext.P1 dated 20.8.2016. Thus, the petitioner's College started functioning during the academic year 2016-2017 with a sanctioned intake of 100 students. Ext.P1 was issued on the basis of the recommendation of the Medical Council of India ('MCI' for short). As per the procedure stipulated by the Regulations of the MCI, the LOP has to be renewed every year until the first batch of MBBS Graduates pass out of the College. A regular recognition would be granted to the College only thereafter. The LOP is granted every year after the conduct of a surprise inspection by the MCI. The inspection is conducted for the purpose of ascertaining whether the requirements of sufficient facilities, Faculty as well as other infrastructure that are required as per the MCI Regulations were available or not. The number of patients, both inpatient and outpatient, are also taken into account. 3. Accordingly, for the year 2017-2018 an inspection was conducted by the MCI. The MCI found on such surprise inspection that there were deficiencies that included lack of Faculty strength, Residents, patients etc., apart from various other factors. In view of the above, the LOP was not renewed by the Central Government. The petitioner challenged the same before the Apex Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 741 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 order dated 3.10.2017 directing that the application submitted by the petitioner for the year 2017-2018 shall be treated as the application for the year 2018-2019. The petitioner challenged the same before the Apex Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 741 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 order dated 3.10.2017 directing that the application submitted by the petitioner for the year 2017-2018 shall be treated as the application for the year 2018-2019. The MCI was directed to carry out an inspection as per the Regulations. After the inspection was conducted, if any deficiencies were found, the same was to be intimated to the petitioner so that it could rectify the same. A further direction that if the matter travels to the Central Government eventually, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner after which alone, the Central Government was to take a decision. The students admitted for the year 2016-2017 were allowed to prosecute their studies. 4. Thereafter, a surprise inspection was conducted by the MCI on 6th and 7th of November, 2017. The report of inspection is evidenced in these proceedings by Ext. P4 and lists a number of deficiencies. There was deficiency in the number of Resident Doctors by 15.21% and a shortage of the required Faculty by 12.64%. As per Ext.P5 notice, the Central Government sought for the explanation of the petitioner after furnishing a copy of Ext.P4 and provided an opportunity for a hearing on 8.1.2018. Accordingly, the Principal attended the meeting, submitted that the deficiencies had been rectified. A summary of the proforma in which the compliance report was submitted by the petitioner at the time of hearing is evidenced by Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, thereafter the Central Government had directed the MCI to review the matter. However, without acceding to the said request, the MCI reiterated its earlier decision that the petitioner could not be considered for renewal of the admission for the academic year 2018-2019. As per Ext.P10 order dated 31.5.2018 the Central Government after considering the recommendation of the MCI has decided not to renew the permission for admission of the third batch of 100 MBBS students to the petitioner's College for the academic year 2018-2019. Ext.P10 is under challenge in this writ petition. As per Ext.P10 order dated 31.5.2018 the Central Government after considering the recommendation of the MCI has decided not to renew the permission for admission of the third batch of 100 MBBS students to the petitioner's College for the academic year 2018-2019. Ext.P10 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner has also challenged Ext.P11 notification dated 18.3.2016 which has amended the MCI Regulations to provide that if the deficiency noted at the inspection with respect to Teaching Faculty or Residents was more than 30% and bed occupancy less than 50%, compliance or rectification of deficiency from such an institution will not be considered for the issue of LOP or renewal of permission for that academic year. Ext.P12 another amendment Notification dated 4.7.2017 fixing the schedule for completion of the admission process for first MBBS course is also challenged. 5. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 19449 of 2018 are the Chief Executive Officer and Principal of P.K. Das Institute of Medical Sciences. The hospital was established in the year 2010 and the College started to function in the academic year 2014-2015 on the strength of an LOP issued by the Central Government. The approved intake of the College has been 150 students. Permission was granted during each of the subsequent years after conduct of inspections and assessment of the facilities available at the College. Accordingly, four batches of students are already admitted and undergoing their studies for the MBBS course. According to the petitioners, the first batch has commenced its fourth year of studies and is expected to complete the course and pass out during the academic year 2018-2019. The academic results of the students show that the College is functioning very well. While so, a surprise inspection was conducted by the Assessing team of the MCI on 6.1.2017 and 7.1.2017. It is the case of the petitioners that, the deficiency in staff found at the said inspection has been rectified by appointing seven Teaching Faculty including two Associate Professors and seven Residents. Meanwhile, one NC Medical College and Hospital located at Haryana had filed W.P.(C) No. 432 of 2017 before the Supreme Court challenging the refusal of approval. It was alleged that approval had been refused in their case without any justification while, other Colleges with much serious deficiencies had been granted permissions. Meanwhile, one NC Medical College and Hospital located at Haryana had filed W.P.(C) No. 432 of 2017 before the Supreme Court challenging the refusal of approval. It was alleged that approval had been refused in their case without any justification while, other Colleges with much serious deficiencies had been granted permissions. Among the Colleges alleged to have been so granted permission, the College of the petitioner was also mentioned. As per an interim order dated 9.10.2017, the Supreme Court directed the MCI to conduct a surprise inspection of the said Colleges. On receipt of notice, the petitioners entered appearance through counsel in the said case. However, the writ petition itself was disposed of in terms of the interim order, leaving open the right of the Colleges to challenge any adverse decision that may be taken on the basis of such inspection. 6. Later on, an inspection of the College of the petitioners was conducted by the MCI on 31.10.2017 and 1.11.2017. The Inspectors conducted the inspection and submitted Ext.P6 report. As per Ext.P6, a number of deficiencies were noted. According to the petitioners, the deficiencies are non-existent and the calculation of the inpatients is erroneous. It is contended that, the inpatients are spread over 29 Wards located over 8 floors. The Assessors had merely taken the number of patients who were available at the beds and obtained the signatures of the Nurses on such papers. It is contended that there were patients undergoing major and minor surgical operations in the operation theaters, there were persons waiting for such procedures, there were Gynecological cases in Labour Rooms as well as patients who were waiting for the same. There were patients who had gone for Laboratory investigations. The numbers of such patients were omitted to be taken into account, according to the petitioners. Therefore, it is contended that, there were serious errors in noting the bed occupancy and other facilities available at the relevant time. 7. On the basis of Ext.P6 report, the MCI recommended to the Central Government not to renew permission for conduct of the 5th batch of MBBS students. The said letter is evidenced herein by Ext.P9. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted by the Hearing Committee of the Central Government on 9.1.2018. The Principal appeared for the hearing and explained all the factual circumstances to the Committee. The said letter is evidenced herein by Ext.P9. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted by the Hearing Committee of the Central Government on 9.1.2018. The Principal appeared for the hearing and explained all the factual circumstances to the Committee. The Hearing Committee took note of the explanations submitted by the Principal and recommended to the MCI for a review. The Hearing Committee noted that the compliance report of the College had been considered by a Sub Committee at its meeting on 6.2.2018 and had required the matter to be considered by the Oversight Committee. As per letter dated 28.2.2018 of the Oversight Committee, it is stated that, in the nature of the deficiencies noted, the College could not be considered for renewal of permission in the same academic year. On the basis of the above recommendation the Central Government considered the matter and decided not to renew the permission for admission of the 5th batch of 150 students to the MBBS Course in the college of the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the said order that this writ petition is filed. A challenge against the validity of Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 is also made. 8. W.P.(C) No. 19543 of 2018 is filed by the DM Education and Research Foundation, a Charitable and Educational Trust which is conducting DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences. The College is located in the Wayanad District. The petitioners were granted an LOP on 15.7.2013. During the academic year 2017-2018 permission was not granted to the petitioners. The said action was challenged by them before the Apex Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 order emphasising that the marginal deficiencies noted would also have to be rectified. Since students had been admitted under interim orders passed by the court, it was held that it was necessary to safeguard their interests. Accordingly, the application submitted by the petitioners was found to have been declined without any justification. The students were therefore permitted to continue their studies, with the rider that the order shall not be treated as a precedent. According to the petitioners, all the defects noted during the previous year have been rectified. Thereafter, an inspection was conducted on 27.2.2018 to assess the standard of examination held by the second petitioner. It was reiterated that there were no deficiencies in the conduct of the examination. According to the petitioners, all the defects noted during the previous year have been rectified. Thereafter, an inspection was conducted on 27.2.2018 to assess the standard of examination held by the second petitioner. It was reiterated that there were no deficiencies in the conduct of the examination. A surprise inspection on 14.3.2018 and 15.3.2018 followed. The said inspection detected a number of deficiencies. In view of the deficiencies, the MCI recommended not to renew the permission, as per Ext.P2 dated 23.4.2018. Ext.P2 granted one month's time to the petitioners to submit a detailed point wise compliance of the deficiencies pointed out therein. Ext.P2 was challenged by the College before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15171 of 2018. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed directing the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent showing compliance with the deficiencies pointed out in Ext.P2 and further directing the said respondent to hear the petitioners before a decision was taken on Ext.P2. The petitioners thereupon submitted a representation, Ext.P4. Thereafter, the second petitioner was called for a hearing on 15.5.2018. At the hearing, all the necessary documents to substantiate that the deficiencies had been rectified were produced. It is submitted that, the Committee had also recommended to the second respondent to consider the fact that there was compliance by the second petitioner and that the defects had been rectified. However, by Ext.P6, public notice has been issued by the first respondent notifying the Colleges in respect of which, permission had been declined. The second petitioner is also one among the Colleges so notified. Thereafter, pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15171 of 2018, a copy of the order dated 31.5.2018 of the first respondent was furnished. Ext.P7 is a copy of the said order. It is challenging Exts. P2 and P7 that this writ petition is filed. 9. W.P.(C) No. 20996 of 2018 is filed by Al Azhar Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital. The Medical College was granted LOP for the first batch during 2014-2015. During the subsequent two years, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, the LOP was renewed. However, for the year 2017-2018 LOP was refused. The said order was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 27307 of 2017. As per an interim order passed, this Court permitted admissions to be made. The said order was challenged by the MCI before the Apex Court. During the subsequent two years, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, the LOP was renewed. However, for the year 2017-2018 LOP was refused. The said order was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 27307 of 2017. As per an interim order passed, this Court permitted admissions to be made. The said order was challenged by the MCI before the Apex Court. The Apex Court vacated the interim order, but permitted the petitioner to move a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No. 825 of 2017 was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 order dated 22.9.2017. The order protected the admissions that were made, but directed that the defects should be rectified and that the College should be inspected. 10. A surprise inspection of the College was conducted on 8.12.2017 and 9.12.2017 for the academic year 2018-2019. According to the petitioner, the Assessment Committee consisted of three members. However, one of the members left by the afternoon and the inspection was conducted only by the remaining two people. The procedure was objected to by the Principal who refused to sign the report of inspection. The said report is evidenced by Ext.P4. The Principal also submitted Ext.P5 representation to the MCI. The report was considered by the MCI and as per Ext.P7 dated 6.1.2018 it was recommended that permission should not be granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear for a hearing by the Central Government with all the relevant documents on 5.2.2018. Compliance report was submitted, which is evidenced by Ext.P8. According to the petitioner, the Central Government was satisfied that the explanation offered was acceptable and that there were no subsisting deficiencies. After hearing, the Central Government directed the MCI to review its earlier decision. However, by Ext.P10, the MCI has taken a decision, reiterating its earlier stand and maintaining that the permission need not be renewed. The Central Government considered the recommendation of the MCI and by Ext.P11 proceedings dated 31.5.2018 decided not to renew the permission of the petitioner's College. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. Ext.P12, copy of the amendment made to the Regulations is also under challenge. 11. According to the Senior Counsel Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam, who appears for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 19386 of 2018, as per Ext. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. Ext.P12, copy of the amendment made to the Regulations is also under challenge. 11. According to the Senior Counsel Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam, who appears for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 19386 of 2018, as per Ext. P2, the Apex Court has directed that if any deficiencies were found after the inspection, the same shall be intimated to the petitioner institution, so that it could rectify the same. Though certain deficiencies were found at the time of inspection, they were not intimated to the petitioner in compliance with the direction of the Apex Court. Nor was an opportunity to rectify them granted. Instead, what the second respondent did was to recommend to the Central Government not to grant permission. The Central Government considered the recommendation, granted an opportunity to the petitioner. The Hearing Committee was satisfied that the defects had been rectified and that for the said reason, a reconsideration was necessary at the hands of the second respondent. The Central Government also directed the matter to be reconsidered as per Ext.P8. However, the second respondent was not willing to do so. In spite of the above, the Central Government has accepted the stand of the second respondent and has declined the approval sought for. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the entire procedure is vitiated. The statutory mandate of Section 10A of the Act has been violated. Therefore, it is contended that, Ext.P10 is liable to be interfered with and set aside. 12. Adv. George Jacob, who appears for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 19449 of 2018, while supporting the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel, disputes the findings at the time of inspection. It is contended that, what was sought for by the College was permission for the 5th batch of MBBS Course for the academic year 2018-2019. The College is therefore sufficiently well established with all necessary facilities available. The Inspection Team committed an error in noting the bed occupancy. They had simply counted the number of patients who were actually seen on the beds. They had omitted to take note of the patients who had been moved out of the wards for laboratory investigations, for surgeries, both minor and major, as well as for other purposes. The Inspection Team committed an error in noting the bed occupancy. They had simply counted the number of patients who were actually seen on the beds. They had omitted to take note of the patients who had been moved out of the wards for laboratory investigations, for surgeries, both minor and major, as well as for other purposes. Explanations are offered for the other infirmities noted by the inspection team also, alleging that they were all illusory and non-existent. In the said case also, there has been a violation of the direction of the Apex Court in not intimating the deficiencies to the petitioner and permitting them to set right matters. Though the Central Government had directed the MCI to reconsider the issue, there was no compliance. The MCI, without reconsidering, had submitted its earlier recommendations to the Central Government again. According to the learned counsel, the Central Government seriously went wrong in accepting the recommendations. 13. The Senior Counsel Sri. S. Sreekumar who appears for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19543 of 2018 also supports the contentions of the other counsel. It is further pointed out that the Medical College represented by him is located in the Wayanad District, a remote and backward region. The Hospital caters to the medical needs of the local people as well as the tribals of the area. Despite the difficulty in obtaining trained Doctors and Teaching Faculty, the College has established all the necessary facilities and has met the statutory requirements of teaching staff as well as Doctors, in full. Though infirmities were detected at the inspection, it is contended that the infirmities have all been cured and that the College does not suffer from any deficiency. In spite of the above, as per Ext.P2 the MCI has recommended not to renew permission. Ext.P7 is the order by which the Central Government has rejected the same inspite of the fact that the Central Government had referred the matter back to MCI for a review of its earlier decision. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the recommendation of the Hearing Committee that the defects noted at the time of inspection have been substantially rectified. Therefore, it is contended that, there was no justification for rejecting the application of the petitioner. 14. With respect to W.P.(C) No. 20996 of 2018, the contentions advanced are similar. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the recommendation of the Hearing Committee that the defects noted at the time of inspection have been substantially rectified. Therefore, it is contended that, there was no justification for rejecting the application of the petitioner. 14. With respect to W.P.(C) No. 20996 of 2018, the contentions advanced are similar. In this case also, in the earlier round of litigation, Ext.P2 order of the Apex Court protected the admissions made at that time. It was pursuant to the direction in Ext.P2 that the surprise inspection was conducted. There is a further allegation in this case that one of the members of the Committee had left by afternoon leaving the rest of the inspection to be conducted by the remaining two members. The Principal protested against the procedure adopted and refused to sign the inspection report. It is therefore contended that, the inspection itself was defective. In spite of the above, the defects noticed have been set right. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted by the Central Government and the compliance was forwarded to the MCI for a review of its earlier decision. However, the MCI has decided to stick to its earlier decision without complying with the direction of the Central Government. In spite of the above, by Ext.P11 the Central Government has decided not to renew the permission. It is contended that, the entire procedure is vitiated and that substantial prejudice would be the consequence not merely to the Colleges, but also to the candidates who are aspiring to gain admission to the MBBS course during the current academic year. Therefore, the counsel seeks interference with Ext.P11. 15. Per contra, Adv. Titus Mani who appears for the MCI points out that what is stipulated by the MCI are the minimum standards of medical education, as evident from Section 19A of the MCI Act. Such minimum standards are expected to be maintained by every Medical College at all times. Many Medical Colleges have been found to resort to short term appointments of Faculty, Doctors and other Staff. With respect to the required facilities also, many devious methods have been detected. It is for the said reason that, a surprise inspection is conducted. Such inspection is conducted only after the MCI is informed by the College that they had complied with all the requirements as per law. With respect to the required facilities also, many devious methods have been detected. It is for the said reason that, a surprise inspection is conducted. Such inspection is conducted only after the MCI is informed by the College that they had complied with all the requirements as per law. However, at the time of inspection, if it is found that even the minimum standards are not being maintained, there is no justification for the grant of approval to such institutions. Lack of adequate teaching staff, proper facilities, lack of patients, laboratories and other facilities would seriously affect the standard of education that is imparted to the students by the College. As a consequence, if allowed to function such colleges would produce half baked medical professionals, lowering the standards of medical profession as well. 16. It is further pointed out that the assessment is made by the assessors on the basis of the data furnished by the Medical College. What is done at the time of inspection is only to verify whether the facilities that the College had claimed to be in existence, were actually available or not. Therefore, to find fault with the inspection as attempted to be done by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, is without any basis. Regulation 8 of the Minimum Standard Regulations is relied on to contend that, the assessor's report cannot be assailed in writ proceedings. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India [ (2013) 10 SCC 60 ] and Medical Council of India v. Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. [Judgment dated 1.6.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 5805 of 2018] in support of the contentions of the counsel for the MCI. With respect to the time schedule stipulated, it is contended that, the schedule cannot be altered by anyone in view of the directions of the Supreme Court. Decisions in support of the above contentions are also brought to our notice. According to the learned counsel, the Minimum Standard Regulations should be complied with at all times. Therefore, non-availability of some of the requirements at the time of inspection is serious and a fatal lapse. The direction of the Central Government to review the matter could not be considered for the reason that, the time limit had to be adhered to. According to the learned counsel, the Minimum Standard Regulations should be complied with at all times. Therefore, non-availability of some of the requirements at the time of inspection is serious and a fatal lapse. The direction of the Central Government to review the matter could not be considered for the reason that, the time limit had to be adhered to. The said stand of the MCI, according to the learned counsel, cannot be found fault with. 17. Adv. P. Sreekumar, Standing Counsel for the Kerala University of Health Sciences, has also addressed arguments on similar lines as the counsel for the MCI. According to the learned counsel, the parameters for the inspection conducted by the University for affiliation are different and therefore, the fact that the University Inspection Team has not reported any deficiencies cannot be a ground for attacking the inspection report of the MCI. 18. In answer, according to the Senior Counsel Sri S. Sreekumar, Ext. P2 decision was taken by the Executive Committee on 24.3.2018. The Oversight Committee took one month to approve the same. Ext.P7 order was passed only on 31.5.2018. It is the delay on the part of the MCI that has pushed the proceedings to the last date stipulated as per the time limit. It is contended that the MCI ought to have taken a decision in the matter within a reasonable time. 19. Adv. George Jacob, who appears for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 19449 of 2018 also points out similar deficiencies on the part of MCI in delaying the issue of final orders. It is pointed out that, the application for renewal was submitted by the College on 14.7.2017. The inspection was conducted on 31.10.2017 and 1.11.2017. On 22.11.2017 the MCI resolved not to recommend. Thereafter, a hearing was conduced before the Central Government on 9.1.2018. The Hearing Committee had recommended a reconsideration of the earlier decision. However, the final order was passed on 30.1.2018. The delay on the part of the MCI has left the College in a situation where they have no remedy. According to the learned counsel, a right of hearing is contemplated at three stages. The first is at the stage of resolving to recommend not to grant the application. The second stage is at the time of review. The third stage is before the Oversight Committee. According to the learned counsel, a right of hearing is contemplated at three stages. The first is at the stage of resolving to recommend not to grant the application. The second stage is at the time of review. The third stage is before the Oversight Committee. When the MCI informed that it was not possible to review the earlier order passed by it, the Central Government ought to have heard the College before refusing to grant approval. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the contentions of MCI are unsustainable. The Senior Counsel Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam states in answer to the contentions of the counsel for the MCI that since a right of hearing is contemplated by the proviso to Section 10A (4) of the MCI Act, the Central Government ought to have heard the petitioners before issuing the impugned order. It is also contended that, if the order is found to be bad, this Court also has sufficient powers to enlarge the time limit, suitably. 20. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and having given our anxious consideration to the contentions put forward, we find that the deficiencies noticed at the time of inspection are not of trivial nature or what could be described as insignificant short comings. All the petitioners before us are Colleges at various stages of progression towards the goal of obtaining final recognition under the MCI Act. A perusal of the provisions of the MCI Act shows that, Section 10A lays down the conditions that are necessary to be satisfied for grant of permission for the establishment of a new Medical College. As per the statutory scheme, a College has to approach the Central Government for permission by submitting a Scheme in the prescribed form. Such scheme is referred to the MCI for consideration and recommendation. It is in the process of consideration of the Scheme that an assessment of the facilities, infrastructure, Faculty and other parameters is conducted through a surprise inspection. Such assessment and inspection are done by the MCI in accordance with the provisions of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for short). The Regulations deal with various aspects that are to be considered, like the eligibility criteria, qualifying criteria so on and so forth. Such assessment and inspection are done by the MCI in accordance with the provisions of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for short). The Regulations deal with various aspects that are to be considered, like the eligibility criteria, qualifying criteria so on and so forth. The Regulations mandate that an application received by the MCI shall be considered after making necessary physical inspection and if satisfied, to make a recommendation either to grant or to disapprove, in the prescribed form to the Central Government. The MCI also is bound to reconsider its decision on being required to do so by the Central Government. After a favourable recommendation is made by the MCI, it is up to the Central Government to grant the requisite permission for establishing a Medical College. 21. As per the Regulations, the permission to establish a new Medical College is granted initially for a period of one year. Such permission is to be renewed on an yearly basis after evaluation of the performance of the College in achieving actual targets that are stipulated. Such yearly permission continues to be granted until the expansion of the facilities are completed and the first batch of students pass out. At the final stage, a formal recognition is granted. In other words, a Medical College that gets initial permission to establish and admit the first batch of students would be required to seek renewals each year until it gets formal recognition and the first batch of students pass out with a recognized qualification. The petitioner Colleges in these cases are all in different stages of progression, with one College seeking permission to admit the third batch, the second College seeking permission for the 5th batch and the third College seeking recognition for the final batch and the fourth College seeking permission for the 4th batch. For the grant of permission for each year, the requirements to be satisfied vary. When the College reaches the stage of final permission or recognition, the requirements are more stringent and the permissible standards of deficiency, less. We are also alerted to the fact that, the standards insisted upon by the MCI represent only the minimum standards that are stipulated by Section 19A of the MCI Act. Such standards are necessary to be obtained continuously and consistently at every point of time. We are also alerted to the fact that, the standards insisted upon by the MCI represent only the minimum standards that are stipulated by Section 19A of the MCI Act. Such standards are necessary to be obtained continuously and consistently at every point of time. However, Colleges on surprise inspection being made are seen to be deficient in very many vital requirements. Anticipating surprise inspection by the MCI that normally commences from the month of November, according to the MCI many colleges make appointments of staff, teachers and doctors for short durations of three months or four months with the object of giving an impression that all the requirements were in place. Unless the Colleges are compelled to maintain at least the minimum standards, the standards of medical education would fall leading to a consequent drop in the standards of medical profession, which is not good for the country. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the MCI, the deficiencies pointed out are to be looked at in the above perspective, as an inability to maintain even the minimum standards, disentitling them from seeking any leniency. 22. We have no quarrel with the above proposition. It is absolutely necessary that the Medical Colleges should all conform to the standards stipulated by the MCI, which represent only the minimum standards that are expected. We are of the opinion that the the Medical Colleges should strive to attain higher standards and to ensure that the competence of its graduates reach the highest possible level. Such a goal would serve to enhance the quality of medical treatment in our country and would be good for the people in general as well as the medical profession in particular. 23. We notice from the deficiencies detected at the time of inspection in the petitioner Colleges before us that, there are many serious deficiencies. The deficiencies in the number of patients treated, both as inpatient and outpatient have a direct bearing on the quality of education that is imparted to the medical students. This is because lack of patients would result in lack of exposure of the students in so far as treatment of patients is concerned. A lack of exposure to a substantial cross section of ailments would leave the students ignorant of the procedures regarding treatment and management of a large variety of diseases. This is because lack of patients would result in lack of exposure of the students in so far as treatment of patients is concerned. A lack of exposure to a substantial cross section of ailments would leave the students ignorant of the procedures regarding treatment and management of a large variety of diseases. Lack of sufficient number of inpatients, lack of sufficient number of surgical procedures, both minor and major, lack of teaching faculty, residents etc are all deficiencies that are likely to have serious impact on the quality of education that is imparted to the students of the College. The respective counsel have strenuously contended before us that there were errors in the calculation of the number of patients, that some of the Teaching Faculty, Residents and other staff were on leave, that many of the inpatients would have gone to have laboratory investigations conducted or surgical procedures done, we are of the opinion that they are all mere excuses. They do not impress us. This is for the reason that, an inpatient who is taken out to the laboratory for investigations would be moved out only after proper entries are made by the Nurse in charge of the Ward in the connected records. Such laboratory investigation or surgical procedure would be done only on the basis of prescriptions issued by the doctors treating such patients. Considering the fact that a patient is admitted to a hospital only in situations where he requires the treatment as an inpatient, his absence from the bed at the time of inspection unless properly explained cannot be brushed aside, accepting the contention that they would have gone here and there or would have been walking around at their will and pleasure. Therefore, the explanation put forward for such deficiencies are not convincing and cannot be accepted. We also remind ourselves of the fact that it is not possible for us to verify the correctness of the said factual contentions that are put forward explaining the deficiencies detected at the time of inspection. However, the petitioners have a further contention that, all such deficiencies noticed at the time of inspection have been rectified in full and that they had convinced the Hearing Committee of the Central Government of the same. 24. However, the petitioners have a further contention that, all such deficiencies noticed at the time of inspection have been rectified in full and that they had convinced the Hearing Committee of the Central Government of the same. 24. In the above context, it is worth noticing that in the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 19386 of 2018, the Hearing Committee is seen to have recorded as follows: “In view of the compliance submitted by the College, recommended for review by MCI.” In W.P.(C) No. 19449 of 2018, the Hearing Committee has observed as follows: “In view of the nature of the deficiencies and compliance submitted by the College, the matter may be referred to MCI for review, including imposition of Clause 8(3)(1)(b).” In W.P.(C) No. 19543 of 2018, the Hearing Committee has found as follows: “The College got LOP in 2013 and informs to have got renewal permission every year thereafter. In view of the nature of deficiencies and the compliance submitted, the Committee recommends that MCI may consider the compliance of the College and make fresh recommendation for the batch for the year 2018-2019.” In W.P.(C) No. 20996 of 2018, the Hearing Committee has recommended as follows: “100% deficiency of residents is noted as the appointment letters mention duty hours from 8.00 AM to 4.30 PM. MCI is of the view that residents should be available round the clock. College says that as per Labour Act no employee can be put on duty for more than 08 hours. However, in the declaration form HOD certifies that full time residents are available for 24 hours. They have informed that the appointment letters are now issued without any mention of timings. College has submitted compliance on other deficiencies which will require verification. The matter may be referred to MCI for review.” It is clear from the above recommendations made by the Hearing Committee in all these cases that, the said authority was convinced that these Colleges had taken remedial measures to rectify the deficiencies that were noted. In view of the above, to verify compliance a further inspection ought to have been made. In view of the recommendation made by the Hearing Committee that was accepted by the Central Government, it was incumbent on the MCI to have reviewed its earlier recommendation. However, that was not done. In view of the above, to verify compliance a further inspection ought to have been made. In view of the recommendation made by the Hearing Committee that was accepted by the Central Government, it was incumbent on the MCI to have reviewed its earlier recommendation. However, that was not done. Nor was any attempt to verify whether the Colleges had rectified the deficiencies, undertaken. The stand of the MCI is that since Regulation 8(3)(1(b) had been invoked, no reconsideration was possible. The MCI therefore has stood by its earlier recommendation not to grant the renewal. As per the impugned order in all these cases, the Central Government has accepted the said stand. Therefore what requires to be considered is whether the procedure that has been adopted is sustainable or not. Since the deficiencies detected, going by the opinion of the Hearing Committee are stated to have been rectified, we do not propose to probe further into the said aspect. 25. In the above context, Section 10A of the MCI Act that deals with permission for establishment of new Medical Colleges, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder: “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 recognised medical qualification; (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 2.--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. Explanation 2.--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. (3) On receipt of a scheme by the Council under sub-section (2), the Council may obtain such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or the medical college concerned, and thereafter, it may - (a) if the scheme is defective and does not contain any necessary particulars, give a reasonable opportunity to the person or college concerned for making a written representation and it shall be open to such person or medical college to rectify the defects, if any, specified by the Council; (b) consider the scheme, having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7), and submit the scheme together with its recommendations thereon to the Central Government. (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 subsection (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. (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 sub-section (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 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 recognised 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.” The manner in which an application is to be considered by the MCI is set out in the Regulations. Regulation 7 reads as follows: “7. (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.” The manner in which an application is to be considered by the MCI is set out in the Regulations. Regulation 7 reads as follows: “7. Report of the Medical Council of India: (a) After examining the application and after conducting necessary physical inspections, the Medical Council shall send to the Central Government a factual report stating- (1) that the applicant fulfils the eligibility and qualifying criteria. (2) that the person has feasible and time bound programme to set up the proposed medical college along with required infrastructural facilities including adequate hostels facilities separate for boys and girls, and as prescribed by the Council, commensurate with the proposed intake of students, so as to complete the medical college within a period of four years from the date of grant of permission; (3) that the person has a feasible and time bound expansion programme to provide additional beds and infrastructural facilities, as prescribed by the Medical Council of India, by way of upgradation of the existing hospital or by way of establishment of new hospital or both and further that the existing hospital as adequate clinical material for starting 1st year course. (4) that the person has the necessary managerial and financial capabilities to establish and maintain the proposed medical college and its ancillary facilities including a teaching hospital. (5) that the applicant has a feasible and time bound programme for recruitment of faculty and staff as per prescribed norms of the Council and that the necessary posts stand created. (6) that the applicant has appointed staff for the 1st year as per MCI norms. (7) that the applicant has not admitted any students. (8) Deficiencies, if any, in the infrastructure or faculty shall be pointed out indicating whether these are remediable or not. (b) The recommendation of the Council whether Letter of Permission should be issued and if so, the number of seats per academic year should be recommended. The Council shall recommend a time bound programme for the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities. (b) The recommendation of the Council whether Letter of Permission should be issued and if so, the number of seats per academic year should be recommended. The Council shall recommend a time bound programme for the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities. The recommendation will also include a clear cut statement of preliminary requirements to be met in respect of buildings, infrastructural targets to be achieved by the person to commensurate with the intake of students during the following years. (c) Where the Council recommends for not issuing of Letter of Permission, it shall furnish to the Central Government- (i) its reasons for not granting the Central Government permission; and (ii) documents/facts on the basis of which the Council recommends the disapproval of the scheme. (d) The recommendation of the Council shall be in Form-4. Reconsideration Wherever the Council in its report has not recommended the issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon being so required by the Central Government reconsider the application and take into account new or additional information as may be forwarded by the Central Government. The Council shall, thereafter, submit its report in the same manner as prescribed for the initial report.” 26. What emerges from an examination of the above provisions is that, upon receipt of a scheme under Section 10A, the same is to be referred by the Central Government to the MCI. The Scheme is to be considered in accordance with the the stipulations contained in Sub-section (7) of Section 10A. Once it is found that the said parameters are met by the applicant institution, the Scheme is sent back to the Central Government with the recommendations of the MCI. The Scheme is then considered in accordance with the terms of the Regulations extracted above. Where the MCI does not recommend for the issue of a Letter of Intent, it is bound to furnish to the Central Government the reasons for not granting permission and documents/facts on the basis of which it recommends disapproval of the Scheme. The recommendation is to be in a statutory form. Where the MCI does not recommend for the issue of a Letter of Intent, it is bound to furnish to the Central Government the reasons for not granting permission and documents/facts on the basis of which it recommends disapproval of the Scheme. The recommendation is to be in a statutory form. It has also been provided that wherever the Council in its report has not recommended the issue of a letter of intent, it may upon being so required by the Central Government, reconsider the application and take into account new or additional information as may be forwarded by the Central Government. The Council has to submit its report thereafter following the very same procedure stipulated for submitting its earlier report. It is clear therefore that on being directed to reconsider its decision, the MCI has also the facility of taking into account and considering new or additional information. The grant of permission is provided by Regulation 8, which reads as follows: “8. Grant of Permission: (1) The Central Government on the recommendation of the Council may issue a Letter of Intent to set up a new medical college with such conditions or modifications in the original proposal as may be considered necessary. This letter of intent will also include a clear cut statement of preliminary requirements to be met in respect of buildings, infrastructural facilities, medical and allied equipments, faculty and staff before admitting the first batch of students. The formal permission may be granted after the above conditions and modifications are accepted and the performance bank guarantees for the required sums are furnished by the person and after consulting the Medical Council of India. (2) The formal permission may include a time bound programme for the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities. The permission may also define annual targets as may be fixed by the Council to be achieved by the person to commensurate with the intake of students during the following years. (3)(1) The permission to establish a medical college and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal six months prior to the expiry of the initial permission. It shall be the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal six months prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognition of the medical college is granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may at any stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies. Provided that in respect of (a) Colleges in the stage upto II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch): If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is <60%, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year. (b) colleges in the stage from III renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth batch) till recognition of the institute for award of M.B.B.S. Degree: If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 20% and/or bed occupancy is <70%, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year. (c) Colleges which are already recognized for award of M.B.B.S. Degree and /or running Postgraduate Courses: If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 10% and/or bed occupancy is <80%, such an institute will not be considered for processing applications for postgraduate courses in that Academic Year and will be issued show cause notices as to why the recommendation for withdrawal of recognition of the courses run by that institute should not be made for Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses which are recognized u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 along with the direction of stoppage of admissions in permitted Postgraduate courses. (d) Colleges which are found to have employed teachers with faked/forged documents: If it is observed that any institute is found to have employed a teacher with faked/forged documents and have submitted the Declaration Form of such a teacher, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission/recognition for award of M.B.B.S. Degree/processing the applications for postgraduate courses for two Academic s -i.e. that Academic Year and the next Academic Year also. However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 3 days before upto 3 days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Govt. (2) The recognition so granted to an Undergraduate Course for award of MBBS Degree shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed. (3) The procedure for “Renewal” of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award of recognition. (4) Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause (a) supra shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Undergraduate Course of MBBS at the said institute.” (4) The council may obtain any other information from the proposed medical college as it deems fit and necessary.” 27. It is necessary to notice at this Juncture that the schedule attached to the Regulations sets out the different stages in the processing of applications preferred by Medical Colleges. A time schedule has also been stipulated therein. The Schedule has been amended a number of times and by amendment notification dated 29.5.2012 published in the Government of India Gazette on 1.10.2012 a Note was also added to the revised schedule granting power to the Central Government to modify the time schedule for reasons to be recorded in writing, in respect of any category of applications. We have taken note of the above aspect, only to point out that, the time schedule also can in appropriate cases be altered, wherever necessary, by the Central Government. 28. In the present cases, all the Medical Colleges contend that they had rectified the deficiencies detected at the time of inspection. As already noticed above, they had also convinced the Hearing Committee of such compliance. The Hearing Committee had therefore, in all these cases recommended for a review. Accordingly, the Central Government had required the MCI to review its earlier stand. As already noticed above, they had also convinced the Hearing Committee of such compliance. The Hearing Committee had therefore, in all these cases recommended for a review. Accordingly, the Central Government had required the MCI to review its earlier stand. However, the Executive Committee of the MCI has refused to reconsider its earlier stand stating that, since Regulation 8 (3)(1)(a) or(b) had been invoked in all the cases, it was not possible for the applications to be considered for renewal of permission for the academic year 2018-2019. In W.P.(C) No. 19543 of 2018, the MCI has declined to review its earlier stand stating that, 30th April, the last date for the MCI to send its recommendation to the Central Government, had already expired. 29. As already noticed above, according to the learned counsel for the MCI, the time limit had to be strictly adhered to. It is contended that, going by the decision in Mridul Dhar (Minor) v. Union of India [ (2005) 2 SCC 65 ] and Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh [ (2012) 7 SCC 433 ] and Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India [ (2016) 11 SCC 225 ], the time limit stipulated cannot be altered. It is further pointed out that, Regulation 8(3)(1), sub clauses (a) and (b) specify the situations in which, a College should not be permitted to rectify the defects and seek admission of students for the current academic year. The stipulation has been made taking into account the fact that the deficiencies mentioned in the sub clauses are impossible of rectification by the Colleges within a short duration. In view of the above, the stand of the MCI in declining to review its earlier stand in accordance with the direction of the Central Government, cannot be found fault with. However, the above stand of the MCI cannot be accepted in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court on the point. 30. In Royal Medical Trust (Regd) v. Union of India [2015 KHC 4549] : [ (2015) 10 SCC 19 ] the Apex Court has considered similar contentions where a number of Medical Colleges had challenged the action of the Central Government in declining renewal of permission to them, in separate writ petitions. 30. In Royal Medical Trust (Regd) v. Union of India [2015 KHC 4549] : [ (2015) 10 SCC 19 ] the Apex Court has considered similar contentions where a number of Medical Colleges had challenged the action of the Central Government in declining renewal of permission to them, in separate writ petitions. The court analysed the purport of the statutory provisions and has held that compliance with the principles of natural justice is a vital aspect on which, no laxity could be permitted. The nature of the consideration that is expected of the MCI has been laid down in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “23. While considering the Scheme under Section 10A of the Act, the MCI and the Central Government are required to have due regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7) thereof. If the initial Scheme itself is found to be defective or is to be disapproved, sub-section (3)(a) and proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 10A oblige the MCI and the Central Government respectively to grant to the applicant reasonable opportunity to rectify the defects and of being heard. The Statute thus recognizes that before any adverse decision is taken as regards the Scheme, the applicant must be afforded reasonable opportunity. This facet has been considered by this Court while dealing with issues under Section 10A of the Dentists Act in Swami Devi Dayal ( AIR 2014 SC 284 ). It was laid down that the requirement of following the principles of natural justice is available at two stages, first where the Dental Council of India finds deficiencies during its inspection and secondly at the level of the Central Government before it passes any adverse orders after receipt of the recommendations by the Dental Council of India. The observations in Swami Devi Dayal while considering provisions of Section 10A of the Dentists Act which are pari materia with Section 10A of the Act, must apply with equal force in relation to cases under the Act. In paragraphs 22.2 and 22.3 it was laid down in Swami Devi Dayal as under : "22.2 It contemplates grant of opportunity of being heard at two stages. First stage would be at the level of DCI after the scheme is submitted to DCI under sub-section (2) of Section 10A of the Act. In paragraphs 22.2 and 22.3 it was laid down in Swami Devi Dayal as under : "22.2 It contemplates grant of opportunity of being heard at two stages. First stage would be at the level of DCI after the scheme is submitted to DCI under sub-section (2) of Section 10A of the Act. Once it is found by the DCI that all the parameters for granting permission are met, it recommends the grant of approval of the scheme to the Central Government. In case Scheme is found to be deficient, sub-section (3) (a) of Section 10A of the Act casts an obligation on the part of the DCI to give a reasonable opportunity for making a written representation and also to rectify the deficiencies, if any, specified by the DCI. Second stage of adherence to the principles of natural justice is provided at the level of Central Government at the time when it has to take final decision, after the receipt of the recommendation sent by the DCI. This requirement of hearing is stipulated in proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 10A, in the event the Central Government is proposing to disapprove the scheme. 22.3 The expression "opportunity of being heard" occurring in this proviso would mean that the material that goes against the applicant and is to be taken into consideration, is to be supplied to the applicant within an opportunity to make representation. For this purpose either the report of the DCI itself can be supplied or atleast the deficiencies pointed out in the report have to be communicated by the Central Government to the applicant with an opportunity to furnish its comments thereupon. At that stage while giving its reply, if the applicant claims personal hearing, such a personal hearing should also be accorded.” 24. The Scheme under Section 10A, with due regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7), may contemplate putting in place necessary facilities at a later point of time. Paragraphs 7(b) and 8(3) of the Regulations also speak of defining and achieving annual targets respectively. Naturally, it needs to be assessed and verified whether such annual targets are achieved or not. Paragraphs 7(b) and 8(3) of the Regulations also speak of defining and achieving annual targets respectively. Naturally, it needs to be assessed and verified whether such annual targets are achieved or not. The timely assessment is integral to the Scheme itself and the MCI and the Central Government are therefore obliged and required to conduct renewal inspections every year so as to ensure that the establishment of the Medical College and expansion of hospital facilities are completed in time and in accordance with the Scheme. In Swamy Devi Dayal ( AIR 2014 SC 284 ) it was observed that the provision requiring such opportunity being given to the applicant applies not only at the initial stage when permission for establishment of new College is under consideration but must apply even in cases of subsequent renewal of such permission. In our view, the ratio in Swamy Devi Dayal must apply as regards cases of renewal under the Act. 25. As regards cases of renewal, it was laid down in Priyadarshini (2011 AIR SCW 2383) that the process of decision making for grant of fresh or initial permission for establishment of a new college is exhaustive and elaborate when compared to such decision making in regard to grant of renewal of permission for the four subsequent years. It was further stated that before grant of initial permission the aspects whether the institution would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of education in conformity with the Act and Regulations and whether the institution has adequate resources and whether the institution has provided or will be able to provide within the time limit specified in the Scheme all the required facilities and faculty are required to be considered and scrutinized very closely. On the other hand for the purposes of grant of renewal what is required to be considered is whether the prescribed faculty and infrastructure is available. Considering renewal cases on a parameter distinct and different from that relating to establishment of a new college for the first time, it was observed that the entire process of verification and inspection relating to renewal ought to be done well in time so that the existing colleges have adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies or offer explanation to the deficiencies.” 31. A Division Bench of this Court has in DM Education and Research Foundation v. Union of India [ 2016 KHC 171 ] also taken the view that the principles of natural justice have to be strictly adhered to. While rejecting a similar stand taken by the MCI as in these cases, this Court has concluded the issue in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 as follows: “17. From the above facts it is clear that despite the recommendation of the hearing committee and directions of the Central Government, the MCI refused to review its earlier recommendation and stuck to its earlier recommendation without taking any further steps. According to S.10A(4) proviso, the Central Government is obliged to give opportunity to the appellants on the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI. In the first two appeals opportunity was granted to the appellants' College by the hearing committee. The Colleges have also submitted their detailed explanation along with relevant documents before the Government of India which was considered by the hearing committee. The hearing committee being satisfied that there is substance in the explanation submitted by the appellants had directed for review of the recommendation by the MCI. In the light of the explanations of the appellants it was not open for the MCI to stick to its earlier decision and refuse to review/reassess. In the event the recommendation of the hearing committee of the Central Government to review/reassess is not to be given any meaning the very purpose of providing opportunity to the Colleges in the statutory scheme shall become redundant and meaningless. Letter dated 17/04/2015 of the Government of India as extracted above reads “The Committee has given personal hearing to the authorized representatives of the Medical Colleges/applicants on 9th and 10th April, 2015. Based on the compliance submitted by the colleges concerned in support of their claim, the Committee has recommended that the case may be referred back to MCI for review/assessment with their respective recommendations in respect of the following schemes. The compliance report submitted by the colleges concerned in original along with recommendation of the Committee and its observation are also sent herewith as per detail given below.” 18. The compliance report submitted by the colleges concerned in original along with recommendation of the Committee and its observation are also sent herewith as per detail given below.” 18. The 1999 Regulations as noted above contain a statutory provision under hearing “reconsideration” which clearly provides that wherever the Council in its report has not recommended the issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon being so required by the Central Government reconsider the application and take into account new or additional information as may be forwarded by the Central Government. Thus the statutory provision also enjoined upon the MCI to reconsider its earlier recommendation in the light of the additional information forwarded by the Central Government. The Central Government in the present cases has forwarded compliance report submitted by the Colleges in original which according to the statutory scheme of the 1999 Regulation was required to be considered by the MCI. 19. The MCI stuck to its earlier decision and refused to reconsider its earlier recommendation which is nothing but clear violation of the statutory scheme envisaged by S.10A(4) of the Act and the 1999 Regulations as extracted above, hence the recommendation dated 29.04.2015 by the MCI cannot be sustained.” With respect to the applicability of Regulation 8(3), the Division Bench has further held as under: “20. ….... Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) was added by amendment dated 16/04/2010. Regulations has been added in Regulation 8 which contains a heading “grant of permission”. Regulation 8 stipulate grant of permission by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council. Regulation 8(3) is the Regulation which has to be looked into by the Central Government while granting permission/refusing permission under Regulation 8(3) (1)(a). The MCI cannot shirk its responsibility to look into the materials submitted by the Colleges in its explanation relying on Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). Moreover, the said Regulation cannot be any basis or foundation for the MCI in refusing to follow the directions of the Central Government to review/reassess its earlier recommendation on the basis of the material submitted by the Colleges during the course of hearing. The MCI has abdicated its obligation to review/reassess its earlier recommendation wrongly relying on Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) cannot be the basis for refusing or review/reassess its earlier recommendation. The MCI has abdicated its obligation to review/reassess its earlier recommendation wrongly relying on Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) cannot be the basis for refusing or review/reassess its earlier recommendation. More so, when explanation was submitted by the respective Colleges, explaining the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, we are of the considered opinion that the MCI has committed an error in refusing to review/reassess its earlier recommendation. Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) does not absolve the MCI from carrying out its obligation as per the directions of the Central Government on the recommendation of the hearing committee.” The Division Bench has gone on to elaborate the issue further in paragraph 21, which is extracted below: “21. There is one more aspect of the matter. In the present case the hearing committee after giving hearing to the Colleges on the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI for not recommending its renewal found substance in the explanation of the Colleges and consequently the hearing committee directed the MCI to review/reassess its recommendation in the light of the material submitted by the Colleges. Hearing conducted under S.10A(4) proviso yielded result and substance was found in the explanation of the Colleges and consequently direction was issued to the MCI to review/reassess. The MCI having refused to proceed with the review/reassessment relying on irrelevant factors, the net result is that there is no review/reassessment of the explanation submitted by the appellants. The Central Government after receiving proceedings dated 29/04/2015 of the MCI by letter dated 11.05.2015 mechanically accepted the recommendation and refused renewal which was communicated by letter dated 15.06.2015 to the appellants. Recommendation of the hearing committee of the Central Government by directing for review cannot be redundant or useless. Net result is that no compliance was made by the MCI of the aforesaid direction nor the Central Government itself reconsidered the explanation of the appellants especially in the light of the MCI refusing to review/reassess. The mechanical decision dated 15/06/2015 is unsustainable. Net result is that no compliance was made by the MCI of the aforesaid direction nor the Central Government itself reconsidered the explanation of the appellants especially in the light of the MCI refusing to review/reassess. The mechanical decision dated 15/06/2015 is unsustainable. When the hearing committee of the Central Government having found substance in the explanation of the appellants and direction was issued to the MCI to review/reassess, refusal of the MCI to review/reassess, at least the Central Government should have considered the same by revisiting the explanation submitted by the Colleges and without taking any further steps mechanical acceptance of the recommendations of the MCI violates the principles of natural justice and consequent decision on 15/06/2015 also falls to the ground.” 32. The above observations squarely apply to the facts of the present case also. As already noticed above, in these cases though the Hearing Committee had come to the conclusion that it was necessary for the MCI to reconsider its earlier stand and had recommended for such reconsideration, the MCI has declined to do so, despite being directed by the Central Government. One reason stated is that, since sub clauses (a) or (b) of Regulation 8(3)(1) had been invoked, no reconsideration was necessary. The other reason is that the time limit had to be strictly adhered to. In view of the authoritative pronouncements referred to above, both the above reasons cannot be sustained. Regulation 8(3)(1) cannot be relied upon to deny to the petitioners the benefit of the principles of natural justice. Since the Central Government has been conferred with the power to modify the time schedule in appropriate cases, lack of time also cannot be accepted as an excuse to deny to the petitioners the right of hearing to which they were entitled. Therefore, it is held that, the impugned orders in these writ petitions are all unsustainable and liable to be set aside. In the result, it is ordered as follows: (i) W.P.(C) Nos. 19386 of 2018, 19449 of 2018, 19543 of 2018 and 20996 of 2018 are allowed. Therefore, it is held that, the impugned orders in these writ petitions are all unsustainable and liable to be set aside. In the result, it is ordered as follows: (i) W.P.(C) Nos. 19386 of 2018, 19449 of 2018, 19543 of 2018 and 20996 of 2018 are allowed. The impugned orders, Ext.P10 dated 31.5.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 19386 of 2018, Ext.P12 order dated 1.5.2018 and Ext.P15 dated 31.5.2018 to the extent it applies to the petitioners, in W.P.(C) No. 19449 of 2018, Ext.P7 order dated 31.5.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 19543 of 2018 and Ext.P11 order dated 31.5.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 20996 of 2018 are set aside. (ii) The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Government of Kerala shall allot students to the Colleges of the petitioners in all these cases, for the academic year, 2018-2019, immediately. (iii) The Medical Council of India shall carry out an inspection to verify whether the petitioners in these cases have rectified the deficiencies detected at the time of inspection, as claimed by them. If they have not done so, the MCI shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against them including encashing of the Bank Guarantees furnished by them. If any fresh deficiencies are detected, they shall be given an opportunity to rectify such deficiencies within a stipulated time. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs.